Confronting Secularism

Fifteen billion years ago, the secularist believes, all the matter in the universe was condensed into a microscopically small point in space before it exploded in what astronomers call the Big Bang. As the exploding matter traveled outward, it began to arrange itself, through chance, into combinations of ever-increasing complexity. All the stars and galaxies were formed by this process. The sun and earth were formed about five billion years ago.

Eventually this same process created life on the earth as inorganic substances in the atmosphere—hydrogen, water, ammonia and methane—were subjected to ultraviolet light and lightning. Chance processes then formed large numbers of organic compounds like fatty and amino acids, until finally a living cell evolved spontaneously from a watery soup of these compounds.

Evolutionary theory goes on to say that all life forms—from the simplest one-celled organisms to plants, butterflies, rhinoceroses and men—were derived from the random movement of matter. Cosmic dust in motion, evolution says, arranged itself in ever-increasing complexity without the benefit of God.

Surprisingly, the theories astrophysicists advance for this origin of the universe are based on scanty evidence. They are highly speculative and subject to dramatic revision with each new discovery of science. Now, radically different theories regularly replace old ones. In light of the frequency at which one theory is replaced by another, it is a wonder that the new theories are embraced with so much enthusiasm and conviction.

The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang theory just referred to, for example, is of very recent origin. Until 1929 science taught unanimously what was called the "steady state" theory of the universe: The universe has existed forever much as it now is. This theory was, at least, in harmony with the First Law of Thermodynamics, which says nothing can come into being through natural processes: No new matter can be created.

In 1924, however, Edwin Hubble detected what is called the red-shift effect of starlight, which allowed him, in 1929, to conclude that all the galaxies are traveling away from each other. He decided the galaxies must be moving outward from a common point in the universe. Scientists, therefore, postulated a time when the universe came into being—a creation. This was a radically new concept that instantly replaced hundreds of years of dedication to the steady state model. Since science rejected a supernatural Creator, the Big Bang theory was advanced in an attempt to explain a universe coming into being without God.

The Big Bang really solves nothing. It does not account for the creation of matter, it simply starts with a microdot of infinitely compressed matter. But where did the matter come from? Advocates of the Big Bang theory say that question is irrelevant: Whatever occurred before the Big Bang is unknowable and, therefore, simply not important to those of us who exist on this side of that moment.

It is worth noting that secularists who scoff at the Christian's faith in God are themselves believers. They wonder at the Christian's ability to believe in a supernatural Being who created cosmic dust or "matter." "Where did He come from?" they ask. "How can you believe in a God who just is?" At the same time, they themselves believe in dust, content that it just is. Both Christians and secularists exercise faith: One exercises faith in God, who is self-existent; the other exercises faith in dust itself, which just exists. It is not a question of who is a believer, it's only a question of what we choose to believe in.

It is of further interest to note that the eminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking suggests in his book A Brief History of Time (p. 42) that Hubble's discovery of receding galaxies creates an interesting dilemma for astronomers. Hubble, Hawking says, only proves that galaxies are moving away from the earth. At first glance, he says, we might conclude that our own solar system is at the center of the universe, with everything moving away from it. (This is an interesting speculation since the Genesis account places the creation of the earth on the first day and the stars on the fourth day.) Hawking says there is no good reason to suppose we are not at the center of the universe, but we tend not to want to. The only reason we don't believe that, he says, is modesty: We simply cannot believe we are important enough to be at the center of things.

The Big Bang theorizes that the amazingly complex atomic structure was born in the explosion. The precise relationships of protons, neutrons and electrons, which move and interact according to fixed and predictable laws—all are the result of chance. Again, Hawking suggests it is mind-boggling that all these phenomenal things should happen. The odds against it are astronomical. How can we account for a universe organizing itself precisely to support a planet like ours with complex systems in place to support life? Perhaps, Hawking suggests, there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to be in the one that can support life.

Robert Gange calls theories of the evolution of inorganic chemical compounds "simply irrational." He then asks: "If we cannot conceive of a rational methodology by which simpler inorganic elements came into being through natural causes, how can we then conclude that living organisms— which are vastly more complex—came into existence through natural causes?"

French biologist Louis Bounoure called evolution a useless scientific theory, "a fairy tale for grown-ups" (The Advocate, March 8, 1984). Philosopher/journalist Malcolm Muggeridge once observed in a lecture at the University of Waterloo that "the theory of evolution. . . .will be one of the great jokes of history books of the future."

The degree of self-deception that exists in the infrastructure of evolutionary theory is as phenomenal as the theory itself. We must never lose sight of the fact that evolution is not a theory that arose from a preponderance of factual evidence; it is a theory advanced in an attempt to offer another explanation besides the well-established biblical one. The evolution of the theory of evolution is the story of desperate searchers intent on finding bits and pieces of evidence for their preconceived notion of a universe without God.

Nevertheless, proponents of evolution from the scientific community are a strong-minded lot and not prone to consider readily the alternative. Scientaic American, for example, one of the nation's oldest and most prestigious science magazines, recently dropped a new monthly columnist who admitted (when asked) to being a creationist. Although editor Jonathan Piel described the work of Forrest Mims III, a veteran freelance science writer, as "first-rate," he expressed concern that the "good name of the magazine" might be "embarrassed." A former editor with Scientific American, Tim Appenzeller (now a senior editor at The Sciences), confirmed that Mims was dropped because of his beliefs about evolution and his rejection of Darwinian selection.

Subjects of Importance

How then shall we approach our secularist friends through a discussion of evolution? First, they will need to be con fronted with the fact that evolution is an inadequate explanation for the origin of life. Our hope is that when reasonable people are presented with truth they often change their own preconceptions. We hope they will open themselves up to the truth that the God who created them also loves them and desires to redeem them. To challenge their secular philosophy, I offer the following ten arguments against evolution.

One: The Fossil Record

The most convincing proof is in the fossil record itself. Darwin noticed that variations occurred in the offspring of a species as environmental conditions changed. Those offspring survived that were the best adapted. But Darwin took a major and untenable leap, assuming that these adaptations eventually created new species. The usual supposition, for example, is that fish developed into amphibians and reptiles. Then reptiles, through millions of minute adaptations, became birds—they developed wings and began to fly. Thus the evolutionary tree is drawn.

Such developments should be evidenced in the fossil record. There should be fossils from every stage in the development of a reptile into a bird, or a fish into an amphibian, or an ape into a man. The fact is the fossil record shows no such progression.

Evolutionists can produce only a fossil record that shows the immediate appearance of fully developed species— exactly what Christians who believe the Bible account of creation would expect. The fact that species appear instantly in the fossil record with no "transitional forms" is the evolutionist's nightmare. They are themselves amazed that transitional fossil forms do not exist. It is a mystery to them. They reason, since evolution is true, that transitional forms must exist. But they don't!

We should, for instance, have fossil records that show a reptile beginning to develop wings. We should be able to line up thousands of fossils displaying minute changes in the structure of the developing wings. We can't do that. No such fossils exist. Evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike agree on that.

This obvious defect in the fossil record was observed by Darwin himself. In On the Origin of Species (pp. 292—293) he asked the question,

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.

Modern scientists seem forced to concur: Eminent paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University says we cannot construct "even in our imagination" a fossil chain for evidence for intermediary stages (Paleobiology, Vol. 6 [1]). David B. Kitts, writing in the scientific journal Evolution (Vol. 28), said, "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (emphasis added).

Two: The Horse Series

The lack of transitional forms forced biologists to speculate that Darwin was wrong. Still they continued with theories. One, the "horse series," is a famous example often taught in American schools. It supposedly depicts the evolution of the horse in North America from a small dog-sized animal. While there are fossils showing various sizes and shapes of the horse, there are no intermediate stages; the transitions are not smooth and continuous.

In the 1950s Swedish scientist Heribert Nilsson commented, "The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks" (Artbuldung, Verlag CWE Gleerup). Other scientists have expressed similar misgivings about the gaps in the horse fossils. In 1952, for instance, Richard B. Goldschmidt, professor of genetics and cytology at the University of California, wrote in American Scientist (Vol. 40) that "within the slowly evolving series, like the famous horse series, the decisive steps are abrupt, without transition." In 1960 Professor G. A. Kerkut, a British biochemist, commented in his book Implications of Evolution (pp. 144— 145), that "one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse" (emphasis added).

Goldschmidt, observing that the fossil record does not pro vide the evidence for Darwinism, decided new species must have appeared suddenly, jumping past the transitional forms. When he advanced this idea, his colleagues ridiculed him, saying it was laughable that one species gave birth to another radically different one. Someone tagged this idea "The Hopeful Monster Mechanism," suggesting it basically meant a reptile could lay an egg and a bird could hatch out of it.

Today, however, this same Hopeful Monster Mechanism— under a new name—is becoming the theory of choice among evolutionists. Scientist Stephen Jay Gould assesses the implications of the missing links: Darwinism simply cannot be true. Gould has postulated an updated theory he calls "Punctuated Equilibrium." Basically this theory says that species undergo relatively rapid and radical change in localized populations. In other words, a horse gained or lost toes or a reptile became a bird through a series of leaps that punctuated the equilibrium of relatively slow change.

Such a theory is, by definition, not a theory of evolution. The very word evolution implies a smooth, gradual change from one state into another. Punctuated Equilibrium attempts to make the fossil record compatible with the old theory. But the fact is, in the fossil record there is no evolution from one species to another.

Three: The Ape Series

That humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor is largely taken for granted today. We often see the familiar artist's portrayal of an ape turning into a man through a series of stages. But upon what evidence do we base this concept? We base it solely upon our predisposition to believe in evolution. If evolution is true, man must have evolved. Since apes have similar body structures to ours, evolutionists conclude they are our ancestors and set about to prove the connection. Nowhere is evidence more flimsy and contrived.

Is man evolving? Stephen Jay Gould thinks not. In a Washington Times article (Feb. 8, 1984) he said: "We're not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we're not evolving. There's no reason to think we're going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever—we are what we are."

Sad to say, evolutionists often distort the evidence to fit their theory. The famous British anatomist Professor Lord Solly Zuckerman said: "Students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for [their] caution. . . . It is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all" (Beyond the Ivory Tower, p. 64).

And anthropologist Lyall Watson, writing in Science Digest (Vol. 90), said: "Modern apes.., seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, tool making, big-brained beings—is . . . . an equally mysterious matter."

Far too often anthropologists stretch the evidence to fit their preconceptions. Tim White, an anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley, offers an explanation. He is quoted in an article in New Scientist (April 28, 1983) entitled "Hominid [early man] Collarbone Exposed As Dolphin's Rib": "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone be comes a hominid bone."

The author of Missing Links, John Reader, said in New Scientist:

The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table. . . . The collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than what is present. . . .Preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man. History bears out these preconceptions:

• The famous Nebraska man (Hesperopithecus), hawked by scientists as proof of evolution in the famous 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial," was a specimen constructed in the minds of scientists from a single tooth! William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer who prosecuted the schoolteacher arrested for teaching evolution, was confronted by a battery of scientific experts who said the tooth proved man came from the apes. Bryan was left with little more argument than to stress that this was scanty evidence. He lost the case. Two years later, when the rest of the skeleton matching the tooth was excavated, paleontologists proved it to be not a hominid, but an extinct pig!

• The once-famous Java man was constructed of three teeth, part of a skull and a fragment of a thigh bone. Scientists concluded subsequently that there was no evidence the bones were part of the same creature. The original finder of the fragments, Dr. Eugene Dubois, eventually concluded the bones were the remains of some sort of gibbon.

• The Piltdown man, allegedly discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson, fooled anthropologists for years. Piltdown Man was hailed in textbooks as proof of evolution until being exposed in 1953 as a hoax. Someone had filed down the teeth and discolored the bones and hidden them in a pit. Both Dawson and his assistant at the time, the French priest Teilhard de Chardin, have been suggested as perpetrators of the scheme. Teilhard is suspected of desiring to harmonize evolution with Christianity.

• Neanderthal man was long touted as a link between man and ape. Today he is classified as Homo sapiens—fully human.

• The African "ancient man" fossils—the finds in the Olduvai River gorge in Africa by Louis and Mary Leakey—have led scientists to conclude man may be nearly two million years old. The fossils are far from conclusive.

One famous African fossil known as "Lucy" is used to date man at four million years. Lucy was discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson. Lecturing at the University of Missouri in Kansas City on November 20, 1986, Johanson admitted parts of Lucy were found as far apart as two to three kilometers and separated by as much as 200 feet of rock strata. When asked why he was so sure the parts were from the same skeleton he replied, "Anatomical similarity."

Four: Evolution Is Never Observed

Besides the lack of fossil evidence for evolution, scientists were faced with the fact that evolution has never been ob served directly. No new species has been developed in the laboratory or through animal husbandry or any other means.

That does not say, of course, that there is no variation within a species. We have a huge assortment of dogs—more than one hundred breeds from the giant mastiff to the Chihuahua—but all the variations fit within the gene structure of the dog species. We can have big dogs, little dogs, black dogs, white dogs, spotted dogs and all manner of variety within the predetermined gene spread. All these animals are dogs by anybody's classification. Cats (species Felis catus) cannot breed with dogs (Canis familiaris) to produce a new species. As the Bible says, life comes forth after its "kind." Likewise, human beings (Homo sapiens) come in assorted sizes, shapes and colors, from tall, Nordic types to pygmies, but they are all fully human.

It is also true that we can produce hybrids. In the Equus family, for example, a male donkey (Equus asinus) can breed with a mare (Equus caballus) and produce a mule. The mule is not a new species, however. Hybrids can be produced continually only by continuing to breed the original two species. They can not reproduce themselves for more than one generation.

Advocates of evolution will sometimes point to variations within a species and attempt to call it evolution. The most famous examples are the dark and light forms of the peppered moth. Before the development of certain industrial areas, light-colored moths flourished because they were less visible than dark ones on the light bark of trees. Birds could see—and therefore eat—the dark ones. After factories produced pollutants that discolored the trees, the dark moths were less visible and, as a result, became more numerous in the population. At the same time the light moths began to disappear because they were more visible. But, according to L. Harrison Mat thews, writing in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Dar win's On the Origin of Species, this does not show evolution in progress because the light and dark moths all continue to exist. One does not change into the other.

Five: Mutant Fruitflies

The driving force of evolution, Darwin said, was natural selection. But how did it work itself out in practical terms? As I said earlier, Lamrack had spoken of "natural sentiment," the idea that some innate force was driving species upward through the evolutionary chain. That sounded too much like a godlike creative power for the Darwinists. Operating with out God, they needed some other motivating force. They came up with chance.

"Positive Chance Mutations" was the idea they supported. They decided that random gene mutations within an organism would produce "positive mutants," meaning mutations that were better adapted in some way than the ancestor. The problem with it is that we have never been able to observe a positive mutation. Mutations are always deleterious (negative). A chromosome-damaged offspring is always less well adapted for life than the ancestor. Most mutations are, in fact, lethal.

In recent years scientists have attempted to bring about evolution in the laboratory through intentional gene mutation. They have, for example, irradiated millions of fruitflies over numerous generations. They have succeeded in producing blind flies, weak flies and flies with legs on their heads, but they have not produced flies that were either superior to their predecessors or new species. It is possible, of a certainty, to produce varieties within species by breeding, as noted above referring to mules. We can produce varieties of roses and tulips, but we are not producing new species, neither plant nor animal.

Six: The Quest for Time

While the dauntless evolutionists could not find evidence for the development of new species, they continued to postulate that all the millions of species evolved from one primordial ancestor. There was no evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record and, as time passed, it became obvious they were not going to observe the development of new species. Rather than abandon the theory of evolution, they said, "If we had enough time, we would see the evidence."

Thus began an insatiable quest for time. At first they felt they needed tens of thousands of years, but as their understanding of the complexity of life forms increased, they realized they needed still more time to observe the evolutionary process. The scientific estimation for the age of the earth has mushroomed for the last two hundred years until now we speak not of tens of thousands, or even tens of millions of years, but of billions of years. Today, as we have seen, even five billion years is not nearly enough.

Seven: Geological Dating

The upshot of the need for time is that evolutionists fell into a circular process for gaining time: They began to date the earth from the fossils found in the rocks. As the biological evolutionists set the clock back on the beginnings of life on earth, geological evolutionists recalibrated their rock strata!

The question is, "Which came first, the age of the rocks or the age of the fossils?" The fact is that for evolutionists fossils date the rocks and rocks date the fossils in the tautology we mentioned earlier. Thus, if we want to know the age of a particular rock stratum we look at the fossils in it and then date the rock by saying it contains twenty-million-year-old fossils. Then, when we find another fossil in that rock, we date that fossil at the age of the rock—twenty million years.

This kind of circular reasoning is questioned by many scientists. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History wrote a book entitled Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (p. 52). In it he asks: "If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" J. E. O'Rourke, writing in the American Journal of Science (Vol. 276), said:

The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is sup posed to be hard-headed pragmatism. Another mistaken idea is that the fossils can be arranged in a sequential order in the rocks. We have all seen the diagrams—the geological time columns—showing the one-celled organisms in the deepest rock strata and increasingly complex fossils in the ascending strata. Is that the way it is, or is it wishful thinking? In Christianity Today (September 14, 1962) Walter E. Lammerts said: The actual percentage of areas showing this progressive order from the simple to the complex is surprisingly small. Indeed formations with very complex forms of life are often found resting directly on the basic granites. Furthermore, I have in my own files a list of over 500 cases that attest to a reverse order, that is, simple forms of life resting on top of more advanced types.

The fact is there are massive graveyards around the world in which complex and simple life forms lie side by side. This testifies to a worldwide catastrophe, like the Genesis flood.
How is all this circular reasoning possible?
It is possible because the geological time column is constructed upon the presumption of evolution. In his book The Collapse of Evolution (pp. 9—14) Scott Huse writes: Geologists during the 19th century began to compile the geologic column. They arranged the earth's strata according to the various types of fossils they contained, especially their index fossils (usually marine invertebrates which are easily recognized, assumed to have been widespread in occurrence, and of limited chronological duration) thus marking a specific age determination for a rock formation. Strata with similar fossils (presumed to have evolved first) were put on the bottom of the column while strata containing more complex forms (presumed to have evolved later) were placed toward the top of the column. Thus, the entire geologic column was founded and built on the assumption that organic evolution was a fact.
Eight: Dating the Age of the Earth

There are several ways scientists can try to determine the age of the earth. One way is through sedimentation rates—the rate at which rock strata form. The sedimentation rates are constantly being recalibrated. In the quest for more time, the sedimentation tables were recalibrated upward—during the years between 1900 and 1935, by a factor of 25,000 percent. The recalibration was based upon a new scientific discovery— radioactivity.

Radioactive Dating

Radioactive clocks are said to be extremely accurate. They are based on the principle that atomic structures emit particles within precise time constraints. By measuring the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred in a fossil, scientists think they can accurately determine the age of the fossil. The famous carbon-14 dating process is based on this principle.

Radioactive clocks are not the only chemical clocks. In fact, there are more than eighty ways in which the age of the earth may be estimated through the observation of natural processes. Of the eighty clocks, most of them teach much shorter earth ages than radioactive clocks. Only a handful show earth ages of billions of years.

The following examples of earth dating are accepted as general scientific knowledge and easily researched. They suggest a shorter earth duration than is usually realized.

• The sun's diameter is apparently shrinking by 8.3 miles every year. As recently as 1567 there was an eclipse of the sun in which the disc of the moon, as it passed between the earth and the sun, did not fully cover the disc of the sun as it does now. The fact of the shrinking sun places the age of the sun closer to tens of thousands of years.

• The earth's magnetic field also is shrinking rapidly. So fast, in fact, that if its rate is constant, the magnetic field of the earth forty thousand years ago would have been as strong as that of a neutron star, which scientists know to be impossible. Evolutionists are hoping to discover that the magnetic field pulsates, but no one can conceive of a way for that to occur. This observation also gives us an earth age of not more than a few tens of thousands of years.

• The earth is bombarded by fourteen million tons of meteoritic dust a year. If the earth were billions of years old, it should be covered with more than fifty feet of meteoritic dust. Evolutionists argue that most of this dust is washed into the ocean. The content of meteoritic dust is rich in nickel but nickel is virtually nonexistent in ocean water. Likewise, the same collection rate is occurring on the moon. The moon has no water or oceans. It should be covered with a thick blanket of dust. So convinced were scientists that meteoritic dust has been accumulating at a uniform rate for millions of years that NASA designed the lunar lander with huge pods to keep it from sinking in the dust. They actually found a layer of dust only an eighth of an inch thick. The depth of meteoritic dust places earth age at ten or twenty thousand years.

• Oil deposits in the earth, evolutionists claim, were formed by heat and pressure acting on vegetation some eighty million years ago. Petroleum and natural gas are found in the earth under pressure, held in place by cap rock formations. These rock formations are permeable. Calculations indicate such pressure could not be maintained for more than ten thousand years.

• Atmospheric helium is produced in a measurable way. The amount of helium in the atmosphere, when all factors are considered, dates the earth from ten to twenty thousand years.

Again, most of the chemical processes indicate that the earth is thousands, not millions or billions of years, old. In fact, only a handful of theories indicate billions of years for the age of the earth. Of these, nearly all are the radioactive clocks.

Radiocarbon Dating

Carbon-14 dating techniques are falling into disrepute. The prestigious journal Science has reported stories of living snails mistakenly dated as 2,300 years old, wood taken from growing trees dated at 10,000 years old, and Hawaiian lava flows, known to be fewer than 200 years old, dated at three billion years (August 16, 1963; April 6, 1984).

One scientist, Robert E. Lee, writing in the Anthropological Journal of Canada (Vol. 19 [3]), expressed his scorn toward carbon-14 dating:

Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation. . . . The implications. . . . are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. . . . Why do geologists and archaeologists spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. . . . Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better. . . .The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."

Radiocarbon dating of fossils is based on the ability to measure the relative amount of carbon-14 contained in them. Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon formed by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. All living organisms contain carbon-14. Since it decays at a precise rate, we can supposedly determine the age of a fossil by comparing its present carbon-14 content with what it presumably had at death.

Several important assumptions must be made to use this method, however. Here are three:

1. We assume we know the amount of carbon-14 in the organism when it died.

2. We assume no natural process has altered the amount of carbon-14 in the fossil since the organism died.

3. We assume no phenomenon has affected the decay rate of carbon-14 since the death of the organism.

In discussing radiocarbon dating, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says carbon- 14 is now known to be affected by such things as volcanic eruptions. In other cases, the mineral content of the water in the environment of marine animals can affect radiocarbon dates. It says the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is affected by such things as industrial pollutants and nuclear bomb testing, which means that external conditions can alter the presence of carbon-14. While I find the Britiannica to be biased strongly in favor of evolution, it was interesting to read there: "It is clear that carbon- 14 dates lack the accuracy that traditional historians would like them to have." Other radioactive clocks, such as the potassium/argon clock, the uranium/lead clock, and the rubidium/strontium clock, also register similar problems and discrepancies.

Recent scientific discoveries are challenging the whole discussion of radioactive clocks. Evidence exists to challenge the thought that radioactivity is free from environmental influences. Recent experiments have demonstrated a change in the decay rate of radioactive materials. Laboratory changes in pressure, temperature, electric field, magnetic field and stress have been shown to affect the rate at which particles are ejected from the nuclei of atoms. Radioactivity may be affected by the presence of neutrinos in the atmosphere, which interact with the atoms' nuclei. Gange says:

The phenomenon of radioactivity could be [caused by] reactions occurring between neutrinos and particles within the nucleus itself. . . . This is important because eleven thousand years ago a pulsar. . . .exploded and bathed the earth with an intense flux of neutrinos. If neutrinos affect the radioactive constant then the radio active clocks we believe and trust today—which give billions of years for the age of things—may not be trust worthy at all. In which case the eighty natural processes which teach that the age of the earth is considerably younger than billions of years will emerge to remove the last vestige of evolutionary speculation.

Nine: Evolution As Growing Complexity

The mechanism of evolution depends on the concept that atomic particles sort themselves by chance into combinations of ever-increasing complexity. This concept means that order comes out of disorder through natural processes. This concept violates every observable natural phenomenon.

The second law of thermodynamics says every natural system, without the input of energy, moves from order to disorder. This is observed all around us. Metal mixes with oxygen in the air to produce rust. Rust never unmixes to produce shiny metal. Hot water and cold water mix to form lukewarm water. But lukewarm water never unmixes to produce hot water and ice-cold water. This is the process of disintegration:

Things are falling apart and the universe is running down.

Ten: The Complexity of Human Cells

When evolution was proposed by Darwin, the biological understanding of the living cell was astoundingly simplistic. Since then, with the advent of electron microscopy, we have come to understand the human cell as a fantastic unit. With the discovery of the genetic code we have come to regard with awe the complexity of living systems. The information bound up within DNA specifies the human structure in minute de tail. To register, much less to understand this complexity is beyond our ability.

As we look inside human cells, the organization takes on gargantuan proportions. Hemoglobin, for instance, is a protein found within the red blood cell. It is the agent that makes it possible to transport oxygen to all other cells in the body. Hemoglobin, just one of thousands of chemical substances in the body, is made up of four chains; each in turn is made up of a string of 140 amino acids arranged in a specific, invariable order.

The mathematical chance for the evolution of a system like hemoglobin (which is only a subsystem of a cell) is astronomical. It is more than astronomical; it is impossible, given the best scientific scenario, and the longest amount of time—five billion years. There simply is not enough time for the process to work itself out under the most generous scientific speculation.

This understanding has been underscored by a dispute be tween leading mathematicians and evolutionary biologists. Using computer models, mathematicians argue that laws of chance cannot explain the life we observe around us. Murray Eden, in a paper entitled "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," argues it would be unlikely "for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by mutations in . . . .five billion years." Evolution could only occur, he said, if we could find a "new determinative feature" in science—in other words, a new natural law!


So bereft of evidence is the theory of evolution that many scientists are now taking another look at the possibility that God may indeed have created the universe. There is a new breed of scientists who believe the evidence suggests, based on their observation, that the universe was created as a place for man to be! This is called the Anthropic Principle, which states that the universe has been created with the intent of making it possible for mankind to exist. No less a light than English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, writing with Chandra Wickramasinghe, has suggested that life on earth was probably begun as a seed planted by higher intelligences from out side our galaxy or maybe even from God: "Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to [be] absurd . . . .it is therefore almost inevitable that our own intelligences must reflect . . . .the higher intelligence . . . .of God" (pp. 141, 144).

In the next two chapters we will consider the lie of occult ism, which we will counter by exposing some of the hidden things of darkness.