How did it all happen? How did we get here and why? These are questions that have plagued mankind, not just since Darwin, but through much of recorded history. At present there are two concepts or ‘models’, creation and evolution, used to explain the existence of the universe and man. Neither can be proven, therefore, both enter the realm of faith. Only the Creator was present at the start of creation. No one was present at the start of the evolutionary process.
The creation model begins with the eternal Creator of infinite intelligence, power, and authority who spoke the universe into existence out of nothing. Those scientists who believe in creation, and there are many, insist that the creation model best explains the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life.
The evolutionary model begins with - well that depends. Currently the most popular ‘guess’ is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which a tiny speck with infinite mass explodes: the universe, you, and I are the subsequent result. A second ‘guess’, which is gaining some adherents, is the spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing but the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]! Those scientists who exercise faith in evolution insist that the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life supports the evolutionary model. Unfortunately it is common for those who accept the evolutionary model to suggest, subtly or otherwise, that creationists are either simple-minded or unlearned.
A common misconception and misrepresentation is that evolution is the fruit of modern scientific research, beginning in the 19th century with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Actually belief in evolution and spontaneous generation of life is almost as old as recorded history and was included in the belief systems of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Rome, Greece, and the pantheistic religions of the Far East, in fact most of the ancient civilizations. The Hebrews were apparently unique in their teaching of divine creation.
Evolution is always presented as fact with the impression that there is universal agreement among evolutionists in interpretation of scientific data. Nothing could be further from the truth; the harmony within the evolution camp is more like that of tomcats on the prowl. For example, Professor Pierre Grasse of the Sorbonne University in Paris writes:
“Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms .... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.”
Mark Ridley of Oxford University in England writes to the contrary:
“In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”
Two matters on which evolutionists are in general agreement are the denial of a Creator and the characterization of creation as a ‘religious myth’. There is, however, a ‘thorn in the flesh’ of evolutionists they are unable to remove, the Second Law of Thermodynamics which Albert Einstein called the “premier law of science”. This law states that there is an inexorable tendency of all processes toward decay and disorder; evolution requires the reverse.
Evolutionists argue that most reputable scientists reject creation. This is patently false. Most of the great advances in science during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries were made by scientists who believed in creation. Today a substantial number of prominent scientists also reject the bases for the evolutionary model.
Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin has stated:
“To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.”
The 1971 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in science Dennis Gabor, has stated:
“I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations ...”
Dr. Etheridge, world-famous paleontologist of the British Museum, has remarked:
“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.”
Albert Fleischmann, of the University of Erlangen, has written:
“I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long-deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man.”
