|
Morgan BooksThe SCIENCE of EVOLUTION Copyright © 2017 By Amos Morgan Do not duplicate without permission |
Evolution as taught in public school during my lifetime.
|
Biblical creation as taught for more than 3400 years.
|
We can see from the foregoing that there is not a conflict between solid science and biblical creation. Indeed the
supposed conflict can best be described as a preconceived idea that evolution is true because the Bible "cannot
be true". A more concise statement of this philosophy is, "Even if there is a god, he could not have created
the universe; it is too big, too complex; it had to be an accident." All the while ignoring that evolution is
dependent upon thousands of lucky accidents, but accidents are not science. Consider our eyes;
In the mid 1990's the National Academy of Science made a push to assist the teaching of evolution in schools by stating, "The consensus for evolution is overwhelming." And while that statement may be true, consider that in China there is an overwhelming consensus that Buddhism is the one true religion. In India there is an overwhelming consensus that Hinduism is the one true religion. In Arabia there is an overwhelming consensus that Islam is the one true religion. Consensus literally means something you believe because it is what you have been taught, but for which you have no proof. The National Academy of Science basically admitted there is no proof of evolution; it is a belief, a religion, a consensus, for if there were facts it would not be a consensus. If one species of animal is somewhat similar to another species of animal evolution assumes that one had to evolve from the other. Consider that some people are so well trained in architecture that shown a building for the first time they will immediately recognize whether or not it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Some musicians listening to a symphony for the first time will immediately recognize whether or not it was composed by J. S. Bach. In these cases similarity discovers the same composer or designer, not an evolution. If we are logical we will recognize the same creator for two similar species of animals.
We are taught that light travels at a speed just over 186,000 miles per second in a straight line. It takes just a single drop of water to illustrate the oversimplification of that teaching. When a ray of light passes through a drop of rain it is forever changed. Researchers tell us that both the speed and direction of light are changed as it travels through space. In fact, that is how the black hole theory was developed; when light is coming our way but intercepts a black hole en-route to us, it is attracted to the black hole much as water in a basin is drawn into a spiral toward the drain when the plug is pulled. The light is drawn faster and faster in a smaller and smaller spiral until it is no longer light and it is no longer traveling in our direction; the light is turned into a different form of energy and all we see is a black hole with no light. How could we tell the distance to far-off stars if the speed and direction of light from those stars are unknown? But this still misses the biblical explanation that stars were created in place. They did not have to travel to someplace in order to be created there. And that is a major point of creation that it was fully functional from the beginning. Consider this.
The sun is constantly losing weight and that also is a direct contradiction to the theory that the sun is a star and that (hydrogen) gas clouds continuously grow the size of stars. www.slate.com tells us that Solar winds carry off 1.5 million tons of matter per second from the sun, while radiation (E = mc²) accounts for more than 4 million tons loss per second. It is not conceivable either by science or by logic that stars are formed and sustained by drifting clouds of hydrogen gas. Someone has commented that it is hard to keep a match lit in a hurricane. That first explosive blast from fusion would scatter the gas clouds and radiate matter, (energy) so the fusion chain could not continue even if the universe were not rapidly expanding. Not even lucky accidents could have formed the stars and certainly the whole subject is full of contradictions of science A single disproval disqualifies a theory as scientific. Many charges are made against biblical creation but we have seen no scientific facts to support those charges. Instead we see charges based on the evolution theorem that, "Even if there is a god, he could not have created the universe; it is too big, too complex; it had to be an accident." We have shown that the Black Hole theory contradicts the Big Bang theory and the Expanding Universe theory and the decreasing size of the sun contradict the Origin-of-Stars theory. This alone is enough to show that evolution is not a true science. The other examples are to show that faith is more important than logic in believing in evolution – that it is a religion that exists to try to show that the Bible cannot be true; we must believe in hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of lucky accidents instead of science. Honesty is not required for evolution science. Neanderthal man (so named for the location of his skeleton) had curvature of the spine; his pelvis was normal. Evolution artists redrew him with a straight spine and a pelvic bone that prevented him from walking in an upright position. In short they moved the curvature from his spine to his pelvis to prove he was sub-human and that at some time prior he had walked on all-fours; it was a false picture. After being confronted with the fact that the picture was false, that Neanderthal man was not as represented by the drawing, his name (Neanderthal man) was removed from the false picture but the picture is still retained in the supposed evolution lineup. No science, no matter! Some people have been so pushed by evolution in school and by peers at work that they felt it better to compromise the issue and agree that the Genesis account may have been formulated before writing was commonly used and could be regarded as more mythology and legendary than literal truths to be accepted by an educated person. This is a mistake. Even if you remove Geneses (or even the entire Old Testament) from the Bible guess what breaks forth in the New Testament:
If you do not believe biblical Genesis you cannot believe biblical Revelation. If you compromise on a God of creation you have compromised on a God of salvation. The New Testament is as adament that God is the almighty Creator as is the Old Testament. Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are in agreement so you cannot accept one and not the other. Believing that lucky accidents could better create a universe than the Almighty God is somewhat like believing that you have a better chance of finding your dream car in a wrecking yard than finding it on a dealership showroom floor. This dissertation is not expected to change the views of those who have already made a decision to choose evolution as their religion. Rather it is hoped that it will encourage those who are at the brink of giving-in to the pressures that, "Even if there is a god, he could not have created the universe; it is too big, too complex; it had to be an accident." Just remember the foregoing statement is an expression of faith in lucky accidents, not of science as claimed. Also remember that the Bible makes us responsible for our choices, our deeds, and evolution denies any such responsibility. Evolution is an escape from personal responsibility as stated in Romans 14:12 "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Therein lies the attraction of evolution religion. In short the purpose of evolution is to claim there is no power higher than our own. It is a put-down of God so that he cannot be our judge in the Day of Judgment. Don't believe it. Neither science nor rational support evolution! |