Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Five:
Overall Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Section
Five – Overall
Conclusions
At
this point, we have completed both our expanded commentary
on creation and evolution theories and our focus on the critical
evidence. In this brief conclusion, we will summarize the
facts that have been established.
First,
our definitions for both creation and evolution theories were
accurate. Specifically, evolutionary theory is, by definition,
the denial of any need for foresight and teleology and the
assertion to the contrary that automatic, routine process
that occur without foresight are capable of producing the
universe we observe today, life, and all species on earth.
The position and status of evolutionary theory on all of these
defining issues was established from the words of evolutionists
themselves. From such quotes we even established that when
key events require extremely improbable coincidences, the
result is evidence for orchestration by foresight, or teleology.
And indeed we found such extremely improbable coincidences
admitted by evolutionists at every defining point in their
theory.
In
short, at every defining point where evolutionary theory asserted
the sufficiency of automatic, routine processes and denied
the need for foresight, both on experimental and observational
level as well as on the merely theoretical level, evolutionary
theory ran into coincidences so highly improbable that their
mere coinciding occurrence necessitated foresight. We saw
these improbability obstacles admitted on the defining issues
of the formation of the structure of the universe, the environment
in which life originated, and the origin of the cell. In fact,
we even saw evolutionists acknowledging that the earth’s
history and historic environment were so incompatible for
the origin of life that many evolutionists relocate life’s
origin to the un-falsifiable and unscientific location of
another planet.
We
also saw admissions that on the defining issue of the origin
of species, evolution also lacks a working theory. Speciation,
or variety, among an existing type of organism doesn’t
prove evolution and is agreed to wholeheartedly by creationists,
as is natural selection. However, natural selection doesn’t
contribute to the origin of new species, since it reduces
diversity and genetic variety rather than increasing them.
And while beneficial mutation is the only mechanism that is
even theoretically capable of producing new structures, organs,
traits, and ultimately new types of organisms, beneficial
mutations themselves require such a highly improbable series
of coincidences that even their occurrence would necessitate
foresight. In addition, evolution also lacks a working theory
in the sense that it cannot resolve whether new types of organisms
emerge gradually or in punctuated bursts. Ultimately, this
issue itself results from another insurmountable problem,
which is also admitted openly by evolutionists: the fact that
the fossil record only records non-evolving, static kinds
of organisms. Furthermore, by its very nature, the fossils
record cannot provide any evidence of the inability to interbreed,
which is the defining mark of speciation. This too, we saw
admitted openly by evolutionists along with the admission
that speciation is a process that by its nature cannot ever
be directly observed at all. Consequently, evolution remains
without evidence and without even a working theory for the
origin of new types of organisms.
Second,
concerning the age of the universe and the earth, we found
that evolution also lacks any actual empirical evidence in
its favor. As we saw from mainstream scientific publications
and even evolutionary scientists, starlight and redshift demonstrate
that the Milky Way Galaxy is near the center of the universe.
When the universe was less expanded, the gravity well located
at the center of mass would have warped time, slowing it down
so that billions of years passed outside the gravity well
while only days passed on earth. As a result, starlight indeed
has enough time to reach the earth while only six days would
pass on earth rather than billions of years of history. Consequently,
starlight and redshift provided no evidence for the billions
of years of time asserted and needed by evolutionary theory.
As
we examined the geologic data pertaining to the age of the
earth, we also found that there was no empirical evidence
supporting an age of millions or billions of years for the
earth. We saw that uniformitarianism was the key principle
to evolutionary geologic dating methods. And we saw that uniformitarianism
was not only self-contradictory, but it was contradicted by
the geologic evidence itself. We even saw that catastrophes,
the alternative to uniformitarianism, were acknowledged by
secular and evolutionary sources.
Moreover,
we also saw that the evidence for the specific catastrophe
of a global flood was irrefutable. Ample evidence for such
a flood exists in both the historic record of numerous, independent
cultures all around the world and in the geology of the earth.
The geologic evidence includes the fossil record itself. Since
fossils must be buried quickly, the rock layers they are buried
in must also have been laid down quickly, not slowly or gradually
over millions of years. Moreover, all fossils are found in
sedimentary rock, which is laid down by water. Together these
2 facts demonstrate that the fossil record is the result of
a quick depositing of sediments all over the earth by water
from a global flood. In addition, the location of fossils
also provides evidence for the global flood. Marine fossils
are located far inland and on mountain tops and tropical fossils
are located in arctic regions. Furthermore, the preservation
of soft tissue, such as the tissue and last meals of frozen
mammoths, demonstrates that the creation of these out-of-place
tropical fossils was accompanied by a rapid climate shift,
rather than a slow, gradual change. And ultimately, we saw
how even if uniformitarianists, evolutionists, or even atheists
reject the possibility of a Creator, none of these worldviews
have any principles, grounds, or evidence on which to reject
the evidence for a global flood. Thus, the global flood stands
as an irrefutable reality of earth history.
As
we considered the various dating methods used by evolutionists
to support an age of billions of years for the earth, we also
found all such methods to be bankrupt. None of them worked.
Relative dating, which is based upon the layering of rocks
and the fossils in those layers, is admitted to be utterly
incapable of providing actual ages or durations of time but
can only indicate the order of burial. Radiometric dating
methods also did not work. To calculate ages, radiometric
dating requires certain factors to be known. But, as we saw
in detail, those required factors are not known. Instead,
idealized numeric values are assumed based on relative dates
created by assuming of evolutionary theory
and adjusted as needed to produce ages through a process
of circular reasoning. In addition, we have also seen how
the volcanic activity involved in a global flood further renders
these critical factors beyond determination.
Concerning
carbon-14 we found that the earth’s carbon-14 level
is currently still below its saturation point, a point which
it should have reached a long time ago if the carbon cycle
had been occurring for billions of years. Thus, carbon-14
itself indicates that the earth is young, so young that it
has not yet reached the saturation point for carbon-14. Furthermore,
when the evidence for a global flood is taken into account,
carbon-14 dating simply does not produce any ages that are
not reconcilable with creationism’s age of the earth.
And likewise, we saw that carbon-14 dating erroneously assumes
that the carbon to carbon-14 ratio must always have been what
it is today even though this ratio is known to have significantly
differed over time and location due to a number of factors.
Lastly
concerning dating methods, we saw how none of the non-radiometric
absolute dating methods worked either. Each one was based
upon assumptions, which were invalid and unreliable. And most
importantly, every single dating method, including relative
dating and radiometric dating in general, were based entirely
upon circular reasoning with one another and with circular
reasoning in which evolutionary theory itself is assumed.
Not a single dating method worked without the others being
assumed first and without evolution being assumed first, including
radiometric dating.
Finally,
as we saw in quote after quote, the problems in all of these
areas still remain unresolved. Furthermore, as we also saw,
the nature of many of these problems is such that they are
simply unsolvable. In the end there was no working explanation
and no evidence supporting the evolutionary formation of the
universe, the evolutionary origin of life, the evolutionary
origin of species, or the evolutionary age of the universe
and the earth. From start to finish, evolutionary theory and
its age for the earth were shown to be nothing more than assumptions
based upon philosophical preference. And we even saw this
fact itself admitted in quote after quote throughout this
study. Consequently, as we have seen, there is simply no evidence
that currently disproves the account of earth’s history
preserved in the Judeo-Christian tradition, an account which
records the need for a Creator as well as the interactions
of that Creator. On the contrary the available, observable
evidence supports the predictions and conclusions offered
in the scientific and Biblical theory of Creationism.
These
conclusions lead us to 2 final segments for this study. First,
below is a closing editorial that focuses on a few important,
critical-thinking issues that would have been outside the
context of the segments we have covered so far in this series.
And second, having established that there is no evidence,
which currently disproves the creationist theory, the last
section of this study will comprise a simple list of evidence,
which supports the young age of the universe and the earth
and which also supports the creationist theory as a whole.
Closing
Editorial
We
began this entire study series by talking about the importance
of objectivity and equity. Objectivity defines critical thinking.
If a person is not being objective or equitable, then they
are not thinking critically.
Throughout
this series, we have also taken the time to point out admissions
of philosophical preference. These two issues, objectivity
and philosophical preference work contrary to one another.
And the reason we have taken the time to bring these issues
to the foreground in this series is simple. Our primary purpose
in this study has been to examine the evidence in detail and
to let the evidence speak for itself. But so long as philosophical
preference is in the driver’s seat, being persuaded
by the objective reality of the evidence remains impossible.
For this reason, we have attempted to spotlight philosophical
preference when possible throughout the study. Only by identifying
it does it become possible to remove it and to once again
look with objectivity upon the clear indications of the evidence.
Consequently,
having completed an intensive examination of the most critical
evidence and with a straightforward listing of all the evidence
still to follow, it is important to once again attempt to
spotlight and remove the blinding influence of philosophical
preference. As such, there are 2 small editorial comments
that we feel will serve this purpose. And since this portion
of our study is intended as an editorial, we will approach
these subjects somewhat more casually.
Our
first editorial comment centers on the following facts. Earlier
in our article we have seen that given the hostile environment
of earth throughout its history prompts many evolutionists
to relocate the origin of life to some other planet besides
the earth. However, even if life did originate here on earth,
evolutionary theory necessitates that the same natural process
that brought about life on this planet would do so on other
planets throughout the galaxy and the universe as well. This
is the logical conclusion of believing that life is not unique
to earth but is the result of automatic, routine processes.
“All
of which leads me to conclude that life is an obligatory manifestation
of matter, bound to arise where conditions are appropriate.
Unfortunately, available technology does not allow us to find
out how many sites offer appropriate conditions in our galaxy,
let alone in the universe. According to most experts who have considered the problem—notably,
in relation with the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
project—there should be plenty of such sites, perhaps
as many as one million per galaxy. If these experts are right,
and if I am correct, there must be about as many foci of life
in the universe. Life is a cosmic imperative. The universe
is awash with life.” – The Beginnings of Life
on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October
1995
According
to this quote, “Life is a cosmic imperative” and
“The universe is awash with life.” Moreover, as
we can see, the author specifically states that this is the
opinion of the experts on this topic among the evolutionary
community.
Furthermore,
evolutionary theory necessitates not only would life originate
on other planet’s but also that life would evolve and
eventually develop into intelligent civilizations on other
planets as well, all as the logical conclusion to the theory
that evolution occurs as a result of automatic, uniform processes.
The quotes below describe what is known as the “Green
Bank formula,” an equation that is designed to reflect
how many technical civilizations exist on other planets throughout
the galaxy.
“Life,
Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent life beyond the solar system
– The probability of advanced technical civilizations
in our galaxy depends on many controversial issues. A simple way of approaching the problem,
which illuminates the parameters and uncertainties involved,
has been devised by a U.S. astrophysicist,
F.D. Drake. The number N of extant technical civilizations
in the galaxy can be expressed by the following equation (the
so-called Green Bank formula)… Likelihood of life –
Contemporary world events do not provide a very convincing
counterargument to the contention that technical civilizations tend, through the use of
weapons of mass destruction, to destroy themselves shortly
after they come into being. If we define a technical civilization
as one capable of interstellar radio communication, our technical
civilization is only a few decades old. If then L is about
10 years, multiplication of all of the factors assumed above leads to the conclusion
that there is in the second half of the 20th century only
about one technical civilization in the galaxy—our own.
But if technical civilizations tend to control the use of
such weapons and avoid self-annihilation, then the lifetimes
of technical civilizations may be very long, comparable to
geological or stellar evolutionary time scales; the number
of technical civilizations in the galaxy would then be immense.
If it is believed that about 1 percent of
developing civilizations make peace with themselves in this
way, then there are about 1,000,000 technical civilizations
extant in the galaxy.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
“Green
Bank equation – equation
that purports to yield the number N of technically advanced
civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy as a function of
other astronomical, biological, and psychological factors.
Formulated in large
part by the U.S. astrophysicist Frank Drake, it was first
discussed in 1961 at a conference on the “search for
extraterrestrial intelligence” (SETI), held at the National
Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, W.Va…Accordingly,
if civilizations characteristically destroy themselves within
a decade of achieving radio astronomy, which is taken as a
marker of an advanced civilization, then N = l, and there
are no other intelligent life forms in the Galaxy with whom
terrestrial researchers can communicate. If, on the other hand, it is assumed that
one percent of the civilizations learn to live with the technology
of mass destruction and themselves, then N = 1,000,000,
and the nearest advanced civilization would be on average
a few hundred light-years away.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
As
indicated by both of the quotes above, the number of technically
advanced civilizations currently existing in the universe
depends on whether or not such civilizations tend to annihilate
themselves by weapons of mass destruction. If all technical
civilizations do tend to destroy themselves, then man would
be the only technically advanced civilization in the universe
at the present time. However, if even one percent of technically
advanced civilizations avoid self-destruction, then there
are literally a million other technically advanced civilizations
throughout the galaxy at the present time. In particular,
notice that for the one percent of technical civilizations
that survive their own weapons of mass destruction, this equation
necessitates that there are 99 times as many technical civilizations
that do destroy themselves. Consequently, regardless of whether
or not such civilizations survive to exist in the present,
the Green Bank equation necessitates that one hundred million
technical civilizations have existed in our galaxy over the
course of the history of the universe.
Here
we arrive at an illuminating point.
One
hundred million technically advanced civilizations over the
course of the universe’s history is likely to include
a large number of civilizations that are significantly more
advanced than mankind. Even one million civilizations would
have quite a few that are significantly more advanced than
man. And using our own population as a basis, each civilization
is going to be comprised of billions of individuals. We must
also keep in mind that not a single extra-terrestrial life
form has ever been detected or observed and not a shred of
empirical evidence exists that life exists on other planets
at all, let alone intelligent life or even technically advanced
civilizations. Yet the core of evolutionary theory, the idea
that life originates and evolves by automatic, routine processes
of nature logically demands these conclusions. In other words, by its very nature and definition, evolutionary theory
requires the existence of billions and billions of unseen,
undetected beings with vastly superior intelligence and capabilities
than our own, for whom we have no empirical evidence.
This
fact highlights the prejudicial nature of the philosophical
preferences behind the acceptance of evolutionary theory.
Creationism asserts the necessity for the existence of just
1 superior, powerful intelligent being that we currently cannot
see or detect directly through empirical means. Merely as
a result of this factor alone, creationism is often popularly
labeled as blind faith, primitive, and unscientific. Yet modern
evolutionary science necessitates the existence of billions
and billions of superior and more powerful beings that we
cannot currently see or detect empirically, and evolution
is regarded as “good science driven by empirical evidence,”
“sophisticated,” and “enlightened.”
The plain fact of the matter is that both theories necessitate
the existence of unseen, undetected superior beings from beyond
the earth.
There
are really 2 subpoints here that need to be spotlighted. Number
one, why are ancient civilizations and beliefs held by man
from older ages regarded as primitive merely for believing
in beings from beyond the earth with vastly greater power
over nature and greater intelligence than mankind, while modern
evolutionary science can assert the exact same thing without
being regarded as “primitive?” It seems that there
is clearly a double-standard at work here. And this double
standard reveals the lack of objectivity and the lack of critical
thinking on the part of evolutionists.
Number
two, it also seems to be true that both scientists and lay
people that have accepted evolution are either open to or,
in fact, embrace the possibility that human civilization itself
was created in some form or fashion by an extra-terrestrial
civilization of superior intelligence and ability than man.
Often these popular concepts take the form of alien beings
sowing their genetic make-up into the evolution of life on
earth. These popular concepts are featured in the movie Contact (1997),
based upon the book by famous evolutionist Carl Sagan, and the movie Mission
to Mars. Francis Crick, who received the 1962 Nobel Prize
for Physiology or Medicine for helping to discover the double-helix
of DNA, believed that life came to earth “on a spaceship
sent out by some distant civilization.”
“On
the other hand, it is believed that our young planet, still in the throes of
volcanic eruptions and battered by falling comets and asteroids,
remained inhospitable to life for about half a billion years
after its birth, together with the rest of the solar system,
some 4.55 billion years ago. This leaves a window of perhaps 200-300
million years for the appearance of life on earth. This duration was once considered too short for the emergence of
something as complex as a living cell. Hence
suggestions were made that germs of life may have come to
earth from outer space with cometary dust or even,
as proposed by Francis Crick of DNA double-helix fame, on
a spaceship sent out by some distant civilization.”
– “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian
de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995
As
we can see, not only is the idea of superior, more powerful,
extra-terrestrial beings considered acceptable science, but
even the idea that one such group of beings is the progenitor
to mankind is also considered acceptable within science.
With
these similarities in view, it gets harder and harder to see
exactly what about the creationists view is so philosophically
undesireable to evolutionists. One theory asserts the necessity
for 1 unearthly being of superior intelligence and superior
power over nature, which cannot currently be seen or detected.
The other theory asserts the necessity for billions and billions
of extra-terrestrial beings with superior intelligence and
a superior ability to manipulate the natural world, which
cannot currently be seen or detected. The only real issue
that distinguishes these two views is the concept of accountability.
Creationism’s single, superior, more powerful, more
intelligent, unearthly being has authority over us and we
are accountable to him while evolution’s billions and
billions of superior, more powerful, more intelligent, unearthly
beings have no authority over us at all and we are not accountable
to them.
Since,
as we have seen, there is no empirical evidence that supports
or necessitates evolutionary theory, evolutionary theory is
shown to be the theory that believes in the existence of countless
billions of superior, more powerful, unearthly beings on blind
faith simply out of philosophical preference. But more importantly,
since there is no empirical evidence that supports or necessitates
evolutionary theory and instead, as we have seen, from start
to finish evolutionary theory is based upon mere philosophical
bias, the only real preference driving the acceptance of evolutionary
theory is the desire to avoid accountability.
In
conclusion, if a person simply looks at the evidence objectively
and thoroughly without being motivated by the desire to avoid
accountability, creationism is clear. But so long as the desire
to avoid accountability remains, as it always has been, the
primary motivation for accepting evolutionary theory, then
objective analysis will not be possible. This need for not
only an objective but also a thorough analysis of the evidence
leads us to our next editorial comment.
Our
second editorial comment centers one of the potential reactions
to a presentation of the evidence and an accurate presentation
of the creationist argument. Initially, many laypersons who’ve
accepted evolution criticize that creationists have just accepted
a view on blind faith without knowing or looking into the
evidence. In contrast, they themselves have rejected creationism
because they are healthy skeptics, who question and look into
matters before accepting an idea.
However,
after experiencing a presentation of the evidence, the problems
with evolutionary theory, and the holes where evolutionary
theory admittedly has no working explanation, it often becomes
suddenly apparent that these “healthy skeptics”
have not really looked into the matter at all. They’ve
never researched evolution with a critical eye. So, here the
question arises, “if they’ve never really researched
the matter or considered the options objectively and critically,
how did they come to believe in evolution in the first place?”
The answer is that they’ve merely accepted evolution
on blind faith because a teacher or professor told them it
was true. They now fall under the same criticism that they
had of creationists.
And
what is the response to the fact that they now fall under
their own criticism? Do they maintain their commitment to
accepting ideas only if that idea is based firmly on the most
reasonable view of the evidence? Do they suspend their belief
in evolution and their rejection of creationism at least until
they have enough time to research the matter more thoroughly?
Do they then proceed to spend time looking into the matter
and pursuing the issues until they reach a conclusion, just
as they formerly asserted was their practice?
No,
at least not typically. Instead, a common response is just
the opposite. They reject their previous conviction that ideas
should only be accepted if they can be firmly demonstrated
from the evidence. Instead, when faced with the possibility
that there is considerably reasonable argument in favor of
creationism, they abandon the conviction that anything can
be known based upon the evidence. Rather than remaining staunchly
committed to the position that evidence clearly reveals reality,
the position they formerly held as evolutionists, they now
become ardent agnostics, holding that there is no way to know
what reality is even from the evidence. Having formerly criticized
creationism on the grounds that it was unacceptable to believe
on blind faith, they now hold to evolution on the grounds
that it is true even if the evidence doesn’t seem compatible
with it. Having formerly asserted the need to be skeptical,
they now avoid a skeptical look at evolution. Many times this
response is couched in the idea that they cannot accept creationism
because it doesn’t meet their high standards of proof,
while at the same time continuing to accept evolution on the
basis of a much, much lower standard of proof.
Such
reactions reveal the true reason for their acceptance of evolution
and their rejection of creationism. They never rejected creationism
because they were good skeptics and looked into the issues,
asking objective questions. They never accepted evolution
because it is based on evidence rather than blind faith. Instead,
they’ve always accepted evolution on blind faith without
looking into the matter. And they did so simply because they
philosophically prefer to avoid accountability to God. They
use false criticisms of creationism to make it look like the
issue is their commitment to reason, evidence, and healthy
skepticism, when in reality they are simply committed to any
worldview that doesn’t involve God, even if they have
to sacrifice reason, evidence, and healthy skepticism to do
so. And when they do so, they reveal their real motivation.
They are blindly committed to a worldview without God, with
no accountability, in which they can do whatever they want
or at least associate with people regardless of how they behave.
Ultimately,
deciding what is true based upon such criteria is not only
unscientific, it’s utterly unreasonable and downright
foolish. The important point here is not simply that evolutionists
should stop criticizing creationism as unscientific, as mere
blind faith, and as the product of ignorance of the evidence.
These criticisms should be stopped, but they are not the most
important point. The most important point is that evolutionists
should themselves stop accepting their own theory on blind
faith. They should question their own motivations objectively
and ask themselves some critical questions. Why do I believe
evolution? How much do I really know about evolutionary theory?
How much do I know about the evidence? Have I ever really
considered creationism fairly? How much do I really know about
creationism’s arguments and positions? What criteria
should I use for deciding what is true? Should I decide what
is true based upon the most reasonable interpretation of the
evidence? Or, is what I want to be true more important when
I decide what to believe? Am I willing to even consider rejecting
reason and evidence in order to believe what I prefer to believe?
In
conclusion, resolving the origins debate, the debate between
evolution and creation, can only occur if these questions
are addressed first by each individual. So long as these questions
go unasked and unanswered by each individual, neither the
evidence nor the very best reasoning in the world will matter,
not with regard to the evolution-creation debate and not with
regard to how mankind in general attempts to resolve its differences
and live together. We have to make the decision to be rational
beings who make decisions and take action based upon the most
reasonable and objective interpretation of the evidence. If
instead we only pretend to do this, while in reality we remain
motivated by our mere personal, philosophical preferences,
not only will the evolution-creation debate remain unresolved,
but all of our problems with remain unresolved.
This
completes our closing editorial segment. We now move on to
the last segment of this series, the simple list of evidences.
As the list will show, the evidence dramatically favors the
young age of the universe and the earth and the creationist
theory as a whole. Conversely, the list will also show that
there is no evidence in support of evolutionary theory or
the evolutionary age of the universe, but that accepting evolutionary
theory is instead dependent upon purely philosophical preferences
rather than sound science, reason, objectivity, or evidence.