Time To Stir Up The Evolutionists
I originally put this together as a summary for why I believe Christ is Lord. However, I have decided to break it up into two parts. The first identifies the absurdity of absolute godless naturalism. The second part explains some of the evidence that has led me to feel that belief in Christ is not ridiculous, but rather, the ultimate conclusion. I start out by picking apart some of the more obvious problems of macro-evolution. This in no way should imply that macro-evolution could not have happened. It could have. But for this to be possible, God would have to be behind it. god would have to have created that first cell (using whatever. . . .primordial slime, lightening, Dawkins. . ... .whatever). Next, he would have to add beneficial mutations over and over and. . . . oh hell, he might as well just produce eyes, ears, crap shoot, forget the slow ponderous process because he never left evidence for it to begin with. Oh, and changing scales to feathers and arms to wings? Might as well take your time with that one. Besides, he had plenty of time. And to keep the evolving animals (as Gould suggests, evolution took place in small groups) from getting eaten by predators, god would have had to surround them with some energy field or dome (AKA young earth creationists idea that the Earth was covered with some dome until Noah's flood). And on to the garden. But we shall begin with how I had originally planned on using this work. As a simple and crude summary of why I think Christ is Lord.
Why I believe Christ is Lord
Let me start by asserting that I have looked very deeply into this matter and find it most logical. To narrow my reasons for belief into a couple of categories would do a great injustice. I believe that there is a growing abundance of physical evidence pointing directly to a god, in particular, the God of the Holy Scriptures. However, I feel that I have been gifted with information far superior to anything that any scientist could offer to convince me that Christ is Lord. That would be the spiritual information in which I have been directed towards by the Hand of God. This information could eventually ease all of my worldly concerns and might even be beneficial to those who don’t know what to believe. This is because the truth of God is far superior to the god portrayed in the worldly synagogues. So pardon the crudeness of this work. After all, I couldn’t possibly summarize the literally thousands of reasons that I have for coming to this grand conclusion.
Unfortunately, one of the hardest things for me to explain or even admit, is my belief that Christ is Lord. In this day of logic and reason, it is asserted by most that faith in God is blind and not supported by evidence. There was a time when believing in God was considered reasonable, due to the fact that people were ignorant of our modern science. This is ironic in that one of the greatest reasons to believe in God today, is because of the overwhelming scientific evidence of His necessity. In fact, the only evidence I need for believing in God is that I am here typing this.
Before one can even believe Christ is Lord, he/she must believe that the existence of God is even possible. An atheist will say that the existence of a God is impossible. I say that our existence and that of the entire universe looks to be impossible. We’re still here, though. But what about evolution? There was a time when I thought that evolution explained everything. You start with a sea slime and the right atmospheric combinations and all of the right amino acids and proteins will evolve, come together and form a cell (with the help of a few deadly lightning strikes). But how many cells would it take? Well, you just needed one. They can reproduce (split) asexually and with the addition of oxygen in the sea, cells will mutate and take on protective outer cells that actually make use of oxygen. Eventually, you have multi cellular creatures which give birth to mutating offspring to produce different species. This of course, takes millions and even billions of years. In fact, some say, the first living cell was produced randomly, more than 3.8 billion years ago. Just one problem though. The conditions of the planet were too hostile for cells to produce or even survive 3.9 billion years ago (late heavy bombardment). We won’t worry about that now though. The thing is, is that Darwin’s theory of evolution is convincing, only when one doesn’t know the facts.
The first thing that people are usually asked when they reveal their belief in God is, do you believe in evolution? I know, because it was me who used to ask this question. If the answer is no, then the secularist will assume that you also believe in a young earth (6000 years old), a world wide flood in Noah’s day, and that dinosaurs and man lived together at one time. Or possibly, Satan planted their fossils to piss off God. No, don’t worry. I believe that the world is probably billions of years old and the universe is much older. I believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (created on the fifth day). I believe that the universe is about three times as old as the earth and I think it started with a giant explosion. As far as the world flood is concerned? I believe that it flooded the land in one particular region and killed everybody in that region that couldn’t escape to higher ground. A historian (possibly Josephus but not sure) wrote in the early second century A.D. that some had done this very thing. There were people in other places, such as China and Egypt. So, it had to be a local flood.
Now, about evolution. When considering Darwin’s convincing studies, one should understand that no rational creationist denies that animals go through modification over several generations (micro evolution). So, in other words, Darwin was absolutely correct about the evolution that is corroborated by good science. As far as one species transitioning completely into another? I’m afraid that there just isn’t any evidence in the fossil record to support this. Besides, the oldest estimates of time between earth’s first and most basic cells (probably blue green algae) and now, doesn’t give nearly enough time for the evolution of human intelligence and conscience. Now, Darwin admitted that the fossil evidence didn’t show transitional species but felt that with time that this evidence would be sufficient. We’re still waiting. It may also be argued that species in transition would be at such a disadvantage that they would be routinely picked off by predators. Regardless, the icons of evolution are a dinosaur species with feathers, a bird species with a long tail (I’ve heard that one of these was a fake though), whale species (probably the worst candidates for evolution due to their size and lack of numbers) with legs and the whale’s hip bone being similar to a land species (like a cow). Let’s not forget about junk DNA (though they keep finding uses for much of this “junk”). Also, and probably most importantly, they hadn’t invented the electron microscope in Darwin’s day, yet. I can’t even begin to understand all of the parts necessary for a cell to be functional (take the genetic codes for example). I understand though that a cell has as many necessary components as a large city (many of them irreducibly complex). And how about the “cellular motors” they’ve recently discovered. I don’t believe that in 100,000,000,000,000,000 years a cell could put itself together by chance. And how much time did this first cell have in the supposed “just right conditions”? Apparently, less than 100,000,000 years (the window of opportunity would have been a small fraction of this). Which is probably why evolutionists insist that all life came from one cell. It just couldn’t have happened more than once. My opinion on this matter can be summarized as follows: The random process of a cell putting itself together is exponentially impossible. But I will continue.
So now you have the first cell. The rest should be easy, just start replicating and mutating. Well, between 3.8 billion and 540 million years ago, the evidence shows mostly single celled life. Then came the “evolutionary big bang”. Yes, the Cambrian Explosion. Within a time period of about 6 million years (I’ve heard as little as two million years) at least 80% of all known animal phyla came into existence. Also, all explanations for the development of the eye, ear and every other major organ, falls way short of rationality. This is because these organs would require thousands of seemingly useless mutations to form one beneficial organ. And for a scientist to point out some meager advantage along the way to a fully formed organ only shows their desperation in misleading those who doubt their theory. Because it would still take at least 100s of mutations for the meager advantage they speak of. And that's if those positive mutations even exist. And I still wonder why we don't see a smooth transition in all life of today and in the fossil record. Now Gould's Puntuated Equilibriam would be a possible answer if those supposed transitional species found didn't turn up multiple copies. This means that if you find one transitional species, you better not find another in the same exact shape. This would mean that it probably isn't a transitional species. I don’t mean to short change evolutionists, as I don’t have, nor would I spend the time giving all of the evidence for it. Their work is very important to prove its’ futility. They have learned many things and will continue to accumulate much more evidence for evolution. Unfortunately for them, I think science in general will continue to undermine their work (not purposely, but honestly) with more mounting evidence which demands a creator. Ironically, most of these scientists claim to be evolutionists.
Regardless of the false conclusions of evolutionists, (yes, I believe they are false. In general, evolutionists are the most dogmatic people, arguably more so than Christian fundamentalists. When questioned about problems of macro-evolution, many of them claim that these things have been thoroughly refuted and do not pose a threat to their theory. At best, they are blind. At worst, I think they lie.) I think evolution of life itself, is of no consequence when it comes to denying a creator. When considering the astronomical odds of having a planet such as ours, with just the right elements for intelligent life to live on it, it takes great faith to believe that it happened by accident. Even the accidental collision between planetary bodies which formed the moon (yes, this is what science now believes) was necessary for human life. And what are the odds of that collision forming the moon? Practically, none!! We require the perfect planet, the perfect sun, the perfect moon, the exact order of large and small planets in our solar system, the perfect galaxy and the perfect location within it (in other words, a perfect Designer). It just so happens that our solar system is in the perfect location of our Milky Way galaxy for astronomers to study the universe.
But what about the origin of our universe. Perhaps our universe has just been infinitely imploding and exploding (oscillating universe theory) until everything was just right. This violates the second law of thermo dynamics. The energy would eventually be reduced to uselessness. Well, perhaps there are an infinity of universes through infinite space and ours was one of the lucky ones. OK, but I still don’t think that our universe could happen by chance. They say the odds of our big bang event forming the right elements has to be exact in two categories (one deals with expansion and the other deals with slowing the expansion). Any how, I hear that one of the categories has to be perfect to within one part in 10^60. The other category has to be perfect to within one part in 10^120 (that’s a lot of zeros). In fact, the first three minutes after the big bang required the exact amount of matter producing materials to form a universe where life could be possible. I don’t think that our universe could happen by accident, even with an infinite number of chances. The big bang theory was originally scoffed at by scientists and so named by those same scientists, because it points to a creator. The big bang event represents a far greater problem than those of several random acts. It had to be perfect the first time. It required the exact amount of mass and the right materials to form our universe as it is. I believe this to be impossible to exponential proportions.
Well anyhow, I am really asking for it here. Is this scholarship? No. The scholarship is all over the place proving in millions of words, what I briefly described above. Am I a scientist? No, read where I said the scientists were. Unfortunately, I feel that dogmatic evolutionists are made blind just like those fundamentalist Christians that I talk about. They insist on the Theory of Evolution and nothing will change their minds. It's all part of God's plan.