Daily Archives: June 6, 2012
In the beginning, God created … (Genesis 1:1)
If you had not eaten in over two weeks and you found a dollar, would you spend it on a burrito (a sure thing) or on a lottery ticket and a chance to win $10 million (not a sure thing)? If all you have to do is pick five correct non-repeating numbers in no special order, your chance of picking all five correctly is 1 in 71.5 million. If, on the other hand, the numbers must be in the correct sequence the odds decrease to 1 in 8.6 billion. With those kinds of odds, I am sure I would buy a burrito rather than a lottery ticket!
The odds for spontaneous generation of life from non-life are greater than that of winning the lottery. “So even by the wildest ‘guesstimates,’ the universe isn’t old enough or big enough to reach odds like the 1 in 103,000,000 that Huxley, an evolutionist, estimated as the odds against the evolution of the horse.” With odds like these, one may as well consider evolution a veritable impossibility.
When one considers the irreducible complexity of the simplest single-cell bacteria, the evidence should suffice to convince even the most recalcitrant skeptic, provided he has not abandoned all reason. The motility of a bacterium is accomplished by a whip-like tail called a flagellum. “The flagellum is constructed of 40 proteins, 10 of which are used in other structures in the cell, and 30 of which are unique to the flagellum. The flagellum will not function unless all 40 proteins are put together the right way … If the flagellum is missing even one protein, it will not function.” I might also add that if only one protein is out of order, the flagellum will not function.
Like creation, evolution cannot be proven scientifically or mathematically for that matter. It takes an enormous amount of faith to believe “in the beginning hydrogen.” Therefore, the only thing we can do is to consider the scientific evidence and see which origins model makes more sense or is more reasonable.
First of all, the universe and all that is in it “looks” designed. Design demands a Designer. Consider again the bacterium’s flagellum.
The flagellum has a motor that is about one-tenth of a micron in diameter, and a tail that turns at up to 100,000 rpm and acts as a propeller. The motor can reverse direction within a quarter turn. The electric motor of the flagellum is precisely analogous to our electric motors, but on a fantastically smaller scale, and it functions better than anything we can make. One of the smallest man-made electric motors is 2 mm in diameter and was invented for use in boring plaque out of coronary arteries. It involved the work of visionary cardiologists, as well as biomedical engineers. These scientists, of course, stood on the shoulders of previous electricians, mathematicians, and engineers.
But the bacterial flagellum is 20,000 times smaller than this motor, works better, and turns faster! The flagellum is fastened securely to the bacterial cell wall and has all the analogous parts of a man-made electric motor: It has a hook, or universal joint; a bushing; a rod (drive shaft); and an electrically-charged rotor and stator.
Intelligent scientists and engineers took years to design a tiny micro-motor that is clunky in comparison to the motor that drives the bacteria’s flagella, and yet we are amazed at the genius of the men that designed it. But therein lays the answer: men with intelligence designed it; it did not “evolve” on its own from an assortment of miscellaneous junk parts. The same is true of the bacterial flagellum; it is of impeccable design, and only a fool will attribute its existence to the “blind watchmaker” of evolution.
From the smallest bacteria to the greatest galaxies, our universe displays incredible design and precision. Evolution, on the other hand, wants to take credit for all that exists by claiming that 14 billion years ago some nondescript cosmic egg exploded, and that from all of the chaos of that primordial explosion, all that we now see “organized itself” into what we understand our universe to be. It makes for a nice story, but it lacks substance. Dr. Henry M. Morris offers five solid reasons why this “big bang” theory is a load of poppycock:
1. The primordial explosion should have propelled all the matter/energy of the cosmos out radially from its center, and by the principle of conservation of angular momentum, none of it could ever thereafter have acquired any kind of curvilinear motion. Yet there are all kinds of curving and orbiting motions of the stars and galaxies of the cosmos, a situation that seems quite impossible if the universe began with the big bang.2. Sensitive measurements in recent years have increasingly been showing that the background radiation is not homogeneous and isotropic (that is, the same in all directions), as it should be if it had been produced by the big bang, but is “anisotropic” in all directions.3. The universe is anything but uniform in large-scale structure, as both the big-bang and steady state theories require, but instead is full of huge agglomerations of matter in some regions and vast empty spaces in others, scattered around the cosmos in far from any uniform manner. Some astronomers are now trying somehow to justify a primeval lumpy big bang!4. In the context of the primeval fireball, it is hard to justify the accumulation of any amount of matter in any one location such as a star. If the explosion is driving all galaxies apart in the resulting expansion, how could it fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?5. The most serious objection comes back again in the second law of thermodynamics. Explosions produce disorder, not order! The primordial super explosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder. If the universe is indeed a closed system, as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have? The big-bang idea, viewed in this light is as absurd as the steady state idea. 
“In the beginning hydrogen?” Not hardly. Order cannot come from disorder. Life cannot come from non-life. Evolutionists will attempt to deny, or otherwise skirt the issue, but the fact remains that even in the simplest form of life, all the creature’s parts must be present concurrently or the thing will not live, let alone survive. Evolution from non-life would require that all the necessary proteins and amino acids come together instantaneously and in the proper configuration in order to produce life. This has been attempted in the laboratory, and what was touted as a great success (the creation of a few amino acids) was in fact a miserable failure. The resultant “building blocks” of life were the wrong blocks, and they did not fit together in any way to produce life. Of course, that was conveniently left out of the headlines.
This fact alone should discredit the illusion of evolution, but the averse will adamantly cling to the myth claiming that all life originated from a single source billions of years ago. Although it has been shown that spontaneous generation is next to impossible, let us assume an original source from which all life sprang. Surely the fossil record would bear some evidence of transitional forms of one kind of life changing to another. Without a doubt, several “proofs” have made the headlines only to be exposed as frauds, the lie to be revealed only in the most obscure sections of the printed media. The fact is that the fossil record is remarkably silent on transitional forms. Everything in the fossil record appears suddenly and fully formed, but bless their hard little hearts, the evolutionists continue their desperate search.
The Bible says that God created everything: space, time, matter/energy, earth, sky and sea, all plant life, sun, moon and stars, sea animals, land animals and at the top of His creation was man – created in the image of God. All things were created in six 24-hour days, and at the end of each creation day, God declared His creation “good.” Then on the final day of creation, He declared His creation “very good” – that is to say, “perfect.” Declaring that each act of creation was good suggests that there was no need for improvement, i.e. “evolution.” Plants were to bear seed “after its own kind.” Animals were to reproduce “after their kind.” This is what the fossil record bears out.
Neither creation nor evolution can be proven scientifically, but when compared side by side, creation, as recorded in the Bible, makes much more sense. “In the beginning hydrogen?” No! In the beginning God!
 Calculation done on WebMath.Com: http://webmath.com/lottery.html
 From Answers in Genesis, “The Odds of Evolution,” http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/11/odds-of-evolution_07.html
 The Institute for Creation Research, The Creationist Worldview Program, Module 4, Course 2, Lesson 1, “Is Intelligent Design Unscientific?” Section : “Design: Purposeful Arrangement.”
 Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, (Green Forest, AZ, 2008), pp. 132-133.
 See article “Evolution Hopes You Don’t Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality” by Charles McCombs, Ph.D, http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-hopes-you-dont-know-chemistry-problem-wi/