Who has put wisdom in the mind? Or who has given understanding to the heart? Job 38:36 NKJV
According to the Book of Job, God listened to Job and his friends but stayed silent through chapters 1 through 37. He then spoke directly to give a lesson on their limited understanding of His limitless power. The verse quoted above also instructs us that God gives wisdom and understanding as a guide for our decisions and judgments. Unfortunately, this highly technological age has created information overload and diversions filled with minutiae as never before in history. It often becomes difficult to discern the important from the unimportant and greatly hinders our ability to apply critical thinking. Without critical thinking, which may take some mental energy, we become naively subject to deception. Critical thinking should give pause when confronted with the claims of evolution and compel us to ask whether the "facts" defy common sense. The activation of God-given common sense will help to formulate questions, seek answers, and review the issues from all perspectives.
When critical thinking is applied, we ask whether the origin of life could occur naturally from pure chemical reactions? And whether the hypothetical primordial soup was capable of creating the first cell, including the DNA necessary to fashion the complexities of all life forms; and all without the benefit of intelligence, plan, or purpose.
Chance left by itself produces only randomness and
A. E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, pg. 94,
T.W.F.T. Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA
The "proof" regarding the evolution of life from simple forms to ever-greater complexity is as problematic as that supporting the origin of life discussed in the previous chapter. The natural occurrence of origin and complexity comprise the foundation upon which the Theory of Evolution is dependent. Unfortunately for the Theory, the evidence for these premises is seriously lacking, as is the credibility for a belief that is said to be based upon fact.
A current effort among evolutionists is the attempt to separate the implausible theory of how the first cell was created and give credence to the also implausible idea that the inherent complexities in every organism emerged from the primevil cell. Simply stated, the Darwinian evolutionist does not wish to bear the responsibility of having to prove how life was created in the first place. The dilemma of attempting to explain a beginning will become (hopefully) forgotten, allowing the evolutionist to address only how a simple cell grew into all of life.
Although great authority is vested in science by the general public, it would be well to inject some level of common-sense analysis when necessary. We generally cede our belief system to evolutionary thought because "so many well educated scientists can't be wrong." Or can they? A possible answer as to why brilliant men and women accept a concept as flawed as evolution is that the persuasive power of peer pressure by their evolutionary colleagues yields to a compromised scientific standard. As fallible humans, the embracing of a worldview that rejects the existence of God, or that limits His power, creates a target for self-deception.
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither
were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:21-22 KJV
The wide gap that separates the Creationist from the Evolutionist regarding the complexity of life is: how were all the species formed? and... was naturalism alone sufficient to create the complexities of life?
A (Creationist) Garden of Life
The concept of a Garden of Life is often mentioned by Ken Ham, President of Answers in Genesis. Ken's garden presents an image of God's "planting" of fully formed species "after their kind" on days 3, 5, and 6 of creation week. A garden could be seen as having row after row of varying seeds, with each seed representing the life forms placed on the earth during creation week. Each seed, or act of creation, varied from all others to bring forth plants and creatures "after their kind". The "seed" might possibly have had the genetic disposition for future generations that may differ from the original but will not cross a line to create a new species. A "cat kind" might have included many genetic variations in its DNA, possibly yielding all forms of lions and tigers (but not bears.) In the same manner, God created all the variations of humanity (skin color, physical structure, etc.) in Adam and Eve. Change might occur within these variants (discussed in the later chapter on Micro & Macro Evolution), but a primate could not produce a human, a fish could not change into a land-dwelling creature, and try as the may, dinosaurs would fail in an attempt to learn how to fly.
If we view the creation and complexity of life as a garden, our observation of what is seen today is validated by days three, five, and six of the literal Biblical account for creation week.
The following verses are from Genesis 1 NKJV
1:11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself, according to its kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
1:20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind, And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let the birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
1:24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
1:31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
According to Genesis, since all of life was created "after their kind", an event such as abiogenesis is not required for the birth of an original cell. Nor is there a need to speculate as to how the variety of species came into being. A significant submission of evidence in support of the creationist view is faith in the living God and the infallibility of His word.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NIV
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. Hebrews 11:1 NIV
Examining the available evidence for Creation
Faith alone is not a substitute for good science; and God is the author of science. In order to understand that both faith and science can be used as evidence in support of a creation model, consider the following analysis:
Job 39:19 NIV Do you give the horse its strength or clothe its neck with a
Job 39:26 NIV Does the hawk take flight by your wisdom, and spread its wings toward the south?
As the Theory of Evolution is studied, it becomes apparent that this "scientific field" must also inject faith when the supporting evidence fails.
The (Evolutionary) Phylogenetic Tree of Life
The evolution of species toward greater complexity is often depicted by the Phylogenetic Tree of Life. Courtesy Wikipedia, Phylogenetic Tree
Comment: The Phylogenetic Tree of Life is a glaring example that demonstrates why Creation and Evolution are in complete opposition and cannot coexist. The "Tree" relies on the existence of a first cell(s) that emerged from the "primordial soup" in the early Earth and grew into all life's forms over many millenia by natural processes. The Genesis account clearly states that all species (kinds) were supernaturally created fully formed and that macro evolution has never occurred.
Taxonomic Classifications are those assigned to the various levels of
organisms with the Species (the lowest level) having the most advantageous
relationship for reproduction. The classifications are ever changing as new life
forms are discovered and, once identified, assigned to a specific group.
The Phylogenetic Tree of Life, created by the National Science Foundation, positions organisms within their "evolutionary" relationships, branching to ever increasing levels of complexity.
.. Phylogenetic Tree of Life>>
Images courtesy of Wikipedia: Class (Biology) & Oracle ThinkQuest (Select images to enlarge)
Darwin and the Evolution of a Theory
Modern Darwinism has migrated beyond natural selection to include genetic mutations and a process called punctuated equilibrium. Revisions to Darwin's theory came about as knowledge of the cell continued to unfold and it became clear that the original concepts of natural selection and adaptation did not sufficiently explain the complexity of life.
Select the following to view The Theory of Evolution's path from Darwin to Gould:
Darwinism: Natural Selection and Adaptation
Neo-Darwinism: Darwinism + Genetic Mutation
Punctuated Equilibrium: Neo-Darwinism + Rapid Transformation
Archaeopteryx has consistently served as an icon of evolutionary proof for the dinosaur to bird transition, estimated to have lived 150m years ago (evolutionary time). Speculated to have had traits of birds as well as those of dinosaurs, its flying or gliding ability was supplemented by teeth and "killing claws" common to predators.
Archaeopteryx fossil and artist's rendering
Despite the proclamations about archaeopteryx, all evolutionary scientists are not on-board with unproven ideas presented as credible science. The tale of Archaeopteryx being a significant missing link between the two species is repudiated in an open letter from Storrs Olson, Curator of Birds at the Smithsonian Institute's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC. The letter is addressed to Dr. Peter Raven at the National Geographic Society after the Society published a Feathers for T-Rex" article in November, 1999. Dr. Olson included the following in his letter:
The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the
National geographic Society is even worse, (a reference to previous
comments in the letter regarding other erroneous information)
and makes the
spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous
dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and
illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply
imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.
Continuing, Dr. Olson states his disbelief in the idea of a theropod (dinosaur) to bird evolution:
The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is
being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with
certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become
and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing
of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now
becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age --- the paleontological
equivalent of cold fusion.
Dr. Storrs Olson, an open letter to the National Geographic Society, Nov. 1, 1999
The transitional road that leads from a dinosaur to a bird remains littered with problems that are not easily resolved.
Tyrannosaurus rex ................................ Falcarius utahensis* .... Archaeopteryx ...... Birds
* Falcarius utahensis artist's rendering by Mike Skrepnick
BBC News UK Edition, Killer Dino "turned vegetarian", May 4, 2005
The evolutionary claim of the Killer Dino "turned vegetarian" article above is that Falcarius utahensis is a missing link in the evolution of dinosaurs to birds. Actual feathers were not found on the fossil, but rather markings were interpreted as those caused by feather-like structures.
Evolutionary theory quite often (and quite casually) assigns "forward looking intelligence" or "exploiting an opportunity" to the process of creating new species through genetic mutation. The following is a quotation from Dr. Scott Sampson from the Utah Museum of Natural History and co-author of the Falcarius article:
At the same time Falcarius appeared, the world was changing greatly because
flowering plants were appearing," Dr. Sampson said. "They would have provided
a new food source. It could be that Falcarius was exploiting an open ecological
Comment: Exploitation is an act that would normally be associated with an intelligent plan and not a random process. By its very nature, randomness is chaotic with each successive random step receiving no direction from its predecessor. There is no possible method that can be employed by the unknowing process called evolution that will create a species to "fill a void" or "exploit an ecological niche"
Following are just a few (although absurd) steps that might be required to create a bird species from a dinosaur (if it were even remotely possible)
Based on the fact that Falcarius utahensis was the product of evolutionary imagination, and Archaeopteryx was a bird and not a descendant of the dinosaurs, the dino to bird theory should be relegated to the more appropriate filed of fantasy.
To re-quote Dr. A. E. Wilder Smith from the beginning of this chapter on Complexity:
"Chance left by itself produces only randomness and nothing else".
Evolutionism's subjective interpretation of the evidence
The myth that evolution has been proven "without a doubt" will often cause scientists to ignore evidence that contradicts the theory. An illustration of subjective analysis of the evidence can be clearly seen in an article in the May 2006 web publication of Smithsonian.com with the pronouncement that soft-tissue (blood cells) were found in a 68-million year old T. rex. A parallel pronouncement in other periodicals also disclosed the discovery of an egg-like reproductive system in a dinosaur fossil: "further linking dinosaurs to modern birds".
The understanding regarding blood-cells prior to the T. rex discovery cited above was that soft tissue was not able to survive over extensive time periods. Since long ages are accepted as an established evolutionary "fact", any discovery that challenges the millions-of-years philosophy is generally not considered. Therefore, the "surprise" to evolutionists was that soft-tissue can (in their opinion and thought process) survive much longer than originally thought. The possibility that the evidence may be from a thousands (rather than millions) of years-old T-rex was not to be considered.
Objective science should consider the evidence (the survival of soft tissue in a T. rex) and give serious thought to the options. Either dinosaurs roamed the earth in recent history -or- blood cells are now known to survive for 70 million years or more. The first option would present a substantial problem for evolutionists when their entire theory is based upon long ages. Rather than open the "age debate" for further analysis, the pronouncement focused on the incredible survival of soft tissue for millions of years. The problem cannot be swept away, however, for objective science requires that all available evidence must be considered, even when it may suggest the very recent existence of dinosaurs.
The following is an excerpt from an article published on the ICR web site by Brian Thomas. He emphasizes that the necessity of maintaining a belief in deep time (long ages) is so engrained in evolutionary thought that even the consideration of conflicting evidence cannot be tolerated.
However, if the deep time goes, then so does the grand story of evolution that
depends on it. For many, that is too sacred an assumption to dare alter. Biblical
data, however, not only provide the timeframe for the death of these dinosaurs in
Flood deposits a few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition in agreement
with observable data that their demise occurred when they
'fell into a watery grave'.
Dinosaur Soft Tisse Is Here to Stay Brian Thomas, M.S., ICR.org, September 1, 2009
In the absence of evidence that can withstand objective review, evolutionists will often resort to authority and intellectual intimidation. An article published in the NY Times, Science Section suggested that a 68 million year old T. Rex fossil had soft tissue similar to that made inside the bones of ovulating female birds. A comment in support of the interpretation of the supposed "evidence" is exhibited below, also demonstrating the use of intellectual intimidation.
Anyone who would argue that birds and dinosaurs are not related---frankly, I'd
put them in the Flat Earth Society group.
Jack Horner, Museum of the Rockies and Montana State University
Mr. Horner was commenting on the article: T-Rex Fossil's Surprise: She Was Ovulating, John Noble Wilford, nytimes.com, June 3, 2005
In the relentless pursuit of "evidence" to prove their theory, Evolutionists throw caution to the wind
An ICR article re-visits the National Geographics 2009 press release sounding
the victory trumpet that proof positive
Major Evolutionary Blunders: The Imaginary Archaeoraptor, ICR, Acts & Facts, September 2016, Randy Guliuzza, M.D.
Examining the evidence
As previously stated, both creationists & evolutionists review the same evidence in order to make a case. It could be suggested that based upon the need for evidence, the failure of evolution to present a reasonable argument with science alone may require the injection of evolutionary faith in addition to nature, time, and chance. Consider the evidence that should give pause to evolutionists:
based on his life's research, the author of the bestseller, The Psychology of
Consciousness provides a provocative look at the evolution of the mind. He explains
that we are not rational but adaptive, and that it is Darwin, not Freud, who
is the central scientist of the brain.
It may come as a surprise to some that the brain is one of the most complex structures in the universe. The idea that the formation of the brain was by unplanned and natural processes can only be a product of fact-free science
...the brain can process two million bits of information per second.
It remembers everything you've ever seen, everything you've ever heard...
Ben Carson, M.D., Pediatric Neurosurgeon, Ret., Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD
God created our brains to process an unimaginably complex stream of
information - trillions of bits pour into our brain every second from all our
.. the brain contains 100 billion cells, and each neuron can form tens of thousands of connections with other neurons. (That adds up to one quadrillion connections - 1015 - in case you were wondering.)
David A. DeWitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience, Answers Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 3, July-Sept 2013, What Memories Are Made Of
A question that science cannot answer is how life is given to any organism. Atoms combine into molecules and molecules form cells to provide the physical foundation for all organisms. But the questions as to how life came into being and how consciousness developed will never be answered by science.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7 KJV
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; and that my soul knows very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skilfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them. Psalm 139:14-16 NKJV
Who defines perfection? Man? >> .....or God? >>
Return to The Origin & Complexity of Life
Please send comments or questions to: comments@In6Days.org