The Seed Blog: Thinking Outside of the Box

This week, we will quickly look at overwhelming evidences that scream: "There must be a God—there must be a Creator!" And next week, for Easter Sunday, we will look at overwhelming evidences for, "Why that God must be Jesus Christ!"

I have recently heard a statement from a strong believing Christian from a local university, which probably represents the majority view of most Christians today, "Scientific evidence for Creation verses evolution is completely in the eyes of the one interpreting the evidence. It could be seen either way. " While I understand where this thought comes from in today's society, I cannot more strongly disagree. I am not a scientist, and I do not need to be in order to clearly discuss this topic because as science has phenomenally progressed in the past hundred years, the abundant and clear evidences that have been established in the scientific community not only show that Intelligent Design is a viable possibility, but that, if seen honestly in light of all we currently know, it is the only possibility that makes sense.
But, if that's true, why do educators and the media so strongly suggest the opposite? If you have not witnessed how popular opinion, political correctness and even plain untruths can dominate media and culture—and even create a social stigma of expectation that shames those who challenge the claims—then you have been living under a rock. To challenge evolution today, is about as socially acceptable as challenging Communism in North Korea. Scientists proclaiming Creationism have literally lost jobs and been removed from laboratories for their claims, no matter how justifiable. And today we will look at amazing, established, often ignored information, that shows just the contrary of socially pushed opinion, and puts you and I on a rock-solid foundation for our beliefs that,"In the beginning, God..."
Evolution requires a few basic things to have any possibility of being true: spontaneous generation of life, random mutations producing new and improved mutations, natural selection with survival of the fittest, and extreme amounts of time.
Before we look at the evidences, let's first categorize what types of evidences we are considering. Scientific research can be looked at in two major ways in this area: Historical Science and Observable Science. Historical Science involves speculation and theory based upon evidences left behind in history—they cannot be repeated, and no one was there to see them. They are purely circumstantial and speculative. This type of evidence is where the university student was partially correct. It involves a strong predetermined view in the interpretation of the evidence. But even Historical Science can provide some powerful and compelling evidences to an open mind. Observable Science, on the other hand, involves observation of evidences in experiments which are repeatable. These experiments are based upon the Laws that govern science as we know it today, in order to draw conclusions, often giving very decisive evidence in the research conducted.
Let's quickly look at our evidences in a few key areas, and uncover the Truth about what science has really revealed. Even before we can discuss the possibility of life on earth, we must first see the scientific evidences for how there could even be an earth for life—for how there could be laws that create and sustain that life. In other words, where did it all begin? Until fairly recently, scientists believed the Universe was constant. In other words, had always been here, and would always be here. But based upon much, much evidence in recent years, the overwhelming acknowledgement of the scientific community is the universe had a very definite point of origin, and a very provable demise. Einstein himself had to admit that Observational Science showed a Universe that was in tune with his Theory of Relativity—constantly expanding—thereby having an origin. Though not a Christian, Einstein strongly asserted that science shows there must be a God, and once quoted: “I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts; the rest are details.” Through a number of powerful proofs now, science overwhelmingly agrees that at some point, the entire Universe had to come to be out of nothing: “the big bang.” And that all of time, space and matter had to originate from that moment. This presents an unbelievably difficult problem for evolutionists, but an amazing proof of our God as Creator.
Let’s take a look at a few established Laws of Science and see what they reveal about the Big Bang: 1) The First Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Energy Conservation), states that energy can be converted from one form to another, but can never be created nor destroyed. Meaning there is no new mass/energy entering the existing universe, and all of the original mass/energy is still here from that point of origin. Genesis 2:1-2. Note how science relates to the trustworthiness of this Law. Meaning that our own established laws of science prove the universe could not possibly be responsible for its own creation because the laws of science today do not allow for any matter to naturally be destroyed or created—just changed in form. 2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics ("The Law of Energy Decay" or "Increased Entropy") states every system left to its own devices tends to move from order to disorder. Meaning that while the amount of energy/matter remains the same, with time it all deteriorates irreversibly into an unusable form. Meaning the Observable Science of watching the universe expand and die a heat death is compatible with the established Laws of Thermodynamics: the universe is dying, so it is not eternal. Scriptures claimed this 2000yrs ago: Romans 8:20-22. This quoted from, "All About Science" sums it up well. And to put the nails in the coffin we have, The Law of Cause and Effect (Causality Principle), states that: “Every effect must have a cause of equal or greater power which existed before the event." Put it all together based upon Historical Science, and Observable Science, using the most established Laws of Science, and you have this: Since the very laws of Science were established at the moment of the Big Bang (time, matter and space), and every effect requires a cause that precedes that effect, with equal or greater power, there must, by the very proof of Science, have been a Source which was (Outside of the Box of Creation)—outside of the natural laws of science, and actually responsible for creating them (not natural, but Supernatural), before the laws of science, including time itself (timeless or Eternal), with a power equal to or greater than all of the matter and energy in the universe (all Powerful and Intelligent)—scientifically speaking, this is an objective, insurmountable truth: Genesis 1:1. Dr. Robert Jastrow (1925-2008), an American astronomer, planetary physicist, NASA scientist, popular author, and proclaimed agnostic, put the evidence this way: "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." Dr. Jastrow agrees with the conclusions of Einstein—there is no other scientific explanation, but God. Yet we the Christians are deemed as those who live by faith.
Next, consider this: If the universe could have come from nothing, against all known laws of science—without a Creator—look at the possibility of an unguided explosion creating the universe as we know it, capable of supporting life. This is known as the Anthropic Principle. This Principle states that the Laws governing the Universe had to be within precise and constant parameters of extreme fine-tuning, or life would be impossible anywhere. Here are just a few of those unimaginable requirements: if the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent (37 zeros!), our sun would not exist. (Oxygen level, Atmospheric Transparency, Earth-Moon Gravitational interaction, Carbon Dioxide level, Centrifugal force precisely balanced with gravity, Water vapor level in atmosphere, Planet like Jupiter, as a cosmic vacuum cleaner for asteroids & comets, Thickness of earth's crust, Speed of rotation and orbit, Earth's tilt of 23°, Location in the galaxy, Size of galaxy, Land to water ratio, Reflectivity of the planet surface, Balance of magnetic field). To put this into proper perspective, let's hear from one of the most unlikely, therefore powerful sources. [See Dr. Penrose calculation= This is a scientific analysis, by a hostile witness to Creationism, stating the chance of a universe accidentally supporting life is mathematically impossible—yet he chooses to believe it].
Now let's still assume that we go against the very laws of science to suggest that the universe did create itself and the laws to govern itself accidentally, and that those laws were perfectly fine-tuned to support life against all possible scientific and mathematical reason. The next massive, foundational necessity of evolution is the need for life to suddenly appear from nonlife—with no cause or intelligence behind it. This was no problem in Darwin's day when the cell was considered a simple glob of material in which life was molded. But with the discoveries in the last generation of the unimaginable complexity of a single cell—we now see the absurdity of this thought. One single cell, we now know, is a complex city in itself, containing massive amounts of DNA (discovered in 1953). DNA in a single cell, is estimated to contain enough information to fill well over 1000 books of 500 pages a piece (protects, creates energy, moves things around). Each of your trillions of cells, contains a complete blueprint to build you. These cells do not magically contain the ability to build life. The DNA contains a literal language that gives instructions to be followed in building life. That means there must be a literal forming and understanding of a coded language in your cells. Within a single cell is the ability to decipher the written code of language, and build life according to the instructions. The cell's ability to read code is what makes life, but that life which produced the code is only able to exist because it was built by the code. Do you see the incredible impossibility this presents for evolution? To really drive it home, is the fact there has never been a single example in history where information came by natural and unguided processes. Information always requires an intelligent source in known science. Not to mention the machines necessary to read the information and to carry information, and build according to the information. Of which are extremely complex in and of themselves—all having to be present at one time, for the simplest single cell to be present. Again, this screams the absurdity of accidental, unguided mutations one at a time, creating anything. If you feel we are oversimplifying this too much, you are right (due to the time), but to go deeper would hurt the case for evolution even more. As we see crazy-specific details on even the most minute instruction such as when to pause, when to fold, etc. in the building process of proteins. [Maybe this is why science is still not one step closer to understanding or creating life from nonlife, than they were 50 years ago.] And yet all of evolution is built on this foundation. Psalm 139:14-16.
The last, but incredibly misunderstood and powerful thing we will look at, is the supposed evolution of existing creatures. The main engine of evolution is the random, mutational insert of new information into DNA, which produces advantageous results in the new creature, allowing it to out-survive the inferior model, or change into something entirely new, and go on to procreate. The only problem with this is that every mutation ever witnessed or produced has only occurred due to a loss or reordering of existing information—there has never been one single example of new information introduced. For example: A wolf is considered to be the father of most all of the dog family. Many, many species of dogs can come from a loss or a restructuring of the DNA of a wolf (such as a French bulldog). But they all occur from losing or rearranging existing information—never producing a new family, just a species. And each new species loses the ability to go back to something better because the lost information can never be retrieved: less information = inferior genetics. A bulldog can never go back to being a wolf, therefore it is the opposite of evolution, it is devolution. Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest occur due to devolution, not evolution. Microevolution is always the result of lost or rearranged genes. The result always being a slightly modified or inferior version of the original—which may help in some circumstances (hair length, etc.), but will never create something that wasn't already available in the DNA of the host. If evolution requires literally zillions of tiny mutations involving an increase in information, such as a reptile becoming a bird—scales to feathers—we would by necessity have to see tiny increases in information within the DNA of existing animals everywhere. Somewhere—there are none! Genesis 1:24.
 Years ago, Richard Dawkins was asked to give just one single example of increased information in through genetic mutation or an evolutionary process of any kind—he couldn’t give even one. Years later he was asked about the seemingly intelligent design being uncovered in recent research on the movie, "Expelled". This time he answered, that another civilization in space which evolved by purely accidental means, may have become so intelligent, they designed a form of life to "seed" here on earth, and that we might find evidence of this because of the details in the "signature" of our DNA. One of the leading evolutionists, and condemners of Christianity can now believe that we were, "created" by aliens, but not God. Why? Belief in aliens does not require giving up his life to a Creator. How did life naturally become even more intelligent somewhere else, if he sees the need for intelligence here? And in actuality, we as a human race are even showing a steady decline in the integrity of our DNA instead. As each generation inherits more and more defects in their gene pool than the previous generation—accumulating with each successive generation. This is why we have to marry farther out from close relatives than in the past (due to similar defects in related DNA). So, going in reverse through history, what would happen to each previous generation? Less and less mistakes. Until what? We find perfect DNA.
Based upon modern science, WHO is following blind faith and misplaced hope? Colossians 1:15-17.