A fact is something that exists beyond question. It is an actuality, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence. A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory. In a September 30, 1986 article of the New York Times there was an published article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol. His contention is that if evolution were taught in the public schools as the theory it is rather than as the fact it isn’t, there would not be the controversy that now rages between evolution and creationism.
Kristol stated: “There is also little doubt that it is this pseudoscientific dogmatism that has provoked the current religious reaction.”“Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae (gaps).
Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. …The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”Some think that belief in evolution is based upon fact, while belief in creation is based upon faith. Yes it’s true that no man has seen God. But the theory of evolution holds no advantage in this regard, since it is founded upon events that no humans have ever witnessed or duplicatedFor example, scientists have never observed mutations, even beneficial ones that produce new life forms, yet they are sure that this is precisely how new species arrived. They have not witnessed the spontaneous generation of life; yet they insist that this is how life began.
How did life begin? This question has stirred more speculation and ignited more debate. Yet the controversy is not simply over evolution versus creation. Much of the conflict takes place among the evolutionists themselves. Virtually every detail of evolution, how it happened, where it started, who or what started it, and how long the process took is disputed.
Time magazine suggests “Life did not arise under calm, benign conditions, as once assumed,” “but under the hellish skies of a planet racked by volcanic eruptions and menaced by comets and asteroids. For years evolutionists claimed that life began in a warm pool of organic soup. Some now believe that foam in the ocean could have bred life. Undersea geysers are another proposed site of life’s origin. Some suggest that living organisms arrived on earthbound meteors or perhaps asteroids smashed into earth and changed the atmosphere, stirring up life in the process. . Plow a big iron asteroid into earth, and you will certainly get interesting things happening. To think also that an extraordinary being like man emerged out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water that was struck by lightening is the real myth. The basic unit of living things is the cell, and the basic material that makes up a cell is protein. Evolutionists acknowledge that the probability of the right atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is about 1 in 10113, or 1 followed by 113 zeros. In other words, it takes 10113 chances for the event to occur once. But any event that has one chance in 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
However, far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life to occur. For a cell to maintain its functions, some 2,000 different proteins are needed. What, then, is the probability of all of these happening at random? It is estimated that the chance is 1 in 1040,000, or 1 followed by 40,000 zeros! Are you willing to rest your faith on such an outrageously remote probability? I’m not.
If the chance is so remote for a cell to come into existence by accident, it would be even more so for the cell to evolve into the great variety of complicated living things. The fact is that between humans and beasts, there are differences far greater than the obvious physical ones. Man is endowed with a conscience; he has feelings, aesthetic values, moral concepts, thinking ability, and reasoning powers. Animals do not possess these capabilities. If man evolved from the animals, why is there such a huge gulf between them? This is another problem for the evolutionists. In contrast to the illogical and unscientific evolution theory, is creation. The marvelous structure of our human body testifies to the existence of a creator. A close look at a tiny living cell will help us to understand why. Our body is made up of about 100 trillion tiny cells. The complexity of each living cell can be likened to that of a city with its many operations, such as power generation, management, transportation, and defense. In addition, the cell’s nucleus contains tens of thousands of genes in the intricately arranged DNA. It is said that our DNA contains enough information to fill an encyclopedia of 1,000 volumes. All this information constitutes a genetic blueprint and determines our skin color, hair type, stature, and countless other details of our body. If all construction blueprints require meticulous design, then who designed the complex genetic blueprint in our body? Could this have come from mutations that are harmful to a species? Could simply having the correct atoms and molecules fall into place at random have formed this marvelous organ? Hardly not!The fossil record reveals that different and very complex life forms appeared suddenly and fully developed. Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters the accepted length? No, there are not. The truth of the matter is as stated at Genesis 1:25: “God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind. And God got to see that it was good.” Yes, very good!The Bible invites readers to do this: “Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isaiah 40:26) Yes, the Bible is saying that a source of tremendous dynamic energy, the Creator caused the material universe to come into existence. This is completely in harmony with modern technology. For this reason alone, the Biblical record of creation merits our deep respect. Ever heard of E=mc2? This is proven scientific fact, that dynamic energy produces matter.
Evolutionists attack the biblical account as unscientific, stating that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. But this is attack is based on the misunderstanding of the biblical creation account where the creative days are concerned. Many consider the word “day” used in Genesis chapter 1 to mean 24 hours. However, in Genesis 1:5 God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion “day.” In Genesis 2:4 all the creative periods are called one day: “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day (all six creative periods) that God made earth and heaven.”The Hebrew word Yom, translated “day,” can mean different lengths of time. Among the meanings possible, William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies includes the following: “A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . . . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.” This last sentence appears to fit the creative days, for certainly they were periods when extraordinary events were described as happening. It also allows for periods much longer than 24 hours.
Genesis chapter 1 uses the expressions “evening” and “morning” relative to the creative periods. Doesn’t this indicate that they were 24 hours long? Not necessarily. In some places people often refer to a man’s lifetime as his “day.” They speak of “my father’s day” or “in Shakespeare’s day.” They may divide up that lifetime “day”, saying “in the morning or dawn of his life” or “in the evening or twilight of his life.” So evening and morning in Genesis chapter 1 does not limit the meaning to a literal 24 hours.
Day as used in the Bible can include summer and winter, the passing of seasons as stated at Zechariah 14:8. “The day of harvest” involves many days as stated at Proverbs 25:13 and Genesis 30:14. A thousand years are likened to a day in Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, 10. It would seem reasonable that the “days” of Genesis could likewise have embraced long periods of time millenniums. What then, took place during those creative eras? Is the Bible’s account of them scientific? Following is a review of these “days” as expressed in Genesis.
Day No.Creative WorksTexts1Light; division between day and nightGenesis 1:3-52Expanse, a division between waters beneath the expanse and waters above it Genesis 1:6-83Dry land; vegetation Genesis 1:9-134Heavenly luminaries become discernible from earth Genesis 1:14-195Aquatic souls and flying creatures Genesis 1:20-236Land animals; man Genesis 1:24-31Genesis 1:1, 2 relates to a time before the six “days” outlined above. When these “days” commenced, the sun, moon, and stars were already in existence, their creation being referred to at Genesis 1:1. However, prior to these six “days” of creative activity “the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.” (Ge 1:2) Apparently, a swaddling band of cloud layers still enveloped the earth, preventing light from reaching its surface.
When God said on Day One, “Let light come to be,” diffused light evidently penetrated the cloud layers even though the sources of that light could not yet be discerned from the earth’s surface. It seems that this was a gradual process, as is indicated by translator J. W. Watts: “And gradually light came into existence.” (Ge 1:3, A Distinctive Translation of Genesis) God brought about a division between the light and the darkness, calling the light Day and the darkness Night. This indicates that the earth was rotating on its axis as it revolved around the sun, so that its hemispheres, eastern and western, could enjoy periods of light and darkness (Ge 1:3, 4).
On Day Two God made an expanse by causing a division to occur “between the waters and the waters.” Some waters remained on the earth, but a great amount of water was raised high above the surface of the earth, and in between these two there came to be an expanse. God called the expanse Heaven, but this was with relation to the earth, as the waters suspended above the expanse are not said to have enclosed stars or other bodies of the outer heavens (Ge 1:6-8)On Day Three by God’s power the waters on the earth were brought together and dry land appeared, God calling it Earth. It was also on this day that, through no chance factors or evolutionary processes, God acted to superimpose the life principle upon atoms of matter, so that grass, vegetation, and fruit trees were brought into existence. Each of these three general divisions was capable of reproducing according to its “kind.”(Ge1: 9-13).
The divine will concerning luminaries was accomplished on Day Four, it being stated: “God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness.” (Ge 1:16-18) In view of the description of these luminaries, the greater luminary was apparently the sun and the lesser luminary the moon, though the sun and moon are not specifically named in the Bible until after its account of the Flood of Noah’s day (Ge 15:12; 37:9).
Previously, on the first “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” was used. The Hebrew word there used for “light” is ohr, meaning light in a general sense. But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to maohr’, which refers to a luminary or source of light. (Ge 1:14) So, on the first “day” diffused light evidently penetrated the swaddling bands, but an earthly observer could not have seen the sources of that light. Now, on the fourth “day,” things evidently changed.
At Genesis 1:16 the Hebrew verb bara , meaning, “create,” is not used. Instead, the Hebrew verb asah, meaning “make,” is used. Since the sun, moon, and stars are included in “the heavens” mentioned in Genesis 1:1, they were created long before Day Four. On the fourth day God proceeded to “make” these celestial bodies occupy a new relationship toward earth’s surface and the expanse above it. When it is said, “God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth,” this would indicate that they now became discernible from the surface of the earth, as though they were in the expanse. Also, the luminaries were to “serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years,” thus later providing guidance for man in various ways (Ge1:14).
Day Five was marked by the creation of the first nonhuman souls on earth. Not just one creature purposed by God to evolve into other forms, but literally swarms of living souls were then brought forth by divine power. It is stated “God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Pleased with what He had produced, God blessed them and, in effect, told them to “become many,” which was possible, for these creatures of many different family kinds were divinely endowed with the ability to reproduce “according to their kinds.”(Ge 1:20-23).
On Day Six “God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to its kind and the domestic animal according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to its kind,” such work being good, as were all of God’s previous creative works. (Ge 1:24,25).
Toward the end of the sixth day of creative activity, God brought into existence an entirely new kind of creature, superior to the animals even though lower than the angels. This was man, created in God’s image and after his likeness. While Genesis 1:27 briefly states concerning humankind “male and female he God created them,” the parallel account at Genesis 2:7-9 shows that God formed man out of the dust of the ground, blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul, for whom a paradise home and food were provided. In this case God used the elements of the earth in creative work and then, having formed man, He created the female of humankind using one of Adam’s ribs as a base. (Ge 2:18-25) With the creation of the woman, man was complete as a “kind.” (Ge 5:1,2).
God then blessed mankind, telling the first man and his wife: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (Ge 1:28) For humankind and other earthly creatures, God made adequate provision by giving them “all green vegetation for food.” Reporting on the results of such creative work, the bible states: “After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Ge 1:29-31) The sixth day having come to its successful conclusion and God having completed this creative work, “he proceeded to rest on the seventh day from all his work that he had made.” (Ge 2:1-3)Concluding the review of accomplishments on each of the six days of creative activity is the statement, “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning,” a first, second, third day, and so forth. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) Since the length of each creative day exceeded 24 hours, this expression does not apply to literal night and day but is figurative. During the evening period things would be indistinct; but in the morning they would become clearly discernible. During the “evening,” or beginning, of each creative period, or “day,” God’s purpose for that day, though fully known to him, would be indistinct to any angelic observers. However, when the “morning” arrived there would be full light as to what God had purposed for that day, it having been accomplished by that time. All these events agree with science as regards the order of events. Begrudgingly scientists have acknowledged that. Yet scientist have tried to duplicate long hypothesized life coming from a primordial soup. What have been the results? They have still not been able to construct life with in a controlled environment. This is a big blow to endorsers of evolution. Reason on this; if the controlled environment of a lab is the universe in which life is held, and life has to be produced by the use of mathematic laws, logic and controlled environments? Who are the scientists in this role of producing life?So all things considered. Is it logical to base ones belief on an illogical non-mathematical probability, or a belief with a creator of such a magnificent universe and the life that occupies earth? Consider this, if you came across a mansion in the middle of a desert well equipped in every way and stocked with food, would you believe it got there by some chance explosion?Well this is the reasoning of evolutionist. I consider myself a wonderful creation, not a mutation from some prehistoric bacteria. I am not a mistake or something in existence because of chaotic chance. I was the product of intelligent design. I believe in common sense, shouldn’t you?By Eddie Thomas – progeny of a higher sourceBibliography:
Cite this Is Evolution a theory to be taken as fact
Is Evolution a theory to be taken as fact. (2019, Mar 15). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/is-evolution-a-theory-to-be-taken-as-fact/