The theory of evolution can be refuted in two easy steps. Showing that the earth is young, and identifying irreducible complexities. From there, creation may be explored as near-fact, since by the process of elimination, it remains.
I: The Age of the Earth
The earth is young; 20,000
years old at most. The age of the earth can be calculated by the
plethora of processes that occur at a constant and measurable
rate throughout the universe. Therefore, deducing the age of the
earth becomes a simple matter of calculating these processes back
to their origination, and looking for a common trend in their
ages.
Evidence pertaining to the age of the earth can be divided into
two main groups; terrestrial and astronomical.
The earth holds much evidence as to its age, and it is also a
natural place to begin the quest for discovering how old it is.
"Clocks" are the primary indicators of the age of the
earth. A "clock" refers to a process or system which
occurs steadily and measurably, thereby giving the relative age
of the earth.
One of the most significant "clocks" in the creation-evolution
debate is that of the "lunar dust model". Cosmic dust
settles on the moon at a rate of ten-millionths of an inch per
year. Based on the assumptions of evolutionists that the universe
is 5 billion years old, the moon should be uniformly covered in
a layer of dust approximately 54-feet deep. (Bierle, 46)
On July 21, 1969, over 600 million people watched astronaut Neil
Armstrong walk onto the moon. The transcript of Armstrong's words
as he stepped onto the moon are instructive:
I am at the foot of the ladder. The LM [lunar module] footpads are only depressed in the surface about one or two inches, although the surface appears to be very, very fine grained, as you get close to it. It is almost like a powder. Now and then it is very fine. I am going to step off the LM now. That is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.(Bierle, 46)
Moments later while taking his first steps on the lunar surface, he noted:
The surface is fine and powdery. I can - I can pick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers like powdered charcoal to the sole and sides of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine sandy particles.(Bierle, 46)
And a little later, while picking up samples of rocks and fine material, he said:
This is very interesting. It is a very soft surface, but here and there where I plug with the contingency sample collector, I run into a very hard surface, but it appears to be very cohesive material of the same sort. I will try to get a rock in here. Here's a couple.(Bierle, 46)
The age of the moon, when calculated
using the rate at which cosmic dust settles on it, comes out to
be approximately 10,000 years old! The scientists at NASA were
astounded at the lack of dust, although no speculation was voiced
publicly in defense of their calculations. The moon-dust is currently
one of the greatest black boxes in evolutionary theory, which
states that the earth is about 5 billion years old.
The dirt on the moon's surface does not show the amount of soil
mixing it should, if the moon were very old. Short-term radioactive
isotopes (uranium 236 and thorium 230) have been found in collected
moon rocks. These isotopes do not last long and rather quickly
turn into lead. If the moon were even 50,000 years old, these
short-life radioisotopes would long since have decayed into lead.
The moon cannot be older than several thousand years (McGee).
The moon is already far too close to the earth. It is now known
that due to tidal friction, it is gradually moving farther away
from the earth. Based on the rate of recession, the moon cannot
be very old. If it were even 20,000 to 30,000 years old, it would
at some earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen
into the earth (McGee).
The radioactive decay of thorium and uranium takes place in the
earth's crust. Through this process, alpha particles are given
off to become helium. Based upon the rate by which helium is released,
the atmosphere would have received the current amount present
in it within 40,000 years. "There is no known means of escape
of significant amounts of helium from the atmosphere" (Bierle
46). According to this dating method, the earth must be young.
Also within the earth's crust are pockets of water, gas and oil
under high pressure in relatively porous rock. The rates at which
they out leak have been measured in numerous places. Based upon
this rate of leakage, the fluid pockets should have dropped in
pressure much more than current data shows. Thus, the high pressure
of these substances can only be reckoned if they were trapped
suddenly and recently. (Bierle, 47)
Perhaps the largest black box that Darwin's theory has gotten
itself into is the "Geological Column." According to
fundamental evolutionary theory, the earth's crust should consist
of distinct layers, which individually mark the periods of evolutionary
progress. Thus each layer would represent millions of years.
The age names, such as Cambrian, that are given to rock strata
depend on the fossils found there. The order of the geological
names is, therefore, the supposed order of a set of index fossils,
based on the assumed order of the evolution of life, while evidence
of life is then said to be shown by the order of the fossil index.
This is circular reasoning, and can in no way be called science.
(Taylor, 103)
However, geologists almost always find fossils in the wrong stratigraphic order, in reference to the Geologic Column. The best reckoning available for the distribution of fossils seen in the strata, is that something caused the fossils to be completely interspersed with each other, in patterns completely devoid of evidence indicating evolutionary formation. One explanation for such distribution is a worldwide flood.
It has been calculated that 300 to 1,000 years are required to build one inch of topsoil. Yet the average depth of topsoil is about eight inches. On this basis, the earth could only be a few thousand years old. (Williams)
The earth should have already yielded transitional fossil forms described in Darwin's theory. But such evidence does not exist. Evolutionists maintain that it takes 100- million years to evolve a fish. Therefore, there ought to be thousands of transitional forms, halfway between the fish and what it evolved from. For example, evolutionists teach that a land animal, such as a cow, went into the ocean and changed into a whale. But that would mean there ought to be thousands of intermediate species between the two. However such creatures are not found in the fossil record or in the oceans today.
"Because of solar and lunar gravitational drag forces, the spin of the earth (now about 1,000 mph [1,609 km/h]) is gradually slowing down"(Williams).
If the world were billions of years old, it would already have stopped turning. Or, calculating differently, a billion years ago earth would have been spinning so fast-it would have become a pancake. So, either way, the earth cannot be even a million years old.
Comets consist mainly of ice and dust. The visible tail is merely a trail of fine dust particles hit by scattered rays of light. On average, ten tons of dust must be released by the comet every second in order for their tails to be seen. So typically, comets disintegrate rapidly (i.e. about 10,000 years). Those who hold to "old-age evolution" say that comet were formed at the same time as the solar system, and there is no known way for new comets to be created in numbers that would offset those that are disappearing. Haley's comet, for instance, is estimated to have an icy center of about five miles in diameter. At the rate which it sheds dust, it could only survive 10,000 years at the longest. There are similar comets which also should have dissipated within that amount of time. The presence of the six hundred comets that have currently been identified is not comprehensible.
Small and medium rocks circling the sun are gradually drawn by gravity into the sun. Careful analysis reveals that most would have been absorbed within 10,000 years, and all within 50,000 years. There is no known source of rock or particle replenishment.
The earth's magnetic field has been measured since 1835, to be steadily decreasing at the rate of about five-percent every 100 years. "There is an upper limit to when [magnetic decay] began because the electric current within the earth dissipates heat" (Bierle, 47). 20,000 years ago, the heat generated by the core would have exceeded the tolerance for surface life to exist. This clock cannot allow for an earth older than 20,000 years at the most.
The growth of the human population is
another clock by which the earth's age can be ascertained. If
humanity really is 3.5 million years old [according to the developmental
stages of evolution], then today's world population can be predicted
by use of a mathematical formula and selecting likely data. For
example, with a modest estimate of 2.2 children per average family,
an equally modest average generation life span of 22 years, and
parents never living long enough to see their grandchildren, then
the world population would have grown from a single family to
10^2070 (one followed by 2,070 zeroes!) people alive at the same
time at the end of the first million years. This number is so
large that our entire universe could contain only a small fraction
of them, stacked shoulder to shoulder! (Taylor 337-38).
Conversely, the current population of the world is well within
the limits of the mathematical formula, assuming four couples
survived a Genesis-level flood about 5,000 years ago. Even without
determining whether Noah and his family would fit the bill, it
is clear that the human population could not have existed for
more that about 20,000 years at the very most.
One type of galaxy in outer space is the star cluster. There are many of them, and within each one are billions of stars. Some of these clusters are moving so rapidly that it would be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old (McGee). Most stars in the disk of galaxies are binary stars (two stars revolving about one another). Yet frequently, one is classified as very old and the other very young. This cannot be (McGee)!
The Sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate. It is occurring fast enough that as little as 50,000 years ago, the sun would have been so large that the oceans would have boiled. In far less time in the past (25,000 years or so), all life on earth would have ceased to exist (McGee).
High surface temperatures on Venus (900 degree F) combined with additional surface features support a young age for Venus. If the planet was 4 billion years old, as taught by the theory of evolution, its dense atmosphere should have worn away all the craters long ago (McGee).
Only a few thousand years of the type of harsh dust storm weather occurring on Mars should have seriously eroded its many craters and volcanoes. Long-term erosion should also have obliterated the strong color differences on the surface. The small amount of water on Mars should long ago have been split apart into hydrogen and oxygen by solar ultraviolet rays. The hydrogen should have escaped and the oxygen should be in the atmosphere. However, this has not occurred. (McGee)
If mankind had been living on earth for millions of years, there ought to be records extending back at least 500,000 years. (Evolutionists claim that man has been here for a million years.) But, instead, records only go back to about 2000-3500 BC When writing began, records were fully developed. The earliest dates are Egyptian (Manetho's king lists), but should be reduced for several reasons. Well-authenticated Egyptian dates only go back to 1600 BC. The oldest writing (pictographic Sumerian) is dated at about 3500 BC. (Williams)
II: The Irreducible Complexity
The major downfall of the theory of evolution is that it assumes complex and orderly systems can come about through chaos and chance. However, within biological macroevolution, a fatal error arises which is not possible to justify by any stretch of the imagination. There are certain systems and life processes, which are impossible to derive through modifications of a previously existing system. Darwin himself realized that the existence of such complexities would spell certain doom for his theory:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin).
"In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function" (Behe, 59).
A prime example of an irreducibly complex (IC) system is a mousetrap.
It contains 5 interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system. (Behe, 68)
Thus, "IC" systems cannot come about in a gradual manner.
All the components must be there, or the system will be futile, and will cease to exist for lack of functionality. What is important to realize is that there are many IC systems within the biological realm. In fact, almost every living organism has some irreducible complexity! "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world" (Dennett, 41).
Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against. (Behe, 67)
The cardio-vascular system is another example of an IC system. The lungs must always be present to take in oxygen and process it. The heart must exist to transfer the blood, which is the medium for the oxygen. The blood vessels must always exist in order to distribute oxygen throughout the body.
The eye is one of the most profoundly complex irreducible complexities. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I frankly confess absurd in the highest degree" (Darwin, 35).
Hand in hand with irreducible complexities are the "impassible gulfs" of evolution. Essentially, they are leaps that organisms make from simplicity to complexity. In reality, they are a series of contradictions to the second law of thermodynamics; impossible, yet necessary for macroevolution to occur. Some of the gulfs are:
1. Between the living and non-living or dead matter;
2. Between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms;
3. Between the invertebrates and the vertebrates;
4. Between marine animals and amphibians;
5. Between amphibians and reptiles;
6. Between reptiles and birds;
7. Between reptiles and mammals;
8. Between mammals and the human body;
9. Between soulless simians and the soul of man, bearing the image of God. (Williams)
The last gulf is very critical to note, because it is the difference of mankind having a purpose, or just being a soulless accident. Irreducibly complex systems are absolute in their authority, leaving the "theory" of evolution completely indefensible!
III. Creation- Sudden or Slow?
With evolution disproved due to a lack of time and irreducible systems, the spotlight turns towards Creation. It is implied that "creation" involves a "creator." In most cases, this creator is assumed to be the God of the Bible, since the biblical account of creation is the only such account that stands up to objective scientific scrutiny. There are four different groups of creationism beliefs, which must be differentiated in order to isolate the most-biblical viewpoint.
Old universe, old earth, old life: This view is commonly held by theistic evolutionists, or those who claim Christian beliefs regarding Jesus Christ but do not accept Genesis as a straightforward account of the beginning of all things. This model accepts ancient ages based on man's knowledge of science and the laws science is aware of today. This is the compromise position, basically, between creation and evolution. When there is seeming opposition between the Bible and current science, science wins and the Bible is considered either incorrectly translated or incorrectly understood.
Although God is acknowledged in this model, He is generally relegated to the position of "clockmaker" in an almost deistic fashion; He set up the universe and life and established the laws by which it has run ever since. This view is the least biblically based of the four.
The second view is "old universe, old earth, recent life."
This position is held by those who subscribe to what is often referred to as the "Gap Theory" of Genesis, wherein it is believed that the universe and the earth are quite old, but that, at one point or another, and for one reason or another, the early earth was either destroyed and re-created or simply held in abeyance until the creation of recent life. This is the official, or semi-official doctrine of some churches. It is probably the least common of the four views.
The third view is "old universe, young earth, recent life." This position, not as commonly held, considers the universe to be old, but earth itself, and, subsequently life, to be young. This is also the position of some parts of Christianity.
The last and most-prevalent view is "young universe, young earth, recent life." This is the classic Christian model, which is so widely disputed by those of the evolution camp. In this model the entire universe, including, of course, the earth and all life, is less than 10,000 years old. This is in keeping with the most straightforward reading of the Genesis account in combination with the lists of generations in Genesis 5, 10 and 11.
The young earth and young life view of creationism will be compared with its closest relative, the long-day creation theory.
People who believe in the long-day theory think that the days of creation described in Genesis 1 represent a large amount of time, somewhere in the ballpark of 3.5 5 billion years, to be exact. These people would say that God used evolution to bring about His creation. They base their interpretation of the days being "long," on II Peter 3:8, "with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" But this verse is taken out of its proper context and meaning. Peter is talking about the end times, which God uses many figurative words to talk about. Moreover, almost every time the Bible talks about days (the Hebrew word "Yom"), it is referring to the 24-hour unit of time, which we call a "day."
It seems like, in anticipation of future misunderstanding, God carefully defined His terms! The very first time He used the word `day' (Hebrew `yom'), He defined it as the `light,' to distinguish it from the `darkness' called `night.'
Having separated the day and night, God had completed His first day's work. `The evening and the morning were the first day.'
This same formula is used at the conclusion of each of the six days; so it is obvious that the duration of each of the days, including the first, was the same. Furthermore, the `day' was the `light' time, when God did His work; the darkness was the `night' time when God did no work--nothing new took place between the `evening' and `morning' of each day.
And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Better, `day one.' Later Jewish reckoning began the day with eventide (Lev. 23:32). This may be the reason for the order here, or it may simply mean that one day-night cycle was completed. Since daytime closes at evening and the night ends with the morning, the phrase indicates that the first day and night had been completed. Evening and morning cannot be construed to mean an age, but only a day; everywhere in the Pentateuch the word `day,' when used (as here) with a numerical adjective, means a solar day (now calibrated as 24 hours).
The vulgate translates Genesis 1:5b as, "factumque est vespere et mane dies unus"
That literally translates to, "and evening had been made, and morning had been made, day one." Day one would not be able to work if "day" was referring to an age. It seems to be specifically indicating the first 24-hour period.
Following the six days of creation and God's sanctification of the seventh day of rest, a shift of focus begins:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens" (Genesis 2:4)
"Here Moses used the word "day" as a coverall to apply to the previous six days of creation. But how can one 24-hour day equal six 24-hour days? This is not a problem in semantics; this is a math problem!" (orisol,8). However, the Hebrew word in this passage is not the word "day" (yom), but rather "generation" (toledah). According to Hebraic lexicons, the word toledah always pertains to a long time period, never to such a short span as a mere week. And since the word is plural, it is certain that "generations" must refer to multiple periods of time, each of which are longer than a calendar week.
If Genesis 2:4 is taken literally, the entire creation event from day one through six is defined by the author of Genesis as a sequence of long periods of time, not a sequence of 24-hour days. Furthermore, those time periods need not be equal in length.
In everyday English usage, just as in Hebrew, the word "day" is used frequently for varying amounts of time. Here is a quick illustration:
A wife greets her husband at the door as he comes home from work, eager for the supper she has prepared. "How was your day?" she asks.
"It was awful," he complains, "I had to work the whole day, I didn't even have time for lunch."
Obviously the man did not work for 24-hours strait! Context surrounding a word determines its meaning, not the word taken in isolation. It's commonsense.
On the first day God created light, yet the sun, moon, and stars were not visible until the fourth day. This is no problem to a creation taking roughly 12 billion years to unfold. It would be some 7-10 billion years after the inception, commonly known as the hot big bang, or simply the Big Bang, which brought not only light, but heat and noise as well, before the sun would form and switch on eventually to become our energy and light source. Prior to that, the earth was "formless and void," and darkness prevailed according to Genesis 1:2.
So there is a possibility that when God created light on the first day, there was a significant portion of time that elapsed in order for the stars light to become visible to earth.
At the beginning of day six, the Lord creates "cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth" (Gen. 1:24). Adam and Eve were created before God rested on the Sabbath Day. "Had that sixth day of Creation been a 24-hour day, it would have been absolutely jam packed with activity. First, God made land animals. That is the easy part" (orisol, 8). In Genesis 2:20, Adam has to name them all, that is: all "cattle, all the fowl of the air and every beast of the field."
If that sounds like a large task for one day, consider this: In the young-earth creationist's model, death does not occur in the world, even among the animals of the world, until Adam commits Original Sin. The species of animals that exist today comprise less than 1% of what has inhabited this planet since it began. Over 99% of all the species which once roamed the earth are now extinct.
"Why, it would have been a sight to behold! Turtles and giant sloths would have galloped by like cheetahs and gazelles. Adam would have been chanting out names like a Tennessee auctioneer. Keep in mind, he also would have been cultivating the garden in his spare moments (Gen. 2:15)" (orisol, 8).
It must have required some years, or at the very least, a considerable number of months for Adam to complete this comprehensive inventory of all the birds, beasts, and insects that populated the Garden of Eden.
In Genesis 2:23 Adam exclaims, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh ..."
The word "now" in this passage is the Hebrew happa'am, usually translated "now at length" or "at last." This term would be appropriate after a long wait or a lengthy search, but not if Eve had been presented to him only a few hours after he was created. (Orisol,8)
Thus Adam's words seem to implicate an extended period of time, not restricted to 24-hours. "For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it passes by" (Psalm 90:4a)
Although controversial, that passage does relay a sense that God does not operate on man's timescale. Whether it applies directly to the Genesis account of creation is still debatable.
In summary:
1. The Hebrew word yom has a number of meanings which allow a time of long duration to be an appropriate application of the word "day" without any stretching of the credibility of Scripture.
2. If the sun's appearance is not until the fourth day, it could not have been used as a means of measuring the length of that one or the previous three days.
3. The sixth day of creation is too loaded with events to be stuffed into 24 hours.
4. It is said that God's time is not to be confused with man's time.
The days of creation may represent longer periods of time than literal days. Yet if they do, it is not because God couldn't have created everything to the same level of perfection in 6 literal days. It is only because God wanted to bring glory to Himself. It is not as important to know whether the days of creation are literal or not, as it is to know that God had the power to create everything as quickly as He wanted to.
According to God's Word, the Bible, the sun did not always light the earth. It wasn't made till Day 4 of Creation Week, while the earth was created on Day 1. This refutes ideas like 'God used evolution' and 'God created over billions of years', because they all assert that the sun arose before the earth. At has been suggested that, for the first three days of existence, the earth was lit by the light created on Day 1. The day/night cycle was caused by the earth's rotation relative to this directional light source. Thus there is potential for a day to still have been defined even before the sun came along in day four. To conclude the investigation into the length of the days of creation, there is not enough evidence to make a sound judgment one way or another.
Despite how long the actual days took, there is absolutely no Biblical precedent or evidence to suggest that God used evolution as a "tool" by which to create living things. The entire theory of evolution is completely opposite to God's personality. Man was "fearfully and wonderfully made" by God (Psalm 139:14). Clarity must be maintained between the amount of time God chose to take, and the means by which He created.
The theme of the creation is that God spoke and it was so. There is absolutely no room for interpreting, and construing His spoken Word into any form of evolutionary initiator!
Since evolution can be completely debunked by scientific proof and sound reason, there ought not be any debates any more. The public schools and institutions should open their doors, and embrace creationism as the one that withstood the test of time! However, the solution isn't as easy as it should be. The majority of the world has accepted evolution blindly, clinging to fickle verisimilitudes acquired in the misguided education systems of the present day. It must therefore become the responsibility of those who know the truth, to spread the news to all parts of the earth, and end the reign of incredulous science once and for all!
As science advances more and more, it will become increasingly difficult to hide the overwhelming evidence supporting creationism and refuting evolution. There will come a point when a decision will be made: Suppress the truth and continue spreading the falsehoods of evolution, or reveal the life-changing truth that gives all men hope. There is a Creator; All men are fearfully and wonderfully made; There is a Redeemer!
Posted April 19, 2002.