The following was the opening salvo for the Creation/Evolution debate with unTheist on BlogTalkRadio’s Atheist versus Theist Radio Hour on Sunday, June 14, 2009 11pmEST. The show was originally planned for one hour but was extended by a half hour. The full audio of this live debate is available at :
-Rev Tony Breeden, aka Sirius Knott
The Origins Argument isn’t about facts. The creationist and the evolutionist have exactly the same evidence: we have the same universe, the same Earth, the same physics, mathematics, rocks, fossils – the same facts. And FACTS are not self-explanatory. Facts must be interpreted… usually according to our pre-existing beliefs and assumptions.
And it’s not about science. There’s plenty of evidence for a Creator, if we’re at least willing to entertain the possibility that He exists! Still, when I announce that I’m a Creationist, some people ask, “How can you reject the same science that put man on the moon?” The irony is that it was a Creationist rocket scientist, Wernher Von Braun, who got us to the moon. He did it without need of evolution.
Many inventions and discoveries and scientific disciplines that were founded were the work of Bible-believing scientists, who didn’t need evolution. The Scientific Method itself is credited to one of these Bible-believing scientists, Sir Francis Bacon, and is based on the idea that we have an orderly universe that may be rationally understood because both it and our minds were designed by a Creator.
It’s about authority: The revealed Word of an infallible, infinite God versus the ever-changing word of fallible, finite men who reject Him and who weren’t there.
The Scientific Method works for the excellent reason that universe we observe is orderly, containing precisely set constants, beautiful mathematics, fine-tuned physics and follows definite laws. The existence of such specified information implies purpose. Why should undirected randomness produce any sort of order, much less useful information precisely tuned for a Just Right universe? Especially when things have a tendency toward disorder. Explosions in print shops don’t produce encyclopedias! Yet it’s not only ordered; for the evolutionist, it’s much worse than that. The state of the universe is exactly what is necessary for human life to exist. We live in the perfect type galaxy of the right shape, on the right piece of the arm of the spiral. Our sun is exactly the right size, color, mass, distance, orbit. This incredible string of Free Lunches goes on and on. Each time, the evolutionist invokes chance because they refuse to allow a Divine foot in the door whether the evidence might allow for it or not.
The Bible claims the cosmos was framed by the word of God. God spoke, and light, life and all the rest came into being at His Word. Frankly, those who object to this as a possibility have already ruled God out as a possibility. In all fairness Even Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog & certainly no friend of religion, conceded that given a Deity, he would have no difficulty in conceiving that where nothing had existed, the universe could suddenly appear out of nothingness, at the volition of that Deity. We also must not forget that a Creator is an artist. Just as Da Vinci didn’t have to paint the Mona Lisa as a baby and then wait for baby Mona Lisa to grow up on canvas, God could create the cosmos with apparent age.
Now, Life does not spring from nonlife, and this also points to Creation. All experiments to prove the viability of chemical evolution so-called have only shown how extremely difficult it would be to accomplish even ON PURPOSE. and how ludicrous that it should have occurred by chance. To get the cell itself… well, the cell has turned out to be a miniature universe all its own, full of incredibly complex, interconnected molecular machines. Six feet of DNA is coiled in each cell and contains more information than all the world’s libraries. Experience teaches us that such ordered information, like the arrangement of notes in a symphony or the letters of a novel, such specified complexity has an intelligent source.
The Bible states that God created plants and animals “after their kind” and told them to be fruitful and multiply “after their kind.” [Gen 1:12,25] To the creationist, this implies variation within fixed limits, which Mendel confirmed in his studies on heredity and which we observe in nature. If you look at Darwin’s finches or dog breeding you can see the potential packed into each created kind: For example, dogs: Be it a wolf, fox, English bulldog or Chihuahua, a dog remains a dog and does not change into anything else. A fruit fly remains a fruit fly, even if it becomes so specialized that it only exists in a certain location. An influenza virus may mutate to beat a vaccine but it remains the flu. Incidentally, it adapts by a loss of genetic information. Evolutionists claim that this sort of limited, horizontal change within a kind is proof of vertical particles-to-people evolution, but nothing in the evidence suggests this. They interpret the data this way because they assume evolution is true to begin with.
The Creationist notes that, Having a common designer, it’s no surprise that many animals are similar and utilize common [homologous] design elements, aesthetic features are repeated, body plans, that sort of thing. And creatures of a more similar appearance and design would have more similar DNA encoding, said encoding being necessary for reproduction of the species after their initial creation
To correct a common misconception, Creationists DO believe in Natural selection, but as a conservative force rather than a creative force. It weeds out harmful adaptations and uses this God-given genetic potential to allow animals to adapt and survive in a Fallen world. But we must point out that Natural selection operates by decreasing genetic information, not by the increases of information and complexity required by evolution. The more specialized an animal becomes the less overall potential survival adaptability it has remaining in its genetic coding. This is what we observe in nature and is consistent with the fossil record.
Stephen Jay Gould noted that “The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism [ie- traditional evolution]: 1. Stasis. Most species appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; A dog is still a dog and recognizably so. 2. Sudden appearance. A species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; by traditional evolution, No, it appears all at once and `fully formed.'” (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
This observation is confirmed in present biology and is consistent with the Creationist theory of variation within fixed created kinds. The dots are only connected in their minds, not in the fossil record nor in observable biology. Rather than seeing new kinds of animals appear, we’re seeing species go extinct! 150 years after the publication of Origins, rather than the innumerable transitional forms predicted by Darwin’s theory, we have only a handful of disputable candidates when our museums should be full of them!
Meanwhile, As Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis puts it, the fossil record evidences billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth. Fish fossilized in the act of eating another fish. Polystratic tree fossils, which run vertically through several strata of rock and therefore… several long ages? Mass graves the world over where dinosaur fossils are jumbled together like so much flotsam after a flood — and little wonder if the Bible is true! The Bible tells of a world-wide Flood in the days of Noah. Everyone knows the story. There are flood legends from nearly every ancient culture confirming this event.
If one accepts the probability of world-wide Flood, it adds credence to the Bible’s claims, and one cannot fail to note that the Bible says this Flood was sent in judgment of man’s sin. Many people are opposed to the very idea of a Creator because it suggests that Man might be accountable to someone else. Again, the Origins Argument isn’t about facts or science; it’s about authority. Who gets to make the rules: God or men?
I have to point out that There IS a universal Moral sense that pervades humanity. Most people call it a conscience.The Bible calls it God’s Law written on our hearts. We know what we ought to do, even if we do otherwise. The presence of a universal Moral Law implies a Law Giver & strongly suggests accountability to that Lawgiver. The ability to ignore or act contrary to our conscience confirms that we have free will. That the Lawgivers will is revealed but not imposed upon us suggests that He values free will, That He wants our willing compliance, That He cares what decision we make.
If so, As the Lawgiver, He would also want to reaffirm His will and make it plain, since our moral sense can be corrupted willfully or passively, through social conditioning for example. God would reveal Himself somehow but in a way that would not impose upon the free will he bestowed upon Man, when he made man in His own image. He’d give us too little evidence to be sure, but too much to deny. The Bible claims to be just such a revelation from the Creator of the cosmos.The Bible has been demonstrated to be historically, archaeologically and – if fulfilled prophecy and the evidence or Christ’s resurrection are taken into account – even supernaturally true.
The Bible also accurately describes the world. The picture given of man is that He has a sin nature, he’s depraved by the Fall of Adam, but he’s also made in God’s image and has a conscious, God’s law written on his heart, so that Man is capable of great evil but also great nobility. The Bible does not deny evil or suffering or promise its adherents unrealistic reprieve from calamity. I could go on. Suffice it to say that the Bible resonates with the human experience.