"The concept of an unbroken line from molecule to man, on the basis of only time plus chance, leaves these crucial questions of how and why unanswered."

Francis Schaeffer

CREATIONISM THEORY OF ORIGINS DESERVES TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING

By Jordan Lorence

Staff Attorney with ÔConcerned Women for AmericaÕ

The creation theory of life's beginnings deserves a fair hearing.

Many scientists today have marshalled evidence to show that creationism is a scientifically plausible alternative to the theory of evolution.

I am not a scientist. I cannot adequately evaluate all the scientific evidence on both sides of the debate. But to me, evolution suffers some major philosophical problems and logical contradictions that creationism does not share. In sum, creationism makes more sense than evolution.

Evolution is a theory that all life gradually developed by chance from a single cell, which developed earlier from non-living matter. Creationism is a theory that all forms of life came into existence suddenly by the work of a supernatural creator.

Both evolution and creationism are theories, which means they can never be totally proven or disproven. No person was around when the universe began, so no one can say for certain what happened at the beginning of the world. All scientists can do is sift through the evidence and make educated guesses about what happened long ago.

The first problem with evolution is that it attributes the existence of complex forms of life to such simple forces as "chance, Ò and Òsurvival of the fittest.Ó Creationism does not share this weakness. It makes more sense to say, for example, that the complexities of the human brain were created by an intelligent creator, rather than to say they evolved by chance, even allowing for billions of years of mutations and change.

Apply this contrast to a different setting. Imagine two people walking through a forest. One is a creationist: the other is an evolutionist. They spy a wrist watch lying on the trail. The creationist says, ÒSomeone must have dropped this here.Ó The evolutionist says, "millions of years ago, rainwater brought metal ores down from the mountains to this trail. They formed into a crude watchband and set of hands. Then a bolt of lightning hit the randomly formed battery and started the watch ticking.Ó

Which hiker gives the more plausible story about the watch?

Faced with the intricate forms of life on this planet, I think it takes more ÒfaithÓ to believe all life evolved by chance than to believe that a master designer created it. Or, to say it another way, a system built on chance or random selection overwhelmingly results in chaos and disorder, not complexity. Only a superior, creative intelligence can conceive and make form and order. When I see a towering skyscraper in a city, I attribute its form and beauty to the creative powers of its architect and workmen. When I see a massive pile of rubble and bricks in the next lot, I attribute it to the random collisions of the wrecking ball. When I dump a basket of laundry on my bed, the socks and underwear never come out neatly folded, unless I've folded them myself beforehand.

Now, I've read articles written by evolutionists who disagree with the above argument. Essentially, they argue that the sun has supplied additional energy to the biosystem of the earth. This added energy from the sun meant that life could overcome disorder and evolve into higher, more complex forms.

This does not salvage the theory of evolution. Injecting raw energy randomly into a biosystem does not automatically create more complex forms of life. A master designer must direct the energy, or it does no good.

See this point another way. Imagine a pile of bricks. The bricks do not make themselves into building by pouring gasoline on them and lighting a match. The energy must be channeled to place the bricks in cement, and place them together in an orderly fashion. Energy accidentally flung on something does not make it into a more advanced life form.

Another problem with the theory of evolution is that it asserts three incredibly important conclusions, yet offers little evidence to support or explain them. The three conclusions are:

1) That something came out of nothing,

2) that life came out of non-life, and

3) that human life came out of non-human life.

If there is no creator, why is there anything at all in the universe, rather than nothing? Why do we exist? Why does anything exist?

If there is no creator, then where did evolution's raw materials come from, so that forms of life could evolve? If these raw materials have always existed, where is the proof? Also, to think that the same chemicals that form rocks could somehow turn into amoebas, and then fish, and then mammals, and then man, staggers the imagination, even granting billions of years for all of this to occur.

What changed non-living chemicals into life? What changed animals into humans: A stone is quite different than a fish, and a man is quite different than a fish . How did these things happen? To simply say, "It happened," merely states a conclusion and does not adequately answer the question.

Last, and most importantly, evolution strips human beings of their dignity. If man is merely a random product of chance evolution, then of what value are love, or brotherhood, or self-sacrifice for others, or humility, or art or music or morals or anything else that makes mankind distinctive? They are all irrelevant for the only realities in the universe are chance and the survival of the fittest.

If we really are only the random collusion of impersonal molecules, then we humans are greatly to be pitied. We have personhood in an impersonal universe. We have creativity in a universe with no creator and where creativity means nothing. We have culture and morals in a universe that is mostly a vacuum.

Why is slavery or genocide or oppression ÒwrongÓ if we are only the product of the chance clumping together of atoms in an amoral universe? The mushrooms under our feet or the moss on the rock function better in the universe of evolution than mankind, because they don't have any of those extraneous human nonessentials.

Creation gives significance to mankind. We humans are significant, capable of meaningful feelings, thoughts and relationships because we are made in the image of the intelligent creator. To fight for human rights is to fight for the rights of those made in the image of God, not the ÒrightsÓ of insignificant lumps of protoplasm which will quickly disappear into the gut of impersonal evolutionary forces.

Put simply, man means something in creation; he means nothing in evolution. Let creationism have a fair hearing. A robust debate helps truth to emerge. Everyone can critically scrutinize and compare the evidence for the two theories of origins. Also, we may see the theory of life's beginning that gives significance and meaning to our lives as human beings, not despair and darkness.

END QUOTE