How can we know what is TRUE?

I thought for the first attempt at a Blog article I would choose an uncontroversial subject to get the proverbial ball rolling…

Have we been told the truth?

But in order to engage in a fruitful exploration about what such truth might be, I think it would be prudent to at least ensure that we agree on the basic definitions of the terms to be used in the discussion. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about what I mean when I use particular words or phrases, so I will begin with some brief dictionary definitions of key words that this discussion will revolve around.

The Oxford English Dictionary (Online) was the source of the following definitions:

Truth: “The quality or state of being true.” (‘The’ Truth) “That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality, a fact or belief that is accepted as true.”

Lie: “An intentionally false statement used with reference to a situation involving deception or founded on a mistaken impression.”

Fact: “A thing that is known or proved to be true, a body of information used as evidence or as a part of a report or news article.”

Evidence: “The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a (legal) investigation or which may be admissible as testimony in a court of law.”

Interpretation: “The action of explaining the meaning of something, the interpretation of data, an explanation or way of explaining data.”

Presupposition: “A thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action, the action or state of presupposing or being presupposed.”

Worldview: “A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.”

Evolution: “The process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier life forms during the history of the earth. The origin and gradual development of life on earth, from primordial base chemicals to more complex molecules, and evolving into present day man, by means of chance and random mutation.” (That life on earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago.)

The Discussion

So having defined the terms to be used for evaluating our subject matter, our discussion will seek to determine whether my Biblically based Christian beliefs about the Origin of Life on Earth, are legitimately contradicted and clearly disproved by what the scientific and academic community believes and promotes, i.e.; Evolution.

I wish to consider whether it is the Scientists or the Bible believing Christians that have the stronger case for their beliefs and opinions about our origins, based on evidence and facts and not simply presuppositions or a particular worldview.

Quote: “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.” Charles Darwin. British Naturalist and author of: ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.’ (1809-1882)

Quote: “Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution.”

Theodosius Dobzhansky – Russian Geneticist & Evolutionary Biologist. (1900-1975)

Quote: “In the beginning Elohiym (God) created the heavens and the earth.”         The Book of Genesis. (The Torah)  Moses (1526-1406BC)

Real Facts or Just Opinions?

Quote: “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing… they believe in anything.” GK Chesterton. British Writer & Philosopher (1874-1936)

Here is an article from a UK daily newspaper that reports on a move by the Government to ‘restrict’ what can be discussed or examined in the science curriculum in state secondary schools with respect to considering the origin of life on earth.

Headline Quote: “Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over Creationists.”

The Observer. Sunday 15^th January 2012

Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.

The Department for education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are “evidence-based views or theories” that run “contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations.”

The British Humanist Association (BHA), which has led a campaign against creationism and a campaign called; “Teach Evolution, not Creationism”, saw 30 leading scientists and educators call on the government to introduce statutory guidance against the teaching of creationism.

Quote: “It is clear that some faith schools are ignoring the regulations and are continuing to teach myth as though it were science.” & “Evolution is fact, supported by evidence from a host of scientific disciplines, and we do a great disservice tour young people if we fail to teach it properly.” Richard Dawkins.

Note: Professor Richard Dawkins has his own website and ‘Science Education’ organisation called: ‘The Richard Dawkins Foundation, in association with the British Humanist Association.’ 

“The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.”

So according to the opinion of the world-renown Zoologist and author Richard Dawkins, Evolution is a proven FACT supported by ‘overwhelming evidence’.    While the Biblical account of the Creation of the heavens and the earth is simply MYTH!

Quote: “Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.” Ashley Montague. Ph.D., D.Sc. D.Litt.

Let’s consider some of the assertions of a supporter of:                               

‘The Theory of Evolution’.

Quote: “Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes around the sun.” Richard Dawkins.

Quote: “Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate the evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” Richard Dawkins.

Quote: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Richard Dawkins.

Quote: “For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria.” Richard Dawkins.

So the statements of this leading believer in Evolution are quite clear and appear to offer no room for discussion or compromise regarding the interpretation of evidence.

But has there actually been any such discussion, or do the scientific community operate a ‘closed shop’ regarding the gathering, the examination and how such evidence is interpreted, or does the prevailing evolutionary pre-suppositional worldview of scientists like Richard Dawkins pre-determine truth?

One has to wonder whether ANY evidence could be produced that would change his mind on the theory of Evolution?

Quotes from: http://www.brainyquote.com

So what do Scientists offer as proof of Evolution?

Example 1: Bacteria ‘Evolves’ resistance to antibiotics.

Quote: “Evolution by Natural Selection is a FACT, as modern medicine knows to its cost.” Dr David Harper (Cambridge) in a letter to the Guardian. March 2012.

“Bacteria and parasites have grown resistant to antibiotics and drugs that were developed in the latter half of the twentieth century, and they have done so by pure Darwinian Natural Selection.”

Question: Does the evidence as Dr Harper and Professor Dawkins assert, support this claim?

The EVIDENCE offered, is that Bacteria is observed to ‘develop’ resistance to antibiotics.

The extraordinary ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics, which are otherwise useful in speeding recovery from some illnesses, has been a hot topic on the minds of doctors, hospital staff, reporters, and the general public for some years. It is also widely promoted as a textbook example of evolution in action.

Such bacteria are studied by some scientists hoping that they will reveal yet unknown processes and PROVE how ‘Molecules-to-Man’ Evolution could have happened.

But is this perhaps yet another example of scientists holding to a presupposition, and rather than undertaking research using generally accepted scientific methodology, are actually just looking for what they already ‘believe’ happens or happened… but then fail to provide any compelling evidence to support this claim?

Question: Are the bacteria really evolving?

It is generally agreed that the mechanisms of Mutation and Natural Selection facilitate bacteria populations to becoming resistant to antibiotics. But as the genetic information or ‘instructions’ to facilitate mutation and adaption is known to already be present in these bacteria, no ‘new’ genetic information is actually required for the change to occur. In fact, such mutation or natural selection may result in defective proteins in the bacteria resulting in a ‘loss’ of their normal functions.

So it is important to remember that to ‘prove’ Evolution has occurred in this instance, one has to provide EVIDENCE that there has been an ‘increase’ in the genetic information and a gain in the functional systems. Such evidence is fundamentally necessary in order to demonstrate that the bacteria might ‘eventually’ evolve into a more complex genetic type, which could ‘eventually’ evolve into man. Remember that the principle assertion of Evolution is one that necessitates an increase in the genetic information, an increase that has the potential to produce everything from functioning arms, legs, eyeballs and of course a brain to name but a few.

So we must ask if there is an increase in the genetic information present in the ‘evolved’ bacteria, because if there is not, then where will it come from? Remember that mutation only changes or reduces the existing genetic information already present, and does NOT increase it, and so cannot be the proof or evidence for Evolution as is often promoted.

Antibiotic resistance in some bacteria is NOT an example of ‘Evolution in Action’, but rather just another example of VARIATION within a bacterial kind.

Mutation and Natural Selection, though widely promoted and believed to be the driving forces of Evolution, in fact only lead to a loss of functional systems, and so antibiotic resistance in some bacteria is just one of the many examples of ‘variation within a kind’. Such variation within a kind would include the ability of the beaks of Finches for example to change in size to adapt to the environment and in particular the type of food source available. Birds even of the same species may have different beak shapes or sizes and so one group may have an advantage over others when different food sources are available, such as nuts and seeds as opposed to insects and berries. 

The Finch itself has not ‘evolved’ because it is still a bird, the beak has not evolved because it is still a beak, but the change is simply a manifestation of a latent characteristic which the genetic information already present may produce by way of adaption, which is sometimes called ‘Survival of the Fittest’. Remember too, that within the human population there is a vast variety of body shapes, sizes and individual abilities, we don’t say that a tall person has evolved from a short one or a strong one evolved from a less strong one.  This is simply variation within a kind… human kind.

Interestingly, bacteria can also become antibiotic resistant by gaining ‘mutated’ DNA from other bacteria, because unlike you and me, it possesses the ability to ‘swap’ its DNA with its environmental ‘neighbours’.

This though is also NOT ‘Evolution in Action’.

Why am I so insistent on this point?

Well, we must always remember that NO new DNA is ‘created’ or ‘generated’ during this process, which would be a fundamental requirement to demonstrate ‘Molecules to Man Evolution’ has occurred.  This biological process may be simply illustrated by imagining someone taking some coins that they have in their left jacket pocket and moving them to their right jacket pocket… the amount and type of coins remains the same, the location of the coins does change, but the process does not make the owner of the jacket any wealthier.

In the presence of exposure to antibiotics, the process of Natural Selection will ‘naturally’ occur, which will favour the survival and reproduction of the mutated bacteria. This is because the mutant bacteria may in this instance be better able to survive in the presence of an antibiotic intended to kill ‘regular’ bacteria, but it will continue to cause illness to patients who may additionally have a reduced ability to resist germs as they are ill, weak or undergoing treatment that may reduce their natural defence mechanisms.

Consequently, although the mutant bacteria may survive in the hospital environment, the change or mutation will have come at a cost. The mutated protein is LESS efficient in performing its ‘regular’ function, making the bacteria LESS strong if it finds itself in an environment without antibiotics. Typically, the original or regular type of non-mutated bacteria, are better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant form.

Conclusion: Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is the result of Mutation or Adaption, but is NOT proof of macro- evolution.

In a recent ‘You-tube’ video presentation titled; “Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children”. A chap called Bill Nye, who for many years has presented a children’s science programme on US PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) has sought to explain how Evolution was undeniable as opposed to Special Biblical Creation, which he said was nonsense.

He has been dubbed; ‘Bill Nye the Science Guy’, but using his notoriety, he chose to express a personal opinion that US parents, and especially Christian parents should not expose their children to Creationism as is taught in the bible, but instead teach them the TRUTH of Evolution.

He said: “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all life science, in all biology. If the grown-ups want to deny Evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them.”

Again, we see how Evolutionists are convinced of the TRUTH of their beliefs to the point of insisting that the ‘case is made’ and Christians for example should not consider or explore alternatives, such as believing the biblical account of the Creation as recorded in Genesis.

But in my pursuit of pursuing ‘critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world’ as Richard Dawkins promotes, we will examine a second example of what many scientists say is evidence for evolution being readily observable in the natural world.

EXAMPLE 2:  ‘The Fossil Record and the Geological Column’.

There will probably not be a single book in any public school or public library in the UK or US, written for the purpose of explaining the origin of life on earth, that does not present both the Fossil Record and the Geological Column, often with detailed and colourful illustrations and photographs, as EVIDENCE of a ‘record’ of how living organisms and man’s family tree evolved over millions of years.

The Geologic Column is generally presented as a graphic representation of the layers of rock that make up the earth’s crust, and which scientists assert is a composite picture or ‘slice’ of earth history and evidence of the 4.5 billion year evolution of life.  The Geologic Column is cited as proof or evidence of progressive biologic evolution and the long age and evolving order of the fossil remains of man’s ancestors in the columns layers.

Interesting, the fundamental features of geological study, namely field work, sample collection and theory construction, did not really develop until the 17^th to 19^th centuries, and the idea that the earth was much older than the bible teaches only really began to be ‘accepted’ in the wider public mind after the publication of books by Charles Lyell and later Charles Darwin, though it had become the predominant ‘Worldview’ by the mid- 20^th century.

At this juncture, it may be appropriate before we explore the progression of Evolutionary Theory through Fossils and Geology, that we clarify the meaning of some terms which are pertinent to this subject.                                                        

Fossils, for example, are the remains of once living plants, insects, birds and animals that were preserved when they were buried in sedimentary material such as mud or ash. The burying may have occurred before or after death, and was usually caused by floods, mudslides, volcanic eruptions and the like, but had to happen quickly in order to preserve the remains, otherwise they would decompose, erode or be eaten by scavengers etc. Contrary to popular belief, it does not require long ages to form a fossil.

The fossil is formed by any one of a number of natural processes, but generally the fossil within the sedimentary rock layer is composed of all or some of the original plant or animal that becomes ‘trapped’, though under certain conditions, the organic material may become trapped in the sediment then decay or dissolve to form a kind of mould or space where mineralised water can later enter and become fossilised.

The Sedimentary Rock layers in which fossils are present are found all over the earths crust and constitute the Geologic Column.  Many geologists assert it is a record of the long ages of gradual progressive evolution of living creatures, but it does not actually form a continuous unbroken ‘laminate’ of sedimentary rock across the continents, in fact the layers are of varying thicknesses, differing heights above and below sea level and often contain fossil ‘types’ in a different order to the ‘classic’ order presented in the text books.

The theory of slow and gradual deposition of the earth’s fossil laden sedimentary layers over millions of years is not actually supported by what is observed by fieldwork and sample collection, because for example, there is very often no ‘topsoil’ or ‘vegetation’ trapped between the column’s layers, and also little sign of ‘erosion’ either, which would be present if there were long periods of time elapsing between the formation of the ‘different’ layers.  Additionally, the presence worldwide of thousands of Polystrate Tree Fossils, that stand isolated and upright, extending metres into the adjoining sedimentary layer that is supposedly tens of thousands of years different in age, calls into question the evolutionary long age theory.

Rather the sedimentary rock layers appear to be a record of one or more major Global Catastrophic Geological Events that rapidly deposited literally thousands upon thousands of feet of sediment, biological debris, plants, fish, insects and animals into a massive worldwide graveyard, sealed as evidence of catastrophe and death. The Fossil Record in the Geologic Column also shows fully formed organisms appearing 'suddenly' in vast numbers, and often disappearing suddenly too! 

The Development of Geology

A Scotsman by the name of James Hutton (172601797) published his geological hypothesis in an article in 1788, followed in 1795 by a two-volume book entitled ‘Theory of the Earth’. He argued that the primary geological agent was fire, not water, and he asserted that the sedimentary rocks were just the result of detrital matter from a previous state of the world being slowly eroded off the continents and carried by rivers to the ocean floor.

Hutton’s view was an early version of Uniformitarianism: ‘Everything in the rock record must and can be explained by present-day processes of erosion, volcanoes and earthquakes occurring at a regular rate throughout earth history’. Interestingly, Hutton paid little attention to the fossils.

The Study of Fossils

In contrast, William Smith (1769-1839) became fascinated with the Fossils and rock layers during his many years of field observations. He published three works from 1815 to 1817 which contained the first geological map of England and Wales and an explanation of the order and relative chronology of the stratigraphic formations as defined by certain characteristic fossils rather than the mineralogical character of the rocks. He became known as the ‘Father of English Stratigraphy’ because he gave Geology a descriptive methodology for assigning relative ages of the various formations. This became critical for the establishment of the theory of an old earth. Though Smith believed that a global flood was responsible for producing the gravel, clay and sands scattered over the earth’s surface, he never explicitly linked this with Noah’s Flood and he believed that all of the sedimentary strata was deposited long before this biblical Flood.

By the end of the 1820’s the major divisions of the geological record were well defined. The Primary Rocks were the lowest and supposedly the oldest, and were predominantly igneous or metamorphic rocks devoid of fossils, whilst the Secondary Rocks were extensively fossiliferous (fossil filled) sedimentary strata and presumed younger.

A massive blow to Catastrophism came in 1830 when Charles Lyell (1797-18750) published his three-volume work, ‘Principles of Geology’. Reviving the ideas of Hutton, Lyell’s principles, he set forth geological methods based on a ‘radical’ Uniformitarianism: ‘Only present-day erosional, sedimentary, volcanic and tectonic processes at present day rates of intensity, frequency and magnitude should be used to interpret past geological activity’.

Lyell’s work had a significant effect on many peoples belief in the account of the Biblical Global Flood, as Lyell basically proposed that the whole geological record was formed by slow gradual processes, thereby reducing Noah’s Flood to a geological ‘non-event’. His theory also expanded the ‘supposed’ length of earth history even more than catastrophists had.       Lyell saw himself as “the spiritual saviour of geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses” (i.e.; the x6 day Creation and Worldwide Flood of Genesis.)

Around the same time, Naturalism became the ‘new’ philosophy in the early 1800’s and two key assumptions were asserted and propagated: (i) Everything in the universe can and indeed must be explained by time, chance and the laws of nature working on matter; and (ii) Natural physical processes have always acted in the same manner, rate and intensity as we see operating today.

These assumptions were to form the basis of Uniformitarian Methodological Naturalism, which took precedence in modern science in the early 19^th century, decades before Charles Darwin published his book; The Origin of Species in 1859. Although many scientists today ‘allow’ for large-scale catastrophes, uniformitarian thinking is still endemic and naturalism is king.

History records that the root or heart of the growing debate about the age of the earth and man’s origins was really a conflict of worldviews, one Theistic and the other Atheistic.

Hutton wrote: “The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.”

Obviously, such a statement ruled out a priori a Creator’s Supernatural Creation of the world in six days and the supernatural, global, year long,  catastrophic Flood.

A little while later, Index Fossils came to play an important role in the development of the Geologic Column. The idea that life became increasingly more complex over time by ‘some’ evolutionary force was used as the presupposition to date the fossils found in the rock layers.

It was assumed that by identifying the order of fossil succession, the layers could be correlated from one region to the next and this ‘technique’ is still used as a major ‘indicator’ of the age of any given layer. Consequently, the real problem with relying on Index Fossils, is that rather than being evidence of Evolution, the process of evolution is ‘assumed’ to have already taken place in the scientists PRESUPPOSITION about past events and processes.

It is important to note at this juncture, that any observed differences or ‘changes’ in the features of the Index Fossils found in different ‘periods’ or strata, are ‘assumed’ to be the product of Evolution. Additionally, the presence of different organisms in other than their assigned ‘periods’ is also used as further evidence in support of Biological Evolution. This ‘scientific methodology’ is a classic example of Circular Reasoning where the second assumption is used to prove the first assumption is true, and then the second used to prove the first… the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks!

Most people simply do not understand how geologists ‘process’ rock and fossil evidence. The only known ‘fact’ is that the fossils are observed to occur in different layers of sedimentary rock. The fossils and even the surrounding strata can be examined and tested in the present repeatedly for many things, BUT the rocks and the fossils remain firmly in the present.

When it comes to ‘explaining’ their possible age and how the rocks and the fossils formed however, such events ALL occurred in the past, and so their ‘development’ cannot be observed or even repeated. Consequently, any explanations about how the rocks and fossils formed in the past are purely conjecture, ‘hypotheses and ‘interpretation’, NOT FACT!

Charles Lyell was not shy in expressing his animosity toward the Bible, and his determination to undermine its teachings is recorded in several private letters to his friend and fellow ‘old-earth’ geologist, Roderick Murchison.

“I trust I shall make my sketch of the progress of geology popular. Old (Rev. John) Flemming is frightened and thinks the age will not stand my anti-Mosaical conclusions and at least that the subject will for a time become unpopular and awkward for the clergy, but I am not afraid. I shall out with the whole but in as conciliatory a manner as possible.”

Clearly, Lyell intended his work to influence more than just Geology.

Lyell and others promoted the idea of millions of years of geologic history, but dates were not assigned to given layers until much later. But by the time radiometric dating techniques were implemented, the ‘fact’ of millions of years of earth history had already become an established scientific ‘given’, and so applying uniformitarian assumptions, the ‘calibration’ of the radiometric dating scales were established.

Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock strata, but as this type of rock is comprised of particles from many pre-existing igneous and metamorphic rocks and other sedimentary matter, it is unsuitable for radiometric dating. Geologists instead ‘date’ adjacent igneous rock formed by intense heat as it rose up through the earth’s crust. Once cooled it is believed that no further radioactive atoms escape and the ‘half-life’ decay clock begins. There are so many variables and assumptions made in this process and long ages are always assumed to be proven as the ‘simpler’ fossils are ‘expected’ to be found in ‘older’ rock layers.

Laboratories do not generally undertake ‘blind’ radiometric dating on samples, and a rock containing a Trilobite fossil will be ‘expected’ to be older than one containing a Dinosaur fossil, which in turn will be expected to be older than one with a Primate fossil. Radiometric dating may be highly technical but the results must still ‘conform and support’ the evolutionary ‘timeframe’ of the Geologic Column. Far from being independent, scientists, geologists and anthropologists continue to collaborate to ensure any new finds reinforce the evolutionary model.

Quote: “Evolution is the G.U.T. (Grand Unifying Theory) of biology. It is the bedrock principle of our scientific understanding of natural laws that govern life. Furthermore, it is logically necessary for life’s survival in a changing world environment. To deny this scientific principle is analogous to believing that the earth is the centre of the universe!”  Dr. J. William-Schopf.  Paleobiologist and Director of UCLA’s Centre for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life.

The ‘Theory’ of Evolution has become dogma to the vast majority of the worldwide scientific and academic community. Careers, reputations and very comfortable lifestyles are dependent upon holding the line against ANY thoughts or ideas that seriously question or challenge ‘their’ TRUTH.

Scientists like Dr. J. William-Schopf are not the first, and are certainly not alone in their determination to drive their point home…

Way back in 1840, Charles Lyell penned a letter to Mr George P. Scrope (a fellow uniformitarian Geologist and Member of Parliament):

“I am sure you may get into Q.R. (Quarterly Review) what will free the science (of geology) from Moses, for if treated seriously, the (Church) party are quite prepared for it. A Bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Bishop Sumner) gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems. Probably there was a beginning – it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian – probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended – but the analogy is faint and distant… P.S. I conceived the idea five or six years ago (1824-250), that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little say as possible yourself.” Charles Lyell. 1840.

Such reasoning might be permissible and plausible, if the Bible did not describe any ‘alternative explanation’ of events relevant to the formation of the rocks of the earth, such as the Creation week and the biblical Flood.

But since the Bible does speak of such events, Lyell’s approach is like trying to write a history of ancient Rome by studying the surviving monuments, buildings, artwork and coins, but intentionally ignoring the writings of reliable Roman historians present at the time.

Again we see that scientists knew exactly what the Bible said about the origin of the earth and mankind, but they were determined to present an alternative ‘truth’ to the unsuspecting public, under the guise of clinical, unbiased, fact based science.

Richard Dawkins too, is just following in the footsteps of his predecessors, presenting an opinion and a hypothesis as if it is fact.

From the Biblical Creationist’s perspective, taking the Genesis account at its word, there are several events that must be considered when interpreting the evidence of earth’s history as recorded in the rocks. Just as supporters of evolution theory assume that the earth began as a random, molten mass, bible-believing Christians may likewise assume that the earth began with a supernatural act of a Creator God, who formed the earth’s original rocks.                               

The Bible says that the present extensive sedimentary layers were formed when a catastrophic world-wide flood deluged the whole earth, and later flowed off the continents as the mountains rose and major erosional features like the Grand Canyon and Uluru were formed.

More recent examples of volcanic eruptions and canyon formation by rapid erosion such as Mount St Helens in 1980 provide evidence and ‘modern’ models to explain how such formations can form within just a few thousand years.

Applying the Uniformitarian ‘model’, the planet is believed to have evolved gradually from a molten ball to a water-covered planet where mountains are continuously eroded and uplifted, and rocks are recycled through the earth’s crust and mantle over millions of years. Uniformitarian Geologists do ‘accept’ catastrophes on a local scale, but reject out of hand any notion of global events like the Genesis Flood, simply because the Bible has since the days of Charles Lyell, been rejected as authoritative and trustworthy, and the earth is thus calculated to be 4.5 billion years old.

The major problem with uniformitarianism, from a scientific perspective, is that it is an unverifiable assumption, which ironically is the same claim levelled against Creationists and the Bible.

Remember, there is no absolute way to measure rates at which past events happened. 

Uniformitarianism is a ‘presupposition’ applied to Geology and the rock record… AND also to Biology, Astronomy, Physical Chemistry and many other scientific fields.

The real difference basically comes down to HOW one interprets the EVIDENCE that we find.

It is NOT initially about FACTS as such, because the ‘facts’ about events that may or may not have occurred before any scientist arrived on the scene cannot be subjected to scientific methodology after the ‘fact’.

One may propose a HYPOTHESIS about ‘what and how’ something might have occurred, but it is only when the THEORY can be studied, tested and repeated, that it may be regarded as a FACT.

Question: Would you say that your consideration and interpretation of the evidence would be based on a ‘pre-determined’ rejection of the Mosaic account of the Creation recorded in Genesis, as was expressed by Charles Lyell in his letter to George Scrope? Or, would you be prepared to consider and interpret the very same evidence, but this time looking at the evidence from a Biblical perspective? 

Remember, the rocks and fossils are not found with date labels attached, and so what is observed ‘always’ has to be interpreted.

Consequently, if we put aside any Evolutionary presupposition, the evidence or facts that we have considered can very reasonably be interpreted ‘within’ a scientific model that regards the Creation Week narrative and the Global Flood of Noah’s day as a reasonably valid alternative explanation.

The assumed billions of years are not actually required to explain what is observed in the Geologic Column because the ‘supposed’ long ages are only required to ‘allow’ sufficient time for the ‘pre-supposed’ slow, gradual and random process of ‘Molecules to Man Evolution’ and the assumption of Uniformitarianism.

The millions and millions of dead things buried in the sedimentary geological strata is clear evidence of a catastrophic global deluge which is described in the Bible as the Flood of Noah’s day.

Ultimately, Christians believe that the fossil-bearing geological record represents the wrath of the Omnipotent Creator God poured out in judgement on a world which had become thoroughly sinful. (Genesis Chapter 6.vs 9-13)

So where do we go from here?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” (Short version) Joseph Goebbels. Germany 1946.

The drip, drip, drip of evolutionary teaching and dogma presented in the schools, the universities, museums, books, movies and educational programmes has so washed over the general public for so long, and become so engrained into our language and culture that to challenge it is regarded as secular ‘blasphemy’. 

Though ironically, even Richard Dawkins is exercised and expresses frustration, at the fact that so few people actually ‘fully understand’  the Theory of Evolution, the process and the facts, while even fewer are able to articulate or explain it in any great detail. But even so, because so many academics and scientists evidently ‘appear’ to agree to its ‘truth’, why would the ordinary man in the street dare to doubt or question them?

“The question of whether there exists a supernatural Creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.” Professor Richard Dawkins.

Despite Richard Dawkins ‘evangelical’ atheism, I believe that the public has been exposed to a form of subliminal indoctrination from almost every quarter, and sadly that includes many of the Church Clergy who have ‘bought into the lie’. We saw how Charles Lyell knew what the Bible said about the Creation of the world, but he was determined to find a way to undermine the clergy by turning the ‘spotlight’ onto the Bible and questioning the authority and veracity of the account in Genesis. Today, sadly, many clergy seem more interested in ‘conforming’ to the ideas and opinions of the majority, rather than studying, reasoning, understanding and then conveying what the scriptures actually say.

“I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the bible were a theory like other theories. Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it is not a theory alongside theories. It’s not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said well, how am I going to explain all this… I know ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Dr Rowan Williams. Former Archbishop of Canterbury.

In no less than two hundred years, the biblical literacy of so many of the general public in the democratic western nations has plummeted to the point that most have no real idea of the ramifications that a belief in the Theory of Evolution has had on our society, our thinking and morality.

“My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.” Professor Richard Dawkins.

The general population ‘receive’ their education in the ‘facts’ of Evolution courtesy of the evolutionary ‘pre-disposed’ Universities, Museums and Scientific Publishing Houses, supported without question by the Main Stream Media and those Educational Film Studios that provide the majority of Documentaries, information and propaganda that the schools and general public simply accept at face value as TRUE!

Yet when challenged to debate the subject of Evolution in the public arena, or when challenged to produce ‘evidence’ to support their theory, the scientists would generally rather go on television and mock the loopy ‘Fundamentalist Christians’ who dare to doubt what ALL ‘proper scientists’ and right thinking people know is the TRUTH!

“God is a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic racist, an infanticidal, genocidal, phillicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”   Richard Dawkins. ‘The God Delusion’.

Evolutionary scientists have simply not been able to produce any undisputed transitional fossil forms to substantiate their contention that organisms evolved from simpler kinds to more complex ones. The fossils of the billions of once living organisms, insects or animals that have been found and studied have always been fully formed and functional kinds, and not in any way ‘transitional’ or ‘evolving’. Examples such as Archaeopteryx, the supposed ‘Dinosaur Bird’ or Tiktaalik, the alleged ‘Walking Fish’, are not transitional specimens, because on close inspection they are seen to be specific species.

What also does not help the process of free discussion in the public arena, is when large publically funded organisations like the BBC or The Natural History Museum continue to present as ‘undisputed’ fact, certain evidence that has been exposed as false many years ago. For example, the ‘Peppered Moth’ is still used on the BBC Science Education website as PROOF of Evolution, despite the fact that it proves no such thing, and the Natural History Museum in London still presents ‘Lucy’ as EVIDENCE of the ‘Missing or Transitional Link’ between apes and humans.

It is insulting and presumptuous of people like Richard Dawkins, to accuse the many accredited scientists who do not hold to a belief in Evolution of not being ‘serious or proper’ scientists, but he continues to do so in his writings and public appearances.

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in Evolution, that person is scientifically ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Richard Dawkins. The New York Times. April 9^th. 1989.

Not agreeing with the hypothesis and propositions of academics in the Historical Science fields such as Evolutionary Anthropology, Palaeontology, Geology, Biology, etc., does not make you ignorant of science or unable to study or contribute to the vast field of modern day science and technology.

Sadly, an increasing animosity is developing in the science institutions who often isolate and discriminate against anyone who would dare to say; “I do not believe we evolved from monkeys.” They are mocked and belittled by the ‘establishment’, despite the likelihood that many fellow scientists may not be convinced either but are too scared to speak out for fear of being ostracised, or even lose their research grants or academic positions.

Closing thoughts concerning the ‘truth’ or not, of Evolutionary Theory.

Considering the definitions of the terms we examined at the beginning of our conversation, I believe that by rightly applying the words: FACTS, EVIDENCE and TRUTH where they pertain to the ‘Theory of Evolution’ as a process to explain the origin and development of life on earth, I would maintain that the case for Evolution is certainly NOT proven. In fact there is clear evidence that evolutionary scientists are operating with unabashed presuppositions with regard to their interpretation of the evidence!

At this point, I must state that I have not ‘always’ been a bible believing Christian. In fact I only came to a personal faith in Jesus at the age of thirty years. My upbringing was probably not unlike many other children from a working class family, and I simply aspired to find a job that I enjoyed and which would enable me to marry my sweetheart and raise a family in a home that we owned. But my decision to become a fireman, as I was for over thirty years, gradually influenced my insight and outlook on many of life’s more philosophical questions, perhaps not always at the fore of my everyday thinking.

I make this point, because having seen and experienced numerous situations that were traumatic for both me and those whom I was called to assist, I became increasingly aware that the vast majority of ordinary people are not concerned with the actual details or scientific complexities of life, evolution or even where we go when we die. We simply seek to enjoy our lives to the best of our abilities, interact with our family and friends and perhaps experience occasional high points and special moments that we can cherish for years to come.

As a fire-fighter though, I did have occasion to meet people whom through an unplanned and unexpected event, had what may be called a ‘near death experience’. For them, the academic complexities and debate about the ‘truth’ or not of the origin of life being the result of random chance Evolution, was not as nearly as important as the reality or not of there being a Creator God. For a few anxious minutes, their previously carefree and self-absorbed existence was bluntly interrupted by the realisation of the reality, fragility and mortality of human life. Nobody wants to be helpless and alone in a time of distress.

The Judeo Christian Bible has much to say on the subject of life, death, the Creator and why we are here, and it offers answers about our origins and hope for the future. Whereas the Theory of Evolution is much more arbitrary on such matters, explaining our existence as blind random chance and our future as simply death and then nothing!

I would hope that just as we have taken a little time to examine and consider the veracity of the assertions of evolutionists concerning the origin of human kind, I hope you remembered what just a few of the leading proponents of Evolution Theory ‘think’ about the Creator God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as described in the Bible. They robustly deny, reject and are even ‘evangelical’ in their desire to “free mankind”, as Charles Lyell so poetically put it, from the “constraints” of belief in the God of Moses.

Simply put, belief in Evolution produces Atheists!

Trusting in the dogma of Evolution will sooner or later result in a rejection of the Bible and ALL the wisdom it contains. So I would appeal to you earnestly to take the time to read and consider what the Bible actually has to say that is so ‘offensive’ to evolutionary scientists, humanists, philosophers and others who are unwilling or even afraid to consider the possibility that we humans are not just evolved apes, but specially created for a higher purpose, and will be expected to give an account of what we have done with our freedom and our individual talents and gifts.

This article is too short to present ALL the evidence that supports the biblical account of our creation, but I did want to give the reader some examples of how evolutionists are prepared to misrepresent the evidence, so as to cause many to ‘believe’ a LIE.     

Putting our trust in something or someone is an act of faith. But I would caution you to consider what sort of person you would put your trust in.

Are Charles Lyell, or Richard Dawkins, who have spoken candidly about their reasons for rejecting the biblical account of our origins, the sort of individuals we should trust to guide us in such an important matter?

We must ALL eventually choose to believe someone, be it the philosophy of a supposed ‘evolved’ Ape, OR the wisdom of the Creator of the Universe.

Which will it be?

“All things were made through Him; and without Him was not anything made that has been made.” John 1:3

“The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20

The second passage above explains that ALL men should be able to realise that God exists. The very fact that He; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob states that all men are “without excuse” means that they can and should be able to see, examine and understand that the world and all life did not arise by random chance, but is so immeasurably complex, intricate and perfectly designed so as to offer us just a glimpse of the omnipotence of the Creator. If we witness death, decay, entropy and ‘evil’, then we should read what the Bible has to say is the reason for such things, and how we can overcome the effects in our own lives.

I hope what I have written will cause you to think a little more about the subject of TRUTH, and especially whether you too have simply taken ‘on faith’ the dogma of Evolutionary Theory.

There was so much more that I could have written and included in this discussion, but I am sure you will be a little relieved that I conclude at this point. 

But for now, please just consider this statement from the main proponent of evolutionary theory that I have quoted several times earlier:

“At least the fundamentalists (Christians) haven’t tried to dilute their message. Their faith is exposed for what it is for all to see.”

Richard Dawkins.

I will say amen to that!

Note: My thanks to www.answersingenesis.com for some references.