The Problem of Evil
Rick Rood had this to say about the subject:
"John Stott has said that "the fact of suffering undoubtedly constitutes the
single greatest challenge to the Christian faith." It is unquestionably true that
there is no greater obstacle to faith than that of the reality of evil and suffering
in the world. Indeed, even for the believing Christian, there is no greater test of
faith than this- that the God who loves him permits him to suffer, at times in
excruciating ways. And the disillusionment is intensified in our day when
unrealistic expectations of health and prosperity are fed by the teachings of
a multitude of Christian teachers. Why does a good God allow his creatures, and
even his children to suffer?
First, it's important to distinguish between two kinds of evil: moral evil and
natural evil. Moral evil results from the actions of free creatures. Murder, rape
and theft are examples. Natural evil results from natural processes such as
earthquakes and floods. Of course, sometimes the two are intermingled, such as
when flooding results in loss of human life due to poor planning or shoddy
construction of buildings.
It's also important to identify two aspects of the problem of evil and suffering.
First, there is the philosophical or apologetic aspect. This is the problem of evil
approached from the standpoint of the skeptic who challenges the possibility or
probability that a God exists who would allow such suffering. In meeting this
apologetic challenge we must utilize the tools of reason and evidence in "giving
a reason for the hope within us."
(I Peter 3:15)
Second is the religious or emotional aspect of the problem of evil. This is the
problem of evil approached from the standpoint of the believer whose faith in God
is severely tested by trial. How can we love and worship God when He allows us to
suffer in these ways? In meeting the religious/emotional challenge we must appeal
to the truth revealed by God in Scripture. We will address both aspects of the
problem of evil in this essay.
It's also helpful to distinguish between two types of the philosophical or
apologetic aspect of the problem of evil. The first is the logical challenge to
belief in God. This challenge says it is irrational and hence impossible to believe
in the existence of a good and powerful God on the basis of the existence of evil in
the world. The logical challenge is usually posed in the form of a statement such as this:
A good God would destroy evil.
An all powerful God could destroy evil.
Evil is not destroyed.
Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God.
It is logically impossible to believe that both evil, and a good and powerful God
exist in the same reality, for such a God certainly could and would destroy evil.
On the other hand, the evidential challenge contends that while it may be rationally
possible to believe such a God exists, it is highly improbable or unlikely that He does.
We have evidence of so much evil that is seemingly pointless and of such horrendous
intensity. For what valid reason would a good and powerful God allow the amount and
kinds of evil which we see around us?
These issues are of an extremely important nature- not only as we seek to defend our
belief in God, but also as we live out our Christian lives.
The Logical Problem of Evil
We have noted that there are two aspects of the problem of evil: the philosophical
or apologetic, and the religious or emotional aspect. We also noted that within
the philosophical aspect there are two types of challenges to faith in God: the
logical and the evidential.
David Hume, the eighteenth century philosopher, stated the logical problem of evil
when he inquired about God, "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He
is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able
and willing? Whence then is evil?" (Craig, 80). When the skeptic challenges belief
in God on the basis of the logical problem of evil, he is suggesting that it is
irrational or logically impossible to believe in the existence of both a good
and all powerful God and in the reality of evil and suffering. Such a God would
not possibly allow evil to exist.
The key to the resolution of this apparent conflict is to recognize that when we say
God is all powerful, we do not imply that He is capable of doing anything imaginable.
True, Scripture states that "with God all things are possible"
(Matthew 19:26). But Scripture also states that there are some things God cannot
do. For instance, God cannot lie
(Titus 1:2). Neither can He be tempted to sin, nor can He tempt others to sin
(James 1:13). In other words, He cannot do anything that is "out of character" for a
righteous God. Neither can He do anything that is out of character for a rational
being in a rational world. Certainly even God cannot "undo the past," or create a
square triangle, or make what is false true. He cannot do what is irrational or absurd.
And it is on this basis that we conclude that God could not eliminate evil without
at the same time rendering it impossible to accomplish other goals which are
important to Him. Certainly, for God to create beings in his own image, who are
capable of sustaining a personal relationship with Him, they must be beings who
are capable of freely loving Him and following his will without coercion. Love or
obedience on any other basis would not be love or obedience at all, but mere
compliance. But creatures who are free to love God must also be free to hate or
ignore Him. Creatures who are free to follow His will must also be free to reject
it. And when people act in ways outside the will of God, great evil and suffering
is the ultimate result. This line of thinking is known as the "free will defense"
concerning the problem of evil.
But what about natural evil- evil resulting from natural processes such as
earthquakes, floods and diseases? Here it is important first to recognize that we
live in a fallen world, and that we are subject to natural disasters that would not
have occurred had man not chosen to rebel against God. Even so, it is difficult to
imagine how we could function as free creatures in a world much different than
our own- a world in which consistent natural processes allow us to predict with
some certainty the consequences of our choices and actions. Take the law of
gravity, for instance. This is a natural process without which we could not
possibly function as human beings, yet under some circumstances it is also capable
of resulting in great harm.
Certainly, God is capable of destroying evil- but not without destroying human
freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function. And most agree that this
line of reasoning does successfully respond to the challenge of the logical problem of evil.
The Evidential Problem of Evil
While most agree that belief in a good and powerful God is rationally possible,
nonetheless many contend that the existence of such a God is improbable due to the
nature of the evil which we see in the world about us. They conclude that if such a
God existed it is highly unlikely that He would allow the amount and intensity of evil
which we see in our world. Evil which frequently seems to be of such a purposeless nature.
This charge is not to be taken lightly, for evidence abounds in our world of evil of
such a horrendous nature that it is difficult at times to fathom what possible
purpose it could serve. However, difficult as this aspect of the problem of evil is,
careful thinking will show that there are reasonable responses to this challenge.
Surely it is difficult for us to understand why God would allow some things to happen.
But simply because we find it difficult to imagine what reasons God could have for
permitting them, does not mean that no such reasons exist. It is entirely possible
that such reasons are not only beyond our present knowledge, but also beyond our
present ability to understand. A child does not always understand the reasons that
lie behind all that his father allows or does not allow him to do. It would be
unrealistic for us to expect to understand all of God's reasons for allowing all
that He does. We do not fully understand many things about the world we
live in- what lies behind the force of gravity for instance, or the exact function
of subatomic particles. Yet we believe in these physical realities.
Beyond this, however, we can suggest possible reasons for God allowing some of
the horrendous evils which do exist in our world. Perhaps there are people who
would never sense their utter dependence on God apart from experiencing the intense
pain that they do in life
(Psalm 119:71). Perhaps there are purposes that God intends to accomplish among
his angelic or demonic creatures which require his human creatures to experience
some of the things that we do
(Job 1-2). It may be that the suffering we experience in this life is somehow
preparatory to our existence in the life to come
(2 Corinthians 4:16-18). Even apart from the revelation of Scripture, these are all
possible reasons behind God's permission of evil. And at any rate, most people agree
that there is much more good in the world than evil- at least enough good to make
life well worth the living.
In responding to the challenge to belief in God based on the intensity and seeming
purposelessness of much evil in the world, we must also take into account all of the
positive evidence that points to his existence: the evidence of design in nature,
the historical evidence for the reliability of Scripture and of the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. In light of the totality of the evidence, it certainly cannot be proven
that there are no sufficient reasons for God's allowing the amount of evil that we see
in the world...or even that it is improbable that such reasons exist.
The Religious Problem of Evil - Part I
But the existence of evil and suffering in our world poses more than a merely
philosophical or apologetic problem. It also poses a very personal religious and
emotional problem for the person who is enduring great trial. Although our painful
experience may not challenge our belief that God exists, what may be at risk is our
confidence in a God we can freely worship and love, and in whose love we can feel
secure. Much harm can be done when we attempt to aid a suffering brother or sister
by merely dealing with the intellectual aspects of this problem, or when we seek to
find solace for ourselves in this way. Far more important than answers about the
nature of God, is a revelation of the love of God- even in the midst of trial. And as
God's children, it is not nearly as important what we say about God as what we do to
manifest his love.
First, it is evident from Scripture that when we suffer it is not unnatural to
experience emotional pain, nor is it unspiritual to express it. It is noteworthy
for instance that there are nearly as many psalms of lament as there are psalms of
praise and thanksgiving, and these two sentiments are mingled together in many places
(Psalms 13, 88). Indeed, the psalmist encourages us to "pour out our hearts to God"
(Ps. 62:8). And when we do, we can be assured that God understands our pain. Jesus
Himself keenly felt the painful side of life. When John the Baptist was beheaded it
is recorded that "He withdrew to a lonely place" obviously to mourn his loss
(Matthew 14:13). And when his friend Lazarus died, it is recorded that Jesus openly wept
at his tomb
(John 11:35). Even though He was committed to following the Father's will to the
cross, He confessed to being filled with anguish of soul in contemplating it
(Matthew 26:38). It is not without reason that Jesus was called "a man of sorrows and
acquainted with grief"
(Isaiah 53:3); and we follow in his steps when we truthfully acknowledge our own pain.
We cross the line, however, from sorrow to sin when we allow our grief to quench our
faith in God, or follow the counsel that Job was offered by his wife when she told
him to "curse God and die"
(Job 2:9b).
Secondly, when we suffer we should draw comfort from reflecting on Scriptures which
assure us that God knows and cares about our situation, and promises to be with us
to comfort and uphold us. The psalmist tells us that "the Lord is near to the
brokenhearted"
(Psalm 34:18), and that when we go through the "valley of the shadow of death" it
is then that his presence is particularly promised to us
(Psalm 23:4). Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, the Lord said, "Can a woman forget
her nursing child, and have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may
forget, but I will not forget you"
(Isaiah 49:15). He is more mindful of us than is a nursing mother toward her child!
It is of the One whom we know as the "God of all comfort and Father of mercies" that
Peter speaks when He bids us to cast our anxieties on Him, "for He cares for us"
(1 Peter 5:7). Our cares are his personal concern!
The Religious Problem of Evil - Part II
We noted that when suffering strikes it is neither unnatural to experience emotional
pain, nor unspiritual to express it. But we also noted that when suffering strikes,
we must be quick to reflect on the character of God and on the promises He gives to
those who are enduring great trial. Now we want to focus on one of the great truths
of God's Word- that even in severe trial God is working all things together for the
good of those who love Him
(Romans 8:28). This is not at all to imply that evil is somehow good. But it does mean
that we are to recognize that even in what is evil God is at work to bring about his
good purposes in our lives.
Joseph gave evidence of having learned this truth when after years of unexplained
suffering due to the betrayal of his brothers, he was able to say to them, "You meant
it for evil, but God meant it for good"
(Genesis 50:20). Though God did not cause his brothers to betray him, nonetheless He
was able to use it in furthering his good intentions.
This is the great hope we have in the midst of suffering, that in a way beyond our
comprehension, God is able to turn evil against itself. And it is because of this
truth that we can find joy even in the midst of sorrow and pain. The apostle Paul
described himself as "sorrowful, yet always rejoicing"
(2 Corinthians 6:10). And we are counseled to rejoice in trial, not because the affliction
itself is a cause for joy (it is not), but because in it God can find an occasion for
producing what is good.
What are some of those good purposes suffering promotes? For one, suffering can
provide an opportunity for God to display his glory- to make evident his mercy,
faithfulness, power and love in the midst of painful circumstances
(John 9:1-3). Suffering can also allow us to give proof of the genuineness of our
faith, and even serve to purify our faith
(1 Peter 1:7). As in the case of Job, our faithfulness in trial shows that we serve Him
not merely for the benefits He offers, but for the love of God Himself
(Job 1:9-11). Severe trial also provides an opportunity for believers to demonstrate
their love for one another as members of the body of Christ who "bear one another's
burdens"
(1 Corinthians 12:26; Gal. 6:2). Indeed, as D.A. Carson has said, "experiences of
suffering... engender compassion and empathy..., and make us better able to help
others" (Carson, 122). As we are comforted by God in affliction, so we are better
able to comfort others
(2 Corinthians 1:4). Suffering also plays a key role in developing godly virtues, and
in deterring us from sin. Paul recognized that his "thorn in the flesh" served to
keep him from boasting, and promoted true humility and dependence on God
(2 Corinthians 12:7). The psalmist recognized that his affliction had increased his
determination to follow God's will
(Psalm 119:71). Even Jesus "learned obedience from the things He suffered"
(Hebrews 5:8). As a man He learned by experience the value of submitting to the will
of God, even when it was the most difficult thing in the world to do.
Finally, evil and suffering can awaken in us a greater hunger for heaven, and for that
time when God's purposes for these experiences will have been finally fulfilled, when
pain and sorrow shall be no more
(Revelation 21:4)."
This info quoted from the web. Web address is
http://www.bridgesinternational.com/probe/evil.html
Note:
If you want to read more on why bad things happen to good people
Click here
He is no genius who ignores his Creator |
Key Elements for Scientific Evidence
Walter Bradley had this to say about the subject:
"Up until 1960, there was a general optimism that the more we learned about
nature through our scientific investigations, the more we would be able to explain
the world around us, including its origin, and render belief in God unnecessary, though
not impossible. During the past 30 years, we gradually became aware of flies in the
ointment of naturalism, and they have grown to the point that doubt now exists as to
whether they can ever be removed.
The Washington Post, describing an international conference held in
Washington D.C. in the late 1980s, noted,
"Many scientists who were not long ago certain that the universe was created and
peopled by accident are having second thoughts and concede the possibility that some
intelligent creative force may have been responsible."
It should be emphasized one cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of
God. Nevertheless, it is perfectly permissible to study the character of the universe
and ask, "What does it reasonably suggest: an intelligent creator, or a universe which
is in some sense self-caused?" I will consider in a cursory way just three such flies:
(1) evidence for design in the universe;
(2) the origin of the universe; and
(3) the origin of life.
Evidence for Design
Evidence for design comes from three sources:
(1) the simple mathematical form that nature takes;
(2) the coincidence that the universal constants are exactly what they need to
be to support life of any type on this planet; and
(3) the coincidence that the initial conditions in many different situations are
also critical and happen to have been exactly what they needed to be for the
universe and life to come into being.
In a mathematical sense, we can say the universe is described by deceptively
simple and elegant differential equations which just happen to have universal
constants which are exactly what they need to be and initial conditions precisely
prescribed to allow for the unfolding of a suitable habitat for life and for the
appearance of life itself.
Nature Bound by Simple Mathematics
As a young physics student in high school, I was surprised and pleased to learn that
the many diverse observations in nature find their description in such a small number
of simple mathematical relationships such as Newton's laws of gravity and motion or
Maxwell's equations of electricity and magnetism. It would probably surprise many of
our earliest scientists to discover that today the universe is adequately described
by such a small number of fundamental physical laws, represented by simple but
elegant mathematical relationships, that they can be easily written on one side of
one sheet of paper.
The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance, and beauty.
That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is
responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe,
said astrophysicist Paul Davies in his book Superforce (1984). The famous Russian
physicist, Alexander Polyakov put it this way in Fortune magazine (October, 1986),
We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God
created it.
Coincidence of the Universal Constants
One of the remarkable discoveries of the past 30 years has been the recognition that
small changes in any of the universal constants produce surprisingly dramatic changes
in the universe, rendering it unsuitable for life, not just as we know it, but for life
of any conceivable type. In excess of 100 examples have been documented in the technical
literature and summarized in such books as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986).
For example, if the strong force which binds together the nucleus of atoms were just
five percent weaker, only hydrogen would be stable and we would have a universe with
a periodic chart of one element, which is a universe incapable of providing the
necessary molecular complexity to provide minimal life functions of processing
energy, storing information, and replicating. On the other hand, if the strong
force were just two percent stronger, very massive nuclei would form, which are
unsuitable for the chemistry of living systems. Furthermore, there would be no
stable hydrogen, no long-lived stars, and no hydrogen containing compounds.
As a second example, if the relationship between the strong force and the
electromagnetic force were to vary only slightly, we would not have the quantum
energy levels which allow the remarkable conversion of beryllium to carbon
(nearly 100% efficient) and the partial conversion of carbon to oxygen. With
slight changes in either of these constants, we would have had a universe either
rich in beryllium and little, if any, carbon or alternatively, a universe rich in
oxygen with no carbon.
Since carbon is unique in its ability to chemically bond with almost all other
elements in bonds that are stable but not too difficult to break (playing the
critical role of the round pieces in a tinker toy set), it is remarkable that
these forces are so precisely tuned to provide carbon in abundance, along with
oxygen which is critical in its own right.
Many additional examples could be cited. If I rolled a dice and got a "6," you
would not be surprised. If I rolled a dice five times and got a "6," you would
begin to be a little suspicious. However, if you rolled the dice 1,000 times and
got a "6" each time, you would be certain that there is something funny about the
dice. So it is with our quirky universe in which everything has to be just so and
is indeed found to be. Hume and others have argued incorrectly that it is not
surprising that everything is just so, else we would not be here to observe it.
The well known atheist J.L. Mackie (Miracle of Theism, p.141) saw the flaw in
Hume's criticism:
"There is only one actual universe, with a unique set of basic materials and physical
constants, and it is therefore surprising that the elements of this unique set-up are
just right for life when they might easily have been wrong. This is not made less
surprising by the fact that if it had not been so, no one would have been here to be
surprised. We can properly envision and consider alternative possibilities which do
not include our being there to experience them."
Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer and agnostic, in The Intelligent
Universe commented on the cosmological coincidences discussed by Mackie, "Such
properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of
happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential to life that
some explanation seems required to account for them."
"Slight variations in physical laws such as gravity or electromagnetism would make
life impossible . . . the necessity to produce life lies at the center of the
universe's whole machinery and design," stated John Wheeler, Princeton University
professor of physics (Reader's Digest, Sept., 1986).
University of Virginia astronomers R.T. Rood and J.S. Trefil conclude their book
Are We Alone? by estimating the probability of life existing anywhere in the
universe to be one in a billion, and thus conclude the existence of life on
planet earth, far from being inevitable, is the result of a remarkable set of
coincidences.
"If I were a religious man," Trefil wrote in the concluding chapter, "I would
say that everything we have learned about life in the past twenty years shows
that we are unique, and therefore, special in God's sight." Instead he concludes
that life on planet earth is a remarkable accident, unlikely to have been
replicated anywhere else in the universe, which his book powerfully argues.
Initial Conditions
Initial condition problems are found in many places in our scenario of the
origin of the universe, its development into a suitable home for us, and the
origin of life. These initial condition problems have, in fact, grown much
worse with the recognition that many critical processes in the origins scenario
are nonlinear, and therefore, require particularly precise initial conditions.
Trefil and Rood's book cited above mentions some of these problems in detail. I will
also discuss, briefly, initial conditions problems having to do with the origin of
the universe and the origin of life.
In summarizing this section, it is clear that there does appear to be something unique
and special about our home in the universe and our existence in it.
Origin of the Universe
Cosmology is not neutral when it comes to philosophy and theology. A universe that
eternally existed is much more congenial to an atheistic or agnostic worldview. By
the same token, a universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could
imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?
In a dramatic address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science
in 1977, Robert Jastrow, Professor at Columbia University and Founder and Director
of the Goddard Space Center, made a presentation which was later published as a book
entitled God and the Astronomers. In this presentation, Jastrow, who is himself an
agnostic, argued that the evidence for the Big Bang cosmology had been quite superior
to competing cosmologies since 1929, but that many scientists had refused to accept
it because they did not like the philosophical implications.
For example, Sir Arthur Eddington commenting on the Big Bang in the 1950s
noted, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature
is repugnant . . . I should like to find a genuine loophole."
By the 1970's, after the discovery of the background radiation in 1965, John
Gribbin in Nature said,
"The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is
philosophical- perhaps even theological- what was there before the bang? This problem
alone was sufficient to give a great impetus to the Steady State theory; but with
that theory now sadly in conflict with the observations, the best way around this
initial difficulty is provided by a model in which the universe expands from a
singularity, collapses back again, and repeats the cycle indefinitely."
[Articles published in 1984 in Nature by Guth and by Bludman clearly demonstrate the
impossibility of a "bouncing" universe.]
Jastrow went on to argue that it is time that astronomers begin to acknowledge the
philosophical implications of their discoveries. Jastrow concluded his presentation
(and his book publication of it) with the comment, "For the scientist who has lived
by his faith in the power of reason, the story [of the big bang] ends like a bad
dream. For the past three hundred years, scientists have scaled the mountain of
ignorance and as they pull themselves over the final rock, they are greeted by a
band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Furthermore, recent measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by
the Hubble Space Telescope, both reported in 1992, seem to confirm beyond any reasonable
doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the
University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which
made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is
evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."
"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea God created the universe
a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years,"
Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.
"It is worth noting that Steven Hawking's book, A Brief History of Time, has as its
stated purpose to try to escape the implications of the Big Bang, to which he
strongly objects for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. His book is filled
with conjecture not rooted in observational science and should be taken not as careful
science, but as a polemic argument motivated by Hawking's own "religious" beliefs.
The very fact that Hawking felt compelled to write such a book indicates the force
of the Big Bang in arguing for a theistic universe."
Information Theory and Origin of Life
There is a necessary molecular complexity required to provide minimal life
functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. Chemical
evolution, as distinct from biological evolution, cannot look to mutation and
natural selection to solve its problems (which don't solve the problems of
macroevolution either).
Chemical evolution addresses the development of living systems from a prebiotic
soup which did not initially have molecules, much less systems, capable of replicating.
The production of molecules such as protein, RNA and DNA from a prebiotic soup is
extremely difficult to imagine. The original euphoria associated with the making of
building blocks such as amino acids under prebiotic conditions by Stanley Miller in
1952 has gradually been replaced with a somber recognition that the assembly of such
molecules into function biopolymers is indeed the real problem. It is analogous to
the problem of selecting a sequence of letters by randomly picking out of a box of
typeset and hoping to accidentally get a sequence that corresponds to words,
sentences, and coherent paragraphs.
"The current scenario of the origin of life is about as likely as a tornado
passing through a junkyard beside Boeing airplane company accidentally
producing a 747 airplane," Sir Fred Hoyle suggested in The Intelligent Universe.
In an article in Scientific American (February, 1991), Sir Francis Crick wrote,
"The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which
would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
In the same article, Harold Klein who chaired a National Academy of Sciences
committee which reviewed the origin of life noted, "The simplest bacterium is so
damned complicated from the point of view of a chemist that it is almost impossible
to imagine how it happened."
Anyone who thinks recent work on RNA has or will solve the problem of the origin of
life should read Robert Shapiro's article in Origins of Life and Evolution of the
Biosphere (1988) or Klaus Dose's article in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (1988)
entitled "Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers."
Summary
It is abundantly clear evidence abounds for the existence of an intelligent creator.
I have only provided information from three narrow areas, but similar arguments
could easily be formulated from many different scientific disciplines. One need
never be ashamed of the intellectually respectability of belief in an intelligent
creator; modern science has come down decisively on the side of the person who would
posit such a belief. While Hume and Kant may have been right in their arguments that
scientific proof for the existence of God cannot be made, they would surely be as
impressed as I am with the compelling evidence that makes such a belief perfectly
reasonable."
This info quoted from the web. Web address is
http://www.bridgesinternational.com/real/ri9403/evidence.html
Who Jesus Really Is
Darwinism Fails Four Critically Important Tests
Robert A. Meyer had this to say about the subject:
I. THE TEST OF THE ORIGINS OF LIFE
"Darwin theorized that life began by reactions in a warm pond of chemicals.
Back in Darwin's day this was easier to believe. At that time there didn't appear to
have been that much a leap between non-living chemicals and basic one-celled
organisms. When Darwin looked through a primitive microscope what he saw when he
looked at a single celled organism looked pretty uncomplicated. That's why he called
them simple one-celled organisms.
In a similar way how long would it take to randomly link together the building
blocks of life? Living cells are built with protein molecules and protein molecules
are built with 100s of amino acid links. In all, there are 20 different kinds of
amino acids which are lethal.
If we ignore the question of where the amino acids come from in the first place,
and eliminate the deadly ones, how long would it take for the 100s of amino acids
necessary to form one protein molecule to link together by random choice?
Dr. George Walls, the Nobel Prize winning microbiologist at Harvard University
concluded that it's not just unlikely that life could have emerged by chance, not
just improbably or implausible. He declared it's outright impossible.
The British expert on the origins of the universe, Sir Frederick Hoyle put it this
way, "Believing life could result by chance is like believing that a tornado could
sweep through a junkyard and the winds accidentally assemble a fully functional
Boeing 747. It isn�t going to happen. Darwin fails the origins of life test.
Instead, the very existence of life with all it�s intricacies powerfully points
in the direction of God being the Creator of the universe.
II. THE FOSSIL TEST
Again Darwin fails and God prevails. When Darwin formulated his theory in the
1800s he admitted right up front that there was no fossil evidence to support his
contention that one species gradually changed into another. He recognized that if
it had really happened there would be countless transitional links or fossils of
ancient animals that filled the gaps between species.
Darwin said that the lack of these fossils "is perhaps the most obvious and serious
objection which can be argued against my theory".
He saw the big problem but said people would continue to look for fossils and felt
that as they did they would find these transitional links and his theory would be
vindicated. Now, fast forward to modern times, and listen to Dr. Stephen Jay Gould,
a leading evolutionist, professor of biology and geology at Harvard; "120 years of
fossil research after Darwin it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record
will not confirm this part of Darwin�s prediction. A species does not arise gradually
by gradual transformation of it�s ancestors".
Check out a textbook on paleontology and look at the unexplained gaps in the
evolutionary charts. As Dr. Gould of Harvard said, "The family trees that adorn
our textbooks are based on inference, not on evidence." In other words, they are
based more on imagination than on fact.
What do the millions of fossils that have been found actually show? What is the
record? They show the sudden appearance of nearly all animal phylum which appear
fully formed, unchanged to present, and without any record of ancestors before them
or transitions after them. The same is true for plants. The first representatives of
each major group suddenly appear in highly specialized form
When we consider the evidence which way does it point more convincingly? The
sudden appearance of diverse creatures fully formed with no transitional forms
to new creatures, and no ancestors from which they gradually developed, doesn�t
that sound a whole lot more like creation than evolution? Of course it does. When
it comes to the fossil test Darwin fails and God prevails.
III. THE TEST OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
Biochemist Michael Beebe has a new book called Darwin's Black Box that has been
devastating to evolutionists. In it he explains the test of irreducible complexity
Here is what Darwin said about this, "If it could be demonstrated that complex
organisms existed which could not possible have been formed by numerous successive
slight modifications then my theory would absolutely break down". It has broken
down. Dr. Beebe and other scientists have demonstrated that these complex and
interconnected organisms abound on the molecular level of living cells. One example
is blood clotting, a very complex, intricately woven system, consisting of scores
of interdependent protein parts.
Dr. Beebe's conclusion is this, "The result of these cumulative efforts by scientists
to investigate the cell, to investigate life at the molecular level is a loud, clear,
piercing cry of 'design, design, design'. Therefore there must be behind all this an
intelligent designer."
IV. THE TEST OF THE INFORMATION OF THE DNA
Inside every living cell inside every living creature there is DNA. What is DNA? It is
a language, a chemical language based on a genetic alphabet every bit as real as words.
It is like computer software with precise instructions for piecing together every part of
you from your 600 muscles, to your 2 million optic nerve fibers, to your 100 billion
never cells. The blueprint of how to put all this together is contained in the DNA of
every single cell of your body.
If the genetic information in the DNA of a microscopic single celled organism were
translated into English it would equal the entire 30 volume set of Encyclopedia
Britannica. All of that is inside the DNA of a single celled organism.
Imagine that kind of information contained in the DNA of very single one of our cells,
being a much more complex organism.
The only rational explanation for the information inside DNA is that life came from
a who, and not from a what.
Dr. Michael Denton concluded his 368 page dismantling of Darwinism with these
words, "Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or no less than the
great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century. The mere idea that life could by random
processes form from nothing is simply an affront to reason." But some scientists
aren�t willing to even consider the possibility that there is an intelligent
designer. Their minds are so made that they won�t even look at the evidence, since
to admit God exists would be to admit that He has rightful authority over their
lives.
Dr. George Wall, the Nobel Prize winning Harvard biochemist says it is
impossible for life to have spontaneously arisen from non-life. But listen to the
rest of his quote, "That leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural
creation. But, we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds. Therefore we choose
to believe the impossible, that life arose spontaneously by chance." His philosophy
will not accept the possibility of a divine creator no matter how much evidence is
presented. So, he takes the blind leap of faith by continuing to believe what he
acknowledges to be unbelievable.
Don't make that mistake yourself. Don't close
your mind to the clear implications of the evidence you are fearfully and
wonderfully made, not by some combination of chance plus time over millions of
years, but by a loving God who has made you in His very image and who stands with His
arms open wide and beckons you to come to Him."
This info quoted from the web. Web address is
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40
Some Voices Against Evolution:
The Assemblies of God Position Paper In Regards to Creation
THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION
�In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth�
(Genesis 1:1). The Bible begins with
creation, and the fact that God is Creator is always in view from Genesis to Revelation.
Even though the Bible is not primarily a book of science, it is as trustworthy in the
area of science as
when it speaks to any other subject. We can have confidence in what it says concerning
the origin of all
things because �all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting and training in righteousness�
(2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is not the changing word of human beings, but the
unchanging Word of God
(1 Thessalonians 2:13).
The Bible Shows God as the Creator
Scripture focuses our attention not so much on the act of creation as on God himself
as the Creator.
In Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 God is the subject of most of the sentences. We read that God
created, God said, God
saw, God divided, God called or named, God made, God set or appointed, God blessed,
God rested, and God sanctified.
Creation is the revelation of an intelligent, loving, personal God. In contrast to
pantheism He is distinct from His creation
(Psalm 90:2). In contrast to deism He continues to be personally interested in
His handiwork; for He upholds, sustains, and preserves it
(Nehemiah 9:6).
The rest of the Bible continues this emphasis on God as the Creator, bringing it
into many facets of
our relationship to Him. We are to worship and serve Him as the Creator
(Isaiah 40:26,28,31). We are warned not to strive against our Maker
(Isaiah 45:9). We are to commit the keeping of our souls to Him in
well doing, as unto a faithful Creator
(1 Peter 4:19). We also recognize that our help comes from the One
who made the heavens and the earth
(Psalms 121:2; 124:8; 146:5,6), and there is nothing too hard for Him
(Jeremiah 32:17).
The Bible further emphasizes the fact that God is the Creator of all things. Repeatedly
in both the Old and New Testaments this is brought to our attention
(Exodus 20:11; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalm 146:6; Acts 14:17; Revelation 4:11; 10:6).
This is one of the distinctive elements of the biblical revelation. In contrast to
ancient heathenism and
modern materialism, the Bible teaches a genuine beginning. Most heathenism was
dualistic, teaching that
the universe in some form existed eternally alongside the gods.
In the heathen myths the gods are seen as
having created something, but always from preexisting materials. The very declaration
that God is the Creator sets Him apart from the idols
(Psalm 96:5).
Materialists teach that matter and its laws are eternal and are the sum total
of all existence, thus ruling
out the idea of God altogether. But the Bible declares that God is the Creator of
all things and that He existed before all things
(Psalm 90:2). Thus we have a genuine beginning when God brought the universe
into existence out of nothing.
Another important fact of biblical revelation is that creation was the cooperative
work of the Trinity.
The Old Testament shows that the Spirit of God had a part
(Genesis 1:2). The New Testament further
reveals that Jesus, who is the one Mediator between God and humankind
(1 Timothy 2:5) in our
redemption, was also the Mediator in Creation. Christ, who is called
�the firstborn� because He has first place, the place of the heir
(Colossians 1:15), was the active Agent in creation. �Through him all things
were made; without him nothing was made that has been made�
(John 1:3). The Greek word translated
�through� (dia) is a word of secondary agency, used, for example, where God spoke
by the prophets. So
God created by or through Jesus. Jesus was the living Word through whom God spoke
the worlds into
existence. He was the One who made humankind from the dust of the earth. He is
before all things and is the Creator of the invisible angelic world as well
(Colossians 1:16).
The Biblical Account of Creation Reveals Progress and Climax
Progress and a climax were a part of the biblical account of creation. Progress can
be seen in the
increase of personal attention God gave in His creative work. Of the vegetation we
read that God said, �Let the land produce vegetation . . . .� And it was so�
(Genesis 1:11,12). Of the animals we read that God said,
��Let the land produce . . . .� And it was so�
(Genesis 1:24,25). But of the human race God said, ��Let us make
man. . . .� So God created man�; male and female he created them�
(Genesis 1:26,27). The human race is thus a
special and distinctive creation, the climax, and to human beings is given dominion.
All this evidence of sequence, balance, correspondence, progress, and climax shows careful,
intelligent planning. That God created by plan absolutely rules out any idea that
part of creation came into
being by mere chance. God exercised His wisdom and control at all times
(Psalms 136:5; 148:5; Isaiah 45:12; 48:12,13) and brought it all to a complete and
well-designed end
(Genesis 1:31).
The Biblical Account Shows Distinct Steps of Creation
It is evident that God carried out His plan in distinct steps. This is indicated by
the mention of
succeeding days in Creation and by the mention of the evening and morning. That is,
here is an evening, this part is over; here is a morning, a new beginning.
Genesis chapter 2, instead of being another creation record as some claim, is an
amplification of activity not mentioned in
Genesis chapter 1. That is, the first chapter simply states that God created man,
male and female
created He them. The second chapter gives further details about part of the sixth
creation day. There we see
that God took the dust of the earth and formed Adam. Then He breathed into him the
breath of life. This
act indicates that humans are distinct from animals and that God did not form Adam
from some previously existing animal
(1 Corinthians 15:39). The creation of animal life from the dust of the ground
(Genesis 2:19) only indicates that God used the same source of material for both.
After creating Adam, God put him in the Garden and gave him work to do. Then �the LORD God
caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; ... he took one of the man�s ribs� and
made a woman
(Genesis 2:21,22).
This Bible record of creation thus rules out the evolutionary philosophy which states
that all forms of
life have come into being by gradual, progressive evolution carried on by resident
forces. It also rules out
any evolutionary origin for the human race, since no theory of evolution, including
theistic evolution, can
explain the origin of the male before the female, nor can it explain how a man could
evolve into a woman.
Only God Can Create
It is also evident that no part of God�s creation, whether human, angel, or devil,
is creative in the
sense God is. The Hebrew word for create (bara�) always has God as the subject of
the verb. This word is
used for God�s work of creation and is also used to indicate that God would do
something unusual and
unprecedented. When the earth opened up to swallow the rebellious Korah, the phrase
�brings about something totally new� is literally �create a creation�
(Numbers 16:30). It is used when God said to Israel
at Sinai: �I will do wonders never before done [bara�, created] in any nation in all the world�
(Exodus 34:10).
Of miracles and the fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah�s day, when events showed
the foolishness and
weakness of the people�s trust in idols, God said, ��From now on I will tell you
of new things. . . . They are created now, and not long ago��
(Isaiah 48:6,7). Thus even in the first chapter of Genesis, the word
create is used only of completely new and unprecedented acts of God; that is, of
the creation of the heavens
and the earth in the beginning, of the creation of the first animal life in the sea
(Genesis 1:21), and of man and woman in God�s own image (Genesis 1:27). Other times the word made
(Hebrew, �asah) is used. The word create
(bara�) thus emphasizes that God alone is the Creator, and His acts of creation
are unique and unprecedented.
God Had Purpose in Creation
God had purpose in creation. He created �for his own ends� or for His own pleasure
(Proverbs 16:4; Revelation 4:11) and for His glory (Isaiah 43:7). He wanted the
earth to be inhabited
(Isaiah 45:18). All creation is thus an expression of His will and His power.
People are beings who are in the image of God
(Genesis 1:26,27): free, rational, capable of selfappreciation
and self-expression, capable of moral and spiritual understanding, created for
fellowship with
God. They will find their proper place in creation only as they are in right
relation to God through the redemption accomplished in Jesus.
The Creation Account Is Factual and Historical