9 Evolution – Part 2

Special Note:

The author is deeply indebted to Dr. Thomas Kindell for the information presented in this segment. The majority of this chapter’s arguments are gleaned from his teaching seminars and from his book Evolution on Trial with Evolutionists at the Witness Stand. Unfortunately, this book is out of print. Nevertheless, for those who can find it, it remains an outstanding resource for anyone interested in studying the subject of evolution. Dr. Kindell’s lectures can be found at http://nwcreation.net/videos/index.html.

 

 

Once it is established that both the Darwinian theory of evolutionary process and Creationism are classified by genuine science as hypotheses, the question becomes, “Which hypothesis is more plausible?” In the last chapter, we considered that the probability of a small protein consisting of 150 amino acids is 1 in 10164. Assuming billions of years, the total potential opportunities for this small protein to evolve is only 10139. And this is but the first in a long series of unlikely evolutions which are necessary to produce the most primitive life form. Of course, there is also the difficulty of explaining how matter appeared in the first place. Did it appear from non-matter, or is matter pre-existing? In other words, did matter come from literally nothing, or has matter always existed—it had no beginning?

 

Are these possibilities more plausible than believing that a supernatural being known as “God” has always existed and that it is He who created the heavens, the Earth, and all of their inhabitants? Both hypotheses are miraculous in nature. Both hypotheses demand supernatural explanations. At the very least, Darwinian evolution requires no less faith to accept than does belief in the existence of a Creator God.

 

Scientific law almost necessitates the existence of God. According to Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion known as “the law of cause and effect,” “To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:”[1] In other words, every effect must have an equal or greater cause. Consider for a moment the effects of nature, and what this necessitates regarding the cause:

  • Nearly limitless space
    • We have yet to discover the edge of the universe
    • The cause must be infinite
  • Endless time
    • The cause must be eternal
  • Boundless energy
    • The cause must be omnipotent (all-powerful)
  • Universal inter-relationships
    • The cause must be omnipresent ( everywhere at once)
  • Supreme complexity
    • The cause must be omniscient (all-knowing)
  • Moral values
    • The cause must be moral
  • Spiritual values
    • The cause must be spiritual
  • Human responsibility
    • The cause must be volitional (possessing a free will)
  • Human integrity
    • The cause must be truthful
  • Human love
    • The cause must be loving
  • Life
    • The cause must be living[2]

According to the law of cause and effect, there must be a cause which is inherently: Infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, moral, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, and living. This is a wonderful definition of what we mean when we refer to “God.” The characteristics of this cause are not fulfilled by a “Big Bang.”

 

Of course, someone will respond to God being the cause of the universe by asking the question, “What caused God?” God, according to the above definition, is eternal, thus requiring no cause. Those who ask where God came from don’t understand the definition of the terms they are using. It is like asking the question, “To whom is the bachelor married?”

 

In both views, something must be eternal. Either God is eternal, or matter is eternal. In order for us to exist, something must have always existed. Consequently, the entire question of origins is not ultimately a scientific question. It is outside the realm of science and cannot be absolutely proven. The most that science can offer us in answering the question of origins is to point us in a general direction, and the law of cause and effect indicates that it is more plausible to believe that God is eternal than to believe that matter is eternal.

 

Those who want nothing to do with God reject the implications of the law of cause and effect. To them, “nothing” is more preferable than “God.” In a 1984 Scientific American article titled, “The Inflationary Universe,” evolutionists, Dr. Alan Guth and Dr. Paul Steinhardt, write:

From a historical point of view probably the most revolutionary aspect of the inflationary model is the notion that all the matter and energy in the observable universe may have emerged from almost nothing. This claim stands in marked contrast to centuries of scientific tradition in which it was believed that something cannot come from nothing. …The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.[3]

 

Similarly, in a New Scientist article titled “What Made the World?” Dr. Edward Tryon writes, “So I conjectured that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness.”[4] Also, Dr. Paul Davies writes, “This ‘quantum cosmology’ provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.”[5]

 

The entire question of origins is not a scientific question. It exists outside the realm of science and cannot be proven. We cannot test the past. We can only test how objects from the past relate to the present. To conclusively answer the question of origins, we must first answer the question whether there is a God.

 

In order to prove that God does not exist, a person must be omnipresent to ensure that God is not hiding somewhere in the universe. He must also be omniscient, knowing all facts, lest one of the facts of which he is unaware afford the possibility that God exists. Therefore, to prove that God does not exist, a person must have some of the very attributes that he is seeking to refute, but this is a self-refuting argument. It cannot be sustained. A person cannot prove a universal negative unless he possesses universal knowledge, and science does not have universal knowledge. As such, science can never absolutely disprove the existence of God.

 

If we are unable to prove that God does not exist, then we can never be certain that God did not create everything. Recall that in a correspondence sent to A. W. Mehlert in 1993, the evolutionist, Dr. Paul Davies, writes:

No theory can rule out divine creation. Scientific theories are simply proposals for how the world is, to be tested by observation. There is no logical impediment to God creating the universe five minutes ago in its present state, complete with human memories. In the end a theory stands or falls on whether human beings consider it reasonable.[6]

 

Genuine science cannot disprove the existence of God. In fact, genuine science indicates that the existence of God may be probable or even necessary. What then does genuine science convey regarding the feasibility of evolutionary process? The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that everything is moving toward a state of entropy.[7] This means that the usefulness of energy is progressively deteriorating. The energy still exists, but it eventually becomes useless energy. Simply put, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that everything is degenerating, and because this is a scientific law, it is true without exception. Einstein declared that this law would never be disproven, and thus far he has been correct.*[8]

 

Evolutionary process teaches that there is an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Not only is there an exception, but this exception is supposedly the norm. According to evolutionary process, everything is becoming better and more complex. In order to accept the hypothesis of evolutionary process as being true, a person must reject the scientific law of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is ludicrous. There has never been a single test which has shown something to defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to become better and more complex on its own. Rather, every scientific test has consistently proven the Second Law of Thermodynamics to be true. This is why it is considered a “scientific law.”

 

Despite these truths, some remain convinced that evolutionary theory is a viable exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They postulate that the Second law is only true within a closed system. A closed system means that it receives no extra outside energy, but Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system because it receives energy from the sun. According to this postulation, the energy from the sun supposedly replaces the energy which has moved to a state of entropy, thus preventing things from degenerating.

 

In the first place, it is not true that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only true within a closed system. In a 1980 Chemical and Engineering News letter to the editor, evolutionist, Dr. John Ross, writes, “[T]here are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily, the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”[9] Common sense affirms this. In order for us to have originally proven the Second Law of Thermodynamics this law must be true in both open and closed systems. After all, the experiments which first proved this law were performed within an open system. Furthermore, raw energy from the sun is not necessarily useful energy. Simply adding energy from the sun into the open system of Earth does not mean that Earth’s supply of useful energy is replenished. Energy from the sun is highly destructive. This is evident in the way that it destroys things, such as paint. In fact, ultraviolet light will kill single-celled organisms in less than 1/3 of 1 second.[10] How can the sun be the savior of life in this scenario if it would have killed the first living organism in less than a second?

 

In order to be useful, the energy from the sun must be converted via some mechanism. Within nature, this occurs through chlorophyll in plants. Artificially, we can construct such mechanisms as solar panels. However, without the mechanism to convert the energy, the energy is either useless or destructive. Simply pouring more energy into a system does not overcome the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is certainly no evidence that it causes organisms to become more complex.

 

Even if it were true that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is only true within a closed system, the Darwinian hypothesis of evolutionary process would still defy this scientific law. The universe is the ultimate closed or isolated system. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics is overcome within an open system but not within a closed system, then the entire theory still fails. According to the evolutionary process, somehow the universe must become more complex after the initial explosion which formed it, but the universe is all that exists, which means that there can be no outside source of energy to replenish the deteriorating usefulness of the existing energy. Thus, the universe could never have become more complex to create our solar system in the first place. This brings to mind Sir Arthur Eddington’s comment in his book The Nature of the Physical World:

The law that entropy always increases—the second law of thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of nature. … [I]f your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.[11]

 

Just as the Darwinian hypothesis of evolutionary theory defies the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also defies the First Law of Thermodynamics. This law says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.[12] Once again, because this is a scientific law, there is never an exception within nature. Nevertheless, Darwinian evolution maintains that there was an exception to this at the beginning when everything first formed. If this is true, then there are exceptions to what we know to be absolutely certain within the laws of nature. To make the claim that these exceptions are scientifically acceptable is to bring into question everything which bears the title of “scientific fact.” If there is an exception to the First Law of Thermodynamics, then nature could never teach us why or how this happened because it exists outside the laws of nature. Science also could not teach us why or how this happened because science can only observe, verify, and repeat the laws of nature. Thus, if the claims regarding evolutionary process are correct—if energy was created in the beginning—then this event was, by definition, supernatural.

 

Once again, we find that both Darwinian evolution and Creationism rest upon the same foundation. Both hypotheses depend upon a supernatural event which cannot be absolutely proven using the scientific method. Thus, belief in either hypothesis is based upon faith.

 

Biblical faith is not blind. Too many people accept the Miracle on 34th Street definition of faith: “Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to.”[13] But this is a far cry from the Bible’s definition. The Bible defines faith in Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) using logical terms.*[14] Faith is the substance of things hoped for. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.

 

One of the most basic logic formulas is the modus ponens argument which says that if premise A is true, then premise B must also be true. For example, if a ma n has one million dollars, then he is rich. Without exception, the truth of premise A (a man has one million dollars) necessitates the truth of premise B (he is rich). However, if the truth of premise A is unknown, then the truth of premise B is also unknown. It cannot be determined to be true or false. It is simply unknown. For example, if God loves us, then He will do what is best for us. The truth of premise A (God loves us) is unknown, therefore, the truth of premise B (God will do what is best for us) is also unknown.

 

Because logic is based upon what can be determined using the five senses, spiritual issues are beyond the ability of logic to definitively evaluate. This is where faith comes in. Faith does not contradict our logic; it perfects our logic. Faith says that premise A (God loves us) is true even though we cannot prove it using our five senses. Using the testimony of a spiritual eye witness as presented in Scripture, this eye witness to spiritual matters is capable of testifying to—and therefore affirming—the truth of those premises which we would otherwise be incapable of affirming. This transforms the conclusion of our logic argument from being an unknown to being a certainty. No longer are we unable to affirm the validity of whether God loves us and, therefore, remain unsure of whether God will do what is best for us. Now we can affirm the validity of premise A. Faith is our evidence for what we cannot see—that God exists, and that God loves us. Having affirmed the validity of the statement “God loves us,” we can now be absolutely certain that “God will do what is best for us.”

 

Of course, faith does not believe Scripture to contain the account of a spiritual eye witness for no cause. Faith is a trust in something based upon the weight of available evidence. We exercise faith on a regular basis. For example, we place faith in the testimony of eye witnesses to a crime. We were not there to personally witness the crime. We have no way of conclusively proving the testimony with our five senses. Therefore, we are compelled to place our trust (faith) in the witness based upon that person’s credentials and the credibility of his testimony.

 

Likewise, we consider the reasons to believe the accuracy of Scripture. We do not have time to go into all of these reasons here, but there are numerous good reasons to be confident in the accuracy of Scripture.*[15] Therefore, our faith is a reasonable belief. Given the available evidence, there is good reason to believe that the account of Scripture is accurate, and there is insufficient reason to disbelieve the account of Scripture.

 

Regarding the origin of life, every person must determine whom he believes to be most trustworthy. The evolutionist believes the testimony of scientists to be reasonable enough to be the foundation for his faith. The Christian believes the testimony of the Bible to be reasonable enough to be the foundation for his faith.

 

In a society where the spirit of antichrist has greater control, the spiritual blindness to the truth of God’s Word will be greater. The more a society rejects the authority of God’s Word, the greater will be the influence of a view that is motivated by the spirit of antichrist—such as the Darwinian hypothesis of evolutionary process. This is what Romans 1:21–25 teaches us. Therefore, as Christians, we should not be surprised that our society has embraced Darwinian evolution, and we certainly should not conform our beliefs to comply to this view that is rooted in the spirit of antichrist.

 

The spiritual battle is a battle for the hearts and minds of men. The issue of Darwinian evolution is a clear example of how our adversary has blinded the minds of men. This blindness is not based upon facts. This blindness is not based upon what is more reasonable or plausible. This blindness is based upon a spirit that rejects the authority of God and His Word. As such, the antidote to evolution is not more facts; it is the truth of God’s Word. By using the tactic of revealing this view to be based upon faith and to be no more plausible than Creationism, hopefully we can level the playing field enough to introduce the truth of God’s Word and to encourage serious consideration of it.

 


  1. Elert, The Physics Hypertextbook.
  2. Northwest Creation Network, “Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation.”
  3. Guth, “The Inflationary Universe,” 128.
  4. Tryon, “What Made the World?”
  5. Paul Davies, “Science, God and the Laws of the Universe,” ABC Radio 24 Hours, August 1992, 37, Source: Grig, “The mind of God and the ‘big bang.”
  6. Paul Davies, Correspondence Sent to A.W. Mehlert, March 22, 1993, Source: Northwest Creation Network, “Thermodynamics.”
  7. Entropy Sites, “A Student’s Approach to the Second Law and Entropy.”
  8. “It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts.” (Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, 31, Source: Howard, Don and John Stachel, Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879–1909, Einstein Studies, Vol. 8 (Boston: Birkhauser, 2000), 1, Source: Wikiquote, “Thermodynamics.”)
  9. John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, July 7, 1980, 40, Source: Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics.
  10. Northwest Creation Network, “Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation.”
  11. Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, Source: Bent, The Second Law, 308,
  12. Boston University Physics, “The first law of thermodynamics.”
  13. Miracle on 34th Street.
  14. Hebrews 11:1 (ESV): Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
  15. For more information, see Josh McDowell’s book New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

Comments are closed.