1

Creationism versus Genesis

By
Dennis Murphy

25 April 2010

Amended 9 August 2010

Copyright © 2010 Dennis Murphy

1
 2

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 
Does it really matter what we believe? ......................................................................... 9 
An example of “good intentions” for the wrong reasons ........................................... 10 
The Law of unintended consequences ....................................................................... 12 
Our individual Big Picture View of the World ......................................................... 14 
Interpretation and Mental Templates ........................................................................ 17 
Rules of Evidence ...................................................................................................... 17 
Interpretation of the evidence..................................................................................... 18 
An example interpretation .......................................................................................... 19 
Just what is a scientific theory? .................................................................................. 23 
The philosophy of science and the development of the “scientific method” ............. 24 
What makes a scientific theory? ................................................................................ 26 
The limits of any theory ............................................................................................. 30 
Why Creation Science and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories .................. 31 
The creationist claim of loss of information over time in the genome as an
example of hypothesis testing ............................................................................. 33 
The role of viruses in adding new information into the genetic structure .......... 36 
A summary of the main points in the Court Judgement in the ID trial ...................... 37 
Scientific Dating Methods ........................................................................................... 39 
The controversy .......................................................................................................... 39 
The explanation from the world of science ................................................................ 41 
The Scientific view of the Universe and Life ............................................................. 47 
The views of individual scientists .............................................................................. 47 
Darwin’s ideas of the evolutionary process are the scientific equivalent to Newton’s
ideas on gravity – a good beginning, but a long way to go ........................................ 48 
Charles Darwin and his ideas ..................................................................................... 50 
Descent from a common ancestor....................................................................... 50 
Natural selection ................................................................................................. 51 
Is evolution still occurring today? .............................................................................. 55 
A summary of the scientific view of the appearance of life on earth ........................ 56 
Self-organising systems? – Or do we need a Special Creation?............................... 59 
The conflict between religion and society ................................................................. 59 
Is evolution consistent with Genesis? ........................................................................ 59 
Snowflakes, salt and sugar - Crystals that self-organise and self-assemble .............. 60 
Increases in information in the self-organized and self-assembled entity ................. 62 
The original DNA molecules – an example of self-assembly.................................... 64 
A question that must be asked .................................................................................... 68 
Don’t mention the war ................................................................................................. 70 
Much thought went into whether I should include this chapter ................................. 70 
One of the reasons that I changed my belief from creationism.................................. 71 
The Discovery Institute .............................................................................................. 72 
General philosophy of the creationist viewpoint ....................................................... 74 
The creationists techniques of camouflaging the truth .............................................. 75 
Tactic one – misuse of the scientific method...................................................... 75 
2
 3
Tactic two - continue to use discredited ideas to mislead people ....................... 76 
Tactic three – claims that science “is in crisis” over some point of debate ........ 77 
Freedom and the religious state.................................................................................. 78 
Are creationists really “persecuted” by the scientific community? ........................... 80 
Do Darwin’s ideas encourage or lead to atheism? ..................................................... 81 
The attempt to “jump-start life” – Ben Stein in the DVD “EXPELLED” ................. 82 
The manipulation of Darwin’s quotation in his book “The Descent of Man” ........... 84 
The creationists preoccupation with evangelism ....................................................... 88 
The Genesis account of creation ................................................................................. 91 
The mystery of Genesis chapter two .......................................................................... 91 
Adam and Eve and the Doctrine of Man .................................................................... 93 
The appearance of Eve........................................................................................ 94 
The Doctrine of Man and the question of Cain’s wife ....................................... 94 
The question of how Jesus can be both fully God and fully man ....................... 95 
Genesis chapter one compared to the scientific view ................................................ 96 
“Day” one – Creation of the universe and the solid, liquid and gaseous matter
needed for the planets ......................................................................................... 96 
“Day” two – The earth forms and the atmosphere is created ............................. 98 
“Day” three – The dry land appears and the sea and plants created ................. 101 
“Day” four – The sun and the moon start shining – and other stars in the sky 102 
“Day” five – Sea creatures and birds appear .................................................... 104 
“Day” six – Appearance of life on land and the entrance of mankind ............. 104 
The total agreement between the Biblical account and the science account............ 105 
A challenge............................................................................................................... 106 
Strong’s Concordance definitions for Genesis chapters one and two ...................... 106 
Did God need a special act of creation for each different living organism? ......... 109 
How many special creations would have been required? ........................................ 109 
God’s mechanism for creating huge diversity from a common ancestor................. 110 
The concept of Chaos ............................................................................................... 111 
What happens when we repeatedly carry out a given procedure? ........................... 112 
A picture of an iterated system – and what do we mean by a “strange attractor”? .. 114 
What does it mean to say that something is a fractal? ............................................. 116 
Generating a fractal .................................................................................................. 118 
The fractal iteration formula as the “genome” of an organism ................................ 119 
Observations of the Natural World .......................................................................... 120 
Animals that undergo radical changes to their bodies during their lifetime ............ 120 
Have you ever wondered how the shape of all living things comes about? ............ 121 
Fractal mathematics as the mechanism that controls shapes in the natural world ... 122 
Similarity with the natural world and the fractal images of the Mandelbrot Set ..... 122 
Bringing it all together............................................................................................... 128 
The creation and the emergence of life .................................................................... 128 
Creationists and the Church ..................................................................................... 130 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3
 4

Introduction
Or
What this book is about and how I came to change my views
about how the universe came into being.

From about the age of seven I was enrolled in a Baptist Sunday school. Within a couple
of years my family moved to one of the early Pentecostal churches and I transferred to
the Sunday school there. The views held and preached at that church were those typical
of Pentecostal and some Evangelical churches at that time, and still largely today. They
focused strongly on the concept that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and is
literally true in all sections, personal salvation through repentance and belief in the
atonement of Christ on the cross, speaking in tongues, healing, casting out of demons,
the Second Coming and the idea that God created the world in six literal days about six
thousand years ago. The ideas on creation were taught mainly in the Sunday school
and I don’t remember any particular focus on this in the sermons in the main services.

I have also always had a very strong interest in evidence based science. But at the back
of my mind there was always the nagging realization that the ideas of science and
creationism were not compatible. But because my commitment was to God, I preferred
to believe what other “more knowledgeable” people in the church told me than to go
outside the comfortable (but inconsistent) ideas that had been inculcated in me. In
effect I read books about the Bible, and listened to what other people told me about the
Bible – but I did not actually do any rigorous study of the Bible myself to see what it
actually had to say for itself on this subject.

The predominant view in the Evangelical churches has always been that scientists are
atheists. This is because of the scientific necessity of not accepting “the god of the
gaps” to explain the areas that we don’t currently understand. Science has to find an
explanation for how things work – it simply cannot say, “Well we don’t understand
that so “God” must be responsible for achieving that by means that we cannot – and
should not – question or try to understand”

Because of this antagonistic relationship between the Church and science, the church
has gone its own way. This has led to the inexplicable interpretation of Genesis
chapters one and two that now forms the basis of the creationist viewpoint of how the
world and life came into existence.

I have always liked debating and evolution versus creation was an area that I often got
involved in with some “rather robust discussions”. I was often known to say, “You may
have sprung from a monkey – but I was created by God” Unfortunately, it became
increasingly apparent to me that science was winning the debates that I often found
myself involved in. At the same time I was also convinced that although I often lost on
the science front of the argument (e.g. the belief in creation about 6 thousand years ago)
I firmly believed that God really had created the world. I just wasn’t sure how to
reconcile the two viewpoints.

This situation continued until about 1996 when I was admitted to hospital with a
suspected heart problem. During an angiogram to diagnose the trouble I suffered a
cardiac arrest and was clinically dead for a little over ninety seconds before my heart
could be restarted with a stable heartbeat again. The cardiac arrest occurred as I was
watching the screen next to the angiography table showing the dye as it coursed

4
 5
through my heart. At the onset of ventricular fibrillation (the cardiac arrest) the world
simply faded out into nothingness as my blood pressure dropped to zero. When this
happens you lose consciousness – hence the fading out of your vision as the blood
pressure drops over a two or three second period.

My experience during that ninety second period changed my view of many things. First
and foremost, I found myself suddenly outside of my body in a “dark space.” Some
others refer to it as a “dark tunnel.”(see notes on Bible versions later in this chapter) A
dark space is the best way that I can describe it. I was stationary in this space, but I
could consciously move across this “dark space” to a “wall” that appeared to have what
is best described as a “porthole” in it. Looking through this “porthole” I was viewing
(off from the side) the activities around my body on the table in the angiography lab. I
was fully conscious just as I and you are now – however I felt absolutely no foreboding
or fear, just an intense feeling of surprise. I didn’t understand where I was, or how I got
there, or what I was doing there. Over the next minute and a half I slowly realized that I
had indeed “died” during the process and was now outside my body observing what
was happening. As they restarted and stabilised my heart I suddenly felt as if I was
being sucked into a vortex. I then immediately became aware of one of the nurses
holding my elbow with her face close to mine saying, “You are safe now” I asked her
if I had just gone into cardiac arrest – she said “Yes, I had, but I was now safe”

Your views on many things change after an experience like that!

One of those changes was that I now know what it feels like to die. This is something
that had always intrigued me – and perhaps also disturbed me as I know that it does
many others. More importantly it gave me a first-hand look at, and experience of the
underlying mechanism of the Doctrine of Man that is spread throughout the Bible.
This doctrine is beyond the scope of this book, but can be read in the expanded version
of this book called, “From Creationism to the Creation” which is available free on
SCRIBD at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-Creationism-to-the-Creation

This and other insights from this experience started a deeper examination of many
subjects in the Bible. The end result of much study on these subjects showed me that
the Bible and science say identical things about the creation.

I know that this statement is going to come as a shock to both Christians who believe in
a literal six 24 hour day creation a few thousand years ago and scientists that believe
that the Bible teaches a literal six day creation as opposed to the creation of the
universe about 12 to 15 billion years ago. However, any fair and rigorous reading of the
sequence of the creation events laid out in Genesis chapters 1 & 2 clearly shows that in
fact standard science theory in the areas of cosmology (how the universe and planets
formed) as well as biological evolution now confirms the exact sequence of the Biblical
description.

The fact that many scientists are not aware that Genesis 1 & 2 exactly mirrors what
they are now saying about the origins of the universe is a poor reflection on them. It
shows that they have condemned the Bible without even reading it.

The fact that many Christians have not read the Genesis sequence of creation and
realised that it simply does not follow the creationists supposed sequence of events or
agree with the creationist’s account of the origins of the world is a very poor reflection
on them also. Sadly, for much of my life I was a part of this group up until my

5
 6
experience of cardiac arrest in hospital. We condemned science as being anti-God
without even bothering to read the sequence of creation in Genesis and realizing that
the Biblical sequence exactly mirrors the much later scientific account of the formation
of the universe.

Questions then arise how both sides of this argument have ignored the very large
“elephant in the room” of the Bible giving an almost word-for-word account of the
same view as put out by the science community – yet both sides of the argument
seemingly completely unaware of the elephant quietly sitting there.

This book is the story of how I became aware of the elephant in the room and how I
have reconciled the Bible and science. It is the story of the intellectual journey that I
took as well as exploring how and why the Christian community as a whole has missed
the elephant in the room.

This journey is based on one simple belief. That is that the Bible is correct and does in
fact accurately reflect the natural world (the whole universe) around us – as well as the
broad strokes of historical fact (e.g. not a detailed historical account). The voyage
covers many subjects that at this stage of the book many Christians would not think
were important to the story. However every chapter has been carefully researched over
the years and each and every subject covered is a vital part of the entire trip. In order to
understand my journey from the ideas of creationism to the creation that each one of us
sees around us, it is important to read each chapter in turn so that the unfolding ideas
are properly presented. Unless the thread that connects all the ideas together is followed
then essential concepts are missed. This would then mean that the final picture is
distorted. Each person will make up their own mind as to whether their views have
been influenced by this book. Please feel free to question or discuss any matters in it
with me.

In any study of a Biblical text it is important to look at the original meaning of the
words. This is particularly important today as there are now many paraphrased versions
of the Bible. A paraphrased version of any document is simply a restatement of a text
or passage using your own words to describe what you “think” is the correct
interpretation of the original text. Paraphrasing always makes a text unsuitable for
serious study as one person’s (or group’s) interpretation of the text is not necessarily
the correct one.

As an example of the problems of paraphrased versions of the Bible, compare the New
King James Version (NKJV) literal translation below of Psalm 23 verse 4 with the
same verse taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) (1989) where the
translators have paraphrased that and some other verses

Psalm 23:4 (NKJV – a literal translation)

4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death (OT:6757 – see
below), I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they
comfort me.

NRSV (1989) (A paraphrased version)

Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I fear no evil; for you are with me,
your rod and your staff - they comfort me.

6
 7
The idea that comes out of the NRSV translation is that God comforts His people when
they walk in dark times. This is true. However it still misses the literal meaning as
translated in the NKJV of the original text. That is that people who die and leave their
bodies initially find themselves in a “dark space” or a “dark tunnel” – but Christians
will not experience fear. This “dark space or tunnel” is in fact the valley of the shadow
of death as it is literally described in the literal translations of the Bible.

OT:6757 tsalmaveth (tsal-maw'-veth); from OT:6738 and OT:4194; shade of

death, i.e. the grave (figuratively, calamity):
KJV-shadow of death.

Even literal translations such as the KJV, sometimes translate some words in ways that
history has shown was not perhaps the best or clearest choice. The only way to ensure
that a consistent interpretation is reached in light of historical and contemporary events
and to clarify the original meaning of some words in order to bring out the nuances
involved is to look at the underlying text where this becomes necessary. In order to do
this we need to look at a recognised textual source. Strong’s Concordance is probably
the best known and accepted reference of the meanings of the original Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek. Accordingly, all of the word definitions used in this book will be
taken from Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International
Bible Translators, Inc.

In compiling the concordance each different individual word in the text in the original
documents used to translate the King James version (KJV) of the Bible were given a
number that identified it in the Strong’s Concordance. Both the Old Testament and the
New Testament have their own series of numbers that start from one in each case e.g.
OT:1 and also NT:1 Each entry has two main parts to it. The first section shows the
word itself and its associated Strong’s Number as well as the original meanings of that
word. The second section (Heading KJV) gives the list of words that the KJV uses as
the interpretation of the original word depending on the particular context where it is
used in the Biblical text.

The final matter that needs to be covered in this introduction concerns the general ideas
that seem to be at the heart of the creationist’s viewpoint about Genesis. I cover this at
the start in order to give the general (as I see it) very brief background in order to set
the scene for later discussions on the subject.

The creationist’s beliefs appear to rest on three points.

1. Because Genesis is the beginning of the Bible, creationists believe it lays out the
foundational base for the ideas expressed in the rest of the Bible. It is believed that
anyone who rejects the fundamental ideas that creationists believe God laid out
regarding the beginning of the universe and the earth, are then prone to accept what
they consider to be the atheistic views of science. As a result of adopting the ideas
of science, it is then believed that people reject the message of personal salvation as
laid out in the New Testament.

2. That the church’s primary role is that of evangelism where it is tasked with winning
as many souls for Christ as is possible. It is believed that one of the major
“roadblocks” that Satan erects to hinder this work is the general acceptance of the
“atheistic” views of science. It is believed that once people accept the science view

7
 8
of creation that they are “inoculated” against the Gospel of the N.T. and hence
science thwarts the Will of God.

This subject is beyond the scope of this book, but is explored in the expanded
version of this book called, “From Creationism to the Creation” which is available
free on SCRIBD at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-Creationism-to-the-
Creation

3. It is believed that because God desires to save all mankind from the effects of sin;
that this salvation comes in the form of God saving every person in the sense of
each person accepting Christ as their saviour. Anything that prevents them from
getting the message of personal salvation to people is then preventing them from
fulfilling the command of the great commission as shown below

Matthew 28:18-20 (NIV)

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and
teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with
you always, to the very end of the age."

Here again, this subject is beyond the scope of this book, but is explored in the
expanded version of this book called, “From Creationism to the Creation”
available on SCRIBD (link given above)

With the background outlined in this chapter we start out following the path that led me
from the viewpoint of the creationists to the view of the creation that I hold today. A lot
of this journey consists at looking at what the Bible actually says. There is also some
simple science in this book. However the debate is not about trying to get people to
believe that “science is right” and “creationism is wrong”. Rather it is about
discovering just what the Bible has to say on many subjects that are central to the
public debates on this matter – and how the actual world around us works from a
Biblical viewpoint.

As usual, my viewpoints will not be what many people expect. They will in fact be
controversial. This is not done intentionally. These views arise simply from a literal
reading of the Bible and comparing that to the world around us. They are the result of
directly reading and quoting the Bible – not from reading books about what other
people claim the Bible says. If nothing else comes from this book, hopefully it will at
least encourage discussions on the matters that it raises.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

8
 9

Does it really matter what we believe?

Or
“Is doing the “right thing” – even for the wrong belief or motive” justified

It is one of the callings of the church to act as the light of the world. In order to be taken
seriously on matters such as this (and many others) the church has to present an image
to the public that inspires confidence. It also has to show that they know what they are
talking about. Holding unsustainable positions erodes the credibility of the church and
the individuals within the church who speak out. When the church as a whole holds
positions that are not supported by the evidence, it makes the work of individuals so
much harder when they go into battle in the area of debating public policy on many
subjects that are crucial to the wellbeing of society.

This chapter is only concerned about whether it matters what we believe. It comes
down to a question of “Is doing the “right thing” – even for the wrong belief or
motive” justified? Some people will (and do) argue that doing the “right thing – even
for the wrong motive” is OK. Their reasoning appears to be similar to the old
Machiavellian idea in his book “The Prince” where he lays out the idea that the “end
justifies the means”. Simply put, it is the concept that if you consider the goal you are
working towards to be important enough, then it is acceptable to do whatever it takes to
achieve the goal. If you have to bend the rules a bit – or perhaps not directly lie, but just
omit certain critical information which changes the final interpretation to suit your goal
– then it is acceptable because you are working for the “common good”.

It sounds reasonable – and it is the way that politics works. There is just one small
problem, it is absolutely wrong. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, it is demonstrably
wrong and we will look at a current example which graphically demonstrates the truth
of this statement. It applies to all walks and areas of life. If we have to knowingly “omit
certain facts” or knowingly make some statements “that are not quite right” in order to
influence the debate, then it can be quite unequivocally said that the case that we are
making is pretty weak, and is probably wrong. As we progress in this book we will see
some examples of this happening.

The end result of deception is that, in the best case, your credibility is severely eroded
and probably destroyed when the deception is revealed (and it always is in the end).
Even if you are unaware of facts that you should have known, and you don’t knowingly
mislead, it doesn’t help your credibility. In the worst case, misleading people – either
knowingly or un-knowingly – can lead to catastrophe.

The following is a brief look at a current example where “people did the “right thing”
– but for the wrong reasons” and it has caused a global catastrophe. I am talking about
the global financial meltdown of 2008 to “who knows when?”

I am not going into a detailed account of the whole sad-and-sorry saga of how this
came about. That is the role of others more qualified than me to assess the causes and
reasons for the resultant world-wide debacle. I am only concerned with the questions of
the principle decisions and motives of the key players and the crucial actions along the
way that led to the final catastrophic meltdown. All of this information is freely
available in credible newspaper reports on the internet along with the online
encyclopaedia “Wikipedia”. A useful link to a report on the main thread of the
legislative changes that were pivotal in the final disaster is shown below.

9
 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#George_W._Bush_Admin
istration_Proposed_Changes_of_2003

An example of “good intentions” for the wrong reasons

The story starts with President Clinton in 1999 when he signed a bill that overturned a
regulation called the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This act covered a number of banking
reforms, some of which were designed to control financial speculation. Clinton wished
to get around those restrictions and reform banking to serve his political agenda

Clinton’s stated reason for the repeal of the act was to allow high-risk (poor white,
black and Hispanic) people who would not normally be able to get a home loan to
obtain one. The idea was to help poor people get into their own homes – and to help
them generate wealth for themselves. On the face of it – this was the “right thing to
do”.

However according to most analysts in the US the real reason for the decision was the
upcoming Presidential election in November 2000. The intention was to effectively
help “buy” the votes of the poor and the blacks in that election for the Democratic
candidate. In the end it was George W. Bush of the Republicans who won that election.
However the die was now cast and the financial system was on its way to the crash of
2008 as a result of Clinton’s deregulation of banking for the “right reasons” but for the
“wrong motives”.

The effect of Clinton repealing the Glass-Steagall Act and the subsequent tough new
regulations that was introduced in its place was to force banks to provide high-risk
housing loans to people who could not afford them. The main effect of the changes was
to force a lowering of lending standards or the banks would face heavy government
penalties.

Bill Clinton approved another critical change to the financial regulatory framework. On
December 21, 2000 Clinton signed into law the Commodities Futures Modernization
Act of 2000. Amongst other things, this law deregulated the financial instruments
known as derivatives and made it possible for banks, brokers and insurance companies
to issue and trade many forms of financial instruments without any government
oversight.

The seeds of destruction of the financial system had been sown!

Enter President George W. Bush onto the stage of the unfolding debacle. He was the
man who watered and fertilized the seeds of financial destruction that Clinton had
earlier sown.

Bush was a man who tried to “do the right thing” in many areas. In the end not many of
his polices worked out for a large number of reasons. As history has now shown,
probably the single most catastrophic Bush policy was the one outlined in his October
15, 2002 speech to the White House Conference on “Increasing Minority
Homeownership”. In it he says

10
 11
I set an ambitious goal. It's one that I believe we can achieve. It's a clear goal, that
by the end of this decade we'll increase the number of minority homeowners by at
least 5.5 million families.

In the speech he outlined a number of initiatives that his government was implementing
to achieve his goal of higher home ownership for poor people, including those who had
poor credit records. The policy included having effectively no down payment for low
income people and an initial low interest rate for a number of years to allow the people
to settle in. The idea being that as the general economy improved so would the incomes
of these people and hence they would then be able to pay the higher interest rates at the
end of the “interest rate honeymoon”. This was the seed that Bush sowed that acted as
the trigger that brought the whole system down

Irrespective of what Bush’s stated “good intentions” were, most analysts agree that this
policy was designed by Karl Rove as part of the 2004 election campaign to re-elect
President Bush. The policy was successful and most writers agree that Bush’s re-
election was a direct result of this housing policy.

The problem with Bush’s 2002 speech was the rather obvious message he was sending
to the banks, and more importantly, the federal regulators of the financial system. The
speech made clear that Bush wanted the safeguards relaxed and money made freely
available to anyone irrespective of their credit records. This message, along with
Bush’s well known opposition to any form of government regulation if it could be
possibly avoided, was not long in being taken-up by the financial sector.

There is no nice way to put it. Greed, incompetence and stupidity took over! The
unwise, greedy and incompetent financial practices spread to all areas of the US
economy

The banks then compounded the problem. They wanted to free up more capital for the
orgy of greed, corruption and stupidity. To achieve this they packaged up all the toxic
rubbish loans that they had and then sold “slices” of these packages off all over the
world as triple A rated securities. The final pieces of the disaster were now all in place.
All it needed to bring the house of cards down was for the trigger to be pulled.

The trigger was the interest rate honeymoon on the sub-prime loans. As this
honeymoon period finished the people who had taken up the initially low interest loans
were then required to pay the going market interest rates. Most of these people were not
able to meet the higher interest rates.

Now the final bit of stupidity came into play. Under US law a homeowner could simply
“throw the keys through the door of the bank” and walk away with no liability for the
loan. This bit of unwise legislation was then compounded by the greed of the banks
who refused to let people remain in their homes – so the people walked away and
abandoned the houses. Because of vandalism of the empty houses, entire blocks of
homes were bulldozed. How clever and wise was it to let this happen?

The end of the interest rate honeymoon started the financial avalanche that is still
cascading down and growing today. (Mid April 2009) Where and when it will end is
anyone’s guess! As at May 1, 2010 the debacle appears to be gaining steam again with
the US Government looking to charge Goldman Sachs with fraud over what it alleges

11
 12
was deliberate misrepresentation on the part of GS on some of the financial investments
that GS sold as AAA rated securities. It is unclear where this allegation will now lead.

But as an example of the misleading statements by the ratings agencies, consider the
following. From all the AAA-rated subprime-mortgage-backed securities issued in
2006, we now find that 93 percent have now been downgraded to junk status as at the
beginning of May 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/26krugman.html?hp

I leave it to the readers to form their own opinion of both the morals and the intellect of
the people who peddled this rubbish to unsuspecting buyers.

The Law of unintended consequences

The financial debacle described above is a perfect example of the “Law of unintended
consequences” I don’t believe that either President Clinton or President Bush who
succeeded him ever intended to cause any harm with the various policies and pieces of
legislation that they both put in place in pursuit of their policies of affordable housing
for the poor – and for their own political success. But every analyst today can trace the
current debacle back to those polices and legislation. The question then becomes why
did the policies go so disastrously wrong?

Well the answer is simple. Clinton had as his primary motivation the re-election of a
Democrat candidate as the next US President as he had finished his second term and
was not eligible to run again. Bush’s primary aim was to get re-elected for a second
term. What they did was to select a “good cause” to exploit to try and achieve their
primary personal goals. In Bush’s case he also strongly believed that he needed to get
rid of any legislation that he could to help business make more money. He believed that
this would automatically lift the incomes of the poor as well

They were obsessed by their primary goals and did not spend a lot of time thinking
about the warnings that they both received about the unwise policies they were
pursuing. They also ignored the fact that people without standards and laws would act
for self-interest (greed) – and not the common good, which for some inexplicable
reason most of the key individuals in this debacle believed would be the case.

The other major problem that has become apparent today is that none of the influential
players and decision makers (politicians, regulators and bankers) understood the
fundamental mechanisms of the market place and hence could not accurately assess the
potential effects of their decisions and actions. Nowhere is this last point better
illustrated than in the arguing that is currently happening in most countries around the
world about the best course to take to try and ward-off the deepening financial disaster.
If any of them truly understood the underlying mechanisms of governance then it
would be a simple matter laying out what went wrong – why it went wrong – and then
saying, “well here is the solution” They can’t do this for the simple reason that most of
them don’t understand how an economy works.

In the end, we had two US Presidents that tried to preserve their own political fortunes
(e.g. the wrong motivation) by doing the “right thing” to entice voters to their political
parties. Because they focussed on the “wrong motivations” they did not see the
problems with what they were doing and so caused a worldwide financial disaster.

12
 13
The reason for examining this financial meltdown is to draw a comparison with some
of the beliefs in the church today. There are many dedicated Christians today who
believe that the church is all about evangelism and “winning souls for Christ.” It’s a
“good goal” However their motivation needs to be measured against what the Bible
actually says on this matter.

In order to look at this in detail involves a number of matters that are beyond the scope
of this book. For those who are interested a full discussion of the Biblical account of
the role of the church in the world can be found in the expanded version of this book
called, “From Creationism to the Creation” which is available free on SCRIBD at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-Creationism-to-the-Creation

Much of the book “From Creationism to the Creation” looks at this question of
motivation and asks whether this idea of evangelism being the church’s primary role is
in fact Biblical. It asks the question (and answers it) as to whether the church has not
also contributed to the “law of unintended consequences” by some of its beliefs on the
origin of the world.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

13
 14

Our individual Big Picture View of the World

Or
The framework through which we interpret new information
coming to us from a variety of sources

We live in a complex ever changing world that we need to make sense of in our daily
lives. Often there are repetitions of the same sorts of things, such as a passing parade of
familiar faces, names and places that we recognise. There are also familiar situations
that we encounter, such as what to do in order to fill the car with petrol at our usual
service station. However there are also many new situations that we encounter that we
have to deal with. How do we cope with these situations?

Take the picture shown to the right, how many people can
instantly recognise this as a representation of a bird? Well,
despite the fact that there is certainly no bird that has ever existed
that looked like the picture, it is probably fair to say that
everybody can nonetheless recognise it as such. The reason for
this is that we all have a mental template of a generalized bird
that includes such things as a beak, wings, tail feathers and two
long spindly legs with some thin toes on each leg. Using this
mental template our brain simply does a “pattern matching” exercise comparing the
bird picture with all of the generic mental templates of different geometric shapes (e.g.
a chair, car, boat etc) and almost instantly finds that it matches its generic bird template.
The important point here is that we don’t consciously scan each element of the bird
drawing and then have the brain do a detailed image processing exercise to try and
identity the shape. This would take a long time and would make normal life essentially
impossible. Our brains work differently and can instantly process the whole image.

Research has shown that not only do we have mental templates of many different
geometric shapes, but we also have generic concept templates that we compare with
words so that we can instantly recognise when somebody is talking to us about various
subjects such as sport, politics, religion, art etc. As an example, if you walked past a
group of people who were talking and you heard the key words, player, score and goal
you would automatically associate these words with sport. Similarly, if you heard the
words, church, pastor and God, you would automatically know they were talking about
religion. Here again, you form an instant opinion about the subject under discussion
without knowing any of the details of the actual topics being discussed.

The actual mechanism used by the brain in this situation is what is known as the
concept of sufficient definition. A simple example would be if you were shown a
segment of a larger picture in which a ship’s propeller is visible and asked to say what
sort of vehicle the propeller was attached to? You would automatically say, well ships
have propellers, but other vehicles normally don’t, so I have sufficient information to
guess that the answer is a ship. In most cases you will probably be correct. However in
some cases you will not be e.g. the propeller was on the back of a car that had been
adapted to be used on either land or water. The important point again here is that your
brain automatically uses the concept of sufficient definition as its first response. A
prudent person may reconsider that first response and consider alternative possibilities
if there was a reason to suspect that maybe they were being setup to give the wrong
answer.

14
 15
The question arises as to how we form these mental templates that we all use to
interpret the world around us. Research has shown that many different paths are
followed in the building up of these templates. These include such things as our past
experiences and the many different images that we have seen and what we have been
taught by our experiences as well as what other people have told us either directly in
spoken words or in the written word.

The role of spoken or written words in forming our individual mental templates (of all
types) is a really critical issue in what we come to believe. Many years ago I saw a
particularly striking demonstration of how a mental template was formed just by the
use of one sentence and how this template “made sense” out of a series of sounds. It is
worth describing as it graphically shows how we are influenced by words

The demonstration was in a lecture on the physics of sound waves that incorporated a
section on how the brain differentiated between different sounds. As part of the
demonstration a very simple computer controlled speech synthesiser was used to create
an electronic voice that spoke a short pre-programmed sentence. The words coming out
of the computer were “spoken” through a very small speaker and were formed as a
series of low, medium and higher tones that were strung together to form the “voice”.

At the start of this part of the presentation, the lecturer told everybody that he was
going to play this electronic voice “speaking” a short sentence then he would ask
everybody present what the voice said. We have all heard the electronic voice that
Professor Stephen Hawking the famous physicist who suffers from Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) uses to communicate with because of the condition he has.
Most people will agree that the “voice” takes a bit of getting used to. Well the
synthesized “voice” in the demonstration was much worse than this – in fact it was
completely unintelligible. Nobody had any idea what it “said.” The lecturer said he
would play it again. The result was the same – not one person could give any idea of
what it “said”

The lecturer then said that he was going to tell everybody what the voice had said and
then he would play the sentence again and that everyone would clearly understand what
the electronic voice was saying. The lecturer said the voice was saying, “Mary had a
little lamb, its fleece was white as snow” He then played the “voice” again and
everybody clearly and distinctly understood exactly what it “said”

Our minds had been conditioned when he told us what the “voice” was saying and in
that instant, everybody built a mental template of how an otherwise completely
unintelligible electronic “voice” pronounced words.

The critical point here is that, by being told what the interpretation of the sounds were
that came out of the speaker, that is what we “heard” and nobody could convince you
that the electronic “voice” said anything else. It was self-evident! But was it really self
evident? Up until that point of time we had no idea what it “said”. What if we had been
told that it said “Little Bo Peep had lost her sheep” – would we have clearly heard the
“voice” saying that?

Well the answer is that – provided we played various messages enough times and
really listened – then you would eventually work out what the “voice” was saying.
This was because listening to the “voice” enough times built up a mental template of
what you could expect to hear from this voice. In many ways it was similar to listening

15
 16
to a person from another country speaking English in a foreign accent. Initially you can
have a lot of trouble understanding them. In time you become used to their accent and
can more easily understand what they are saying.

“Understanding” what you read, hear or see in “real time” (as it

happens) requires the brain to process this incoming information
as quickly as possible. This is done by comparing the incoming
data against your pre-existing mental templates and using the
concept of “sufficient definition”. Reading the phrase in the
picture to the right is a good example of this mechanism. It says,
“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. This is a
familiar phrase that your brain would have recognised early in the process of reading
and would then have used the concept of “sufficient definition” after reading “A bird
in the hand” and automatically matched that up with the rest of the saying that it holds
in one of its mental templates of “sayings”. The only problem here is that most people
who read this will not have spotted the error in the picture (an extra “the”) simply
because they assumed that what was written matched their mental template.

While this mechanism can be useful in filtering out errors and making sense out of
things around us, it can also lead you to misunderstand what is actually being said.

There is a potentially bigger problem as well. What if the mental template that you hold
on a particular subject has factual errors in it? Unless you closely look at your first
responses to a particular issue you may find that you are simply assuming that your
automatic “mental template” response is correct and saying “Of course – it is self
evident”

However the big problem in all this is that the mental template that you form for any
given subject can be demonstrably wrong for quite a number of reasons which we will
look at in the next chapter. There are two main reasons that we all sometimes lay down
faulty mental templates.

1. We all have particular world views on a variety of subjects. Unfortunately some

people who fill the roles of “opinion leaders” on a given subject deliberately omit
certain information – and then emphasise other information – in order to present
a particular viewpoint that reinforces certain particular views in their selected
audience. It happens in all fields, but it has to be said that religious opinion leaders,
and to a lesser extent some science opinion leaders are often guilty of this.

The problem arises when these opinion leaders state in articles and speeches to non-
specialist audiences “as fact” some things that they would never submit to a peer
reviewed journal or panel because some of these statements would be immediately
discredited and their professional reputations damaged.

2. We in turn – although often being a non-specialist in the particular area – are

responsible simply because we uncritically accept what others (“experts”) tell us.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

16
 17

Interpretation and Mental Templates

Or
How do we make sense of a document or situation
and decide what it is really saying

Much argument arises simply because people often decide, without any investigation,
that a given document or set of circumstances are describing a particular situation.
Often their decision is based on a pre-existing particular worldview that the person
believes or holds to. This pre-existing belief is often the result of simply accepting what
other people have told them “are the facts”. In other cases, the person has formed a
particular view on some subject, for any one of a thousand reasons, and will take “at
face value” – or as a matter of “common sense” that a particular document or set of
actions “proves” that their viewpoint is correct.

You see the resulting arguments between people in all areas of life such as sport or
business – and particularly in politics and religion as these are areas where quite often
passion rules over facts.

Now people will always see different aspects of any situation as we all have different
likes and dislikes and different life experiences that have shaped our ideas. This is part
of the rich tapestry of life and we will never – nor should we – try and suppress ideas.
However we can reduce unnecessary conflict by ensuring that our decisions are made
based on the facts as they actually are presented and not on what we simply “decide is
the case” and particularly when that decision is not based on the facts at hand.

Decision making like this frequently has disastrous results from the wide and
unintended consequences that flow from these non-fact based conclusions. This is
particularly true when dealing with what the Bible actually says – as opposed to what
many sincere people sometimes state that it says, but without rigorously checking the
interpretation. Some of these issues were addressed in the previous chapter. “Does it
really matter what we believe?”

Society has developed many ways of checking just what “the facts” are in any given
case. It splits into two separate sections.

Rules of Evidence

In order to determine what are “facts” – as opposed to “hearsay” or “prejudices” or

“fraudulent statements” the legal profession has developed rules of evidence that
determine what is applicable in a court of law. The actual rules themselves vary
according to the particular case in hand. However, there are certain common elements
such as:-

1. The facts and evidence must be valid and be able to uphold its claims under the
scrutiny of qualified people in that area. In the area of Biblical commentary, this
means that if you are writing an article or book that is intended for the general non-
specialist reader, then you must not make claims that would immediately be
challenged and discarded by a professional peer-review panel who would review
that submission if it were submitted to a professional journal for publication.

17
 18
It also means that presenting a “fact” that has had certain information withheld
about it, and that would otherwise change the interpretation if that information was
disclosed makes the “fact or evidence” unreliable. If that information is knowingly
withheld in order to mislead the reader (for whatever reason – even “good
intentions”) then the evidence is fraudulent.

2. The evidence and interpretation that you present must be consistent with other
examples of that “fact” and with the pre-existing body of accepted evidence unless
the facts and data showing why a different interpretation is acceptable are also
presented. It also means that if you interpret something in one way, then you must
also interpret that same point in the same way in other situations – unless it can be
shown to have a strong evidence basis for the “contrary” interpretation.

3. The “facts” and interpretations should represent the current state of knowledge in
that field. It is not acceptable to present “old facts” as “new evidence” to an
untrained audience when the situation among knowledgeable specialists has moved
on. As an example, it would be totally unacceptable to present as “fact” to an
untrained audience that two people e.g. one stationary and one moving towards a
light source, would measure two different speeds of light in a beam coming towards
them. At first glance you would say “Well I am travelling toward the light, and the
beam is travelling towards me – so I must measure it as faster than the person
standing still!” Although it seems counterintuitive, they would both measure the
speed of light as the exact same value. This fact is well documented and it leads to
many strange effects that are well documented in the world around us. Some of
these effects also have a bearing on the question of how old the earth really is e.g. is
it about 6000 years old or about 4 ½ billion years old.

Interpretation of the evidence

Having the facts presented correctly and honestly is one thing. Deciding just how those
facts and evidence should be interpreted is another matter again. There is a simple way
of doing this which is expressed by the acronym COMB

1. The immediate Context, or environment, in which the particular statement or set of

circumstances occurred that you are analysing. These immediately surrounding
words or events help to define the meaning or situation being analysed. As
examples.

• I live in a block of apartments – with “block” meaning that my apartment is just

one in a group of apartments.

• I will block them by taking out an injunction – with “block” meaning that I will
obstruct someone by the use of a legal procedure.
.
2. Any Other references to the situation under discussion – such as other historical or
contemporary documents on the subject – or additional technical information that
may be available to assist in ruling out certain possible competing interpretations

3. The ordinary Meaning of the words, symbols or other relevant details that were
employed in the original situation that you are analysing. If you believe that you are
not dealing with the ordinary meaning in a particular analysis, then you need to give
a convincing explanation of why this should be the case.

18
 19
4. The general Background to the immediate context of the original documents. This
is an additional component to the immediate “context” and may be necessary in
order to narrow down any ambiguity that could possibly result if just the immediate
context of the word or matter under investigation was considered by itself

As examples (The general background is in blue)

1. You belong to a social club. You also belong to a small group of friends within
the larger club. “Jill” who is a member of only the small group within the larger
club has a birthday coming up and issues invitations to each member of the
small group (only) to attend her birthday party. “Jack” is a member of several
sub-groups within the larger club, including our small group. “Jack” says
everybody is coming to the party.” The meaning here is clearly defined by the
general background information and is that “everybody” from those who
received an invitation will be attending – not that everybody in the club will be
at the party.

2. The Government periodically conducts a national census in order to gather a

snapshot at a given point in time of the details of a range of nationally important
issues. This is done in order to assist in national policy development. “Jack”
says everybody is required to participate in the census.” The general
background here makes plain that this means that “everybody” in the country
(not just this suburb or city) on the day of the census – including international
visitors – must have their particulars included in the census forms in order to get
a statistically significant set of data for the analysis to be reliably performed.

An example interpretation

Consider the montage of four pictures shown below. They are all of animals that swim
in water. We have a couple of eggs from the animal whose bill is shown – a bill – the
hind foot of the animal swimming in the bottom right picture – and the back half of an
animal swimming in water. Our task is to interpret the picture and decide just what it is
showing.

After visually inspecting the montage above it is not hard to conclude that:-

19
 20
• The pictures are of animals that are connected with water
• There are eggs shown plus a bill – hence we have a duck
• We have an animal with a large brown tail and webbed feet – so we have a beaver

Hence our interpretation is that the montage is made up from images of both a duck and
a beaver as shown in the two pictures below. This is a reasonable interpretation.

Now let us carry out a more formal analysis of the montage using COMB.

Context – Animals that swim in water.

Ducks, swans, beavers and platypus (and a whole lot of others – but this is sufficient
for this analysis)

Other information – On the animals referred to in the context heading

• Ducks and swans both have three toes in front and one behind the leg

• Duck eggs are not usually white – but swans eggs can be.

• Duck and swan bills are similar and have a roughly triangular side profile with the
upper and lower bills essentially the same length. They also have nostrils on the
upper bill towards the eyes of the bird

• Beavers have five webbed toes on their hind feet. The second toe on each hind foot
also has an extra claw to help the beaver groom.

• A Beaver usually has a dark brown coat and a broad, flat, scaly tail about 25 cm long
e.g. the tail has no fur on it

• Platypus have five webbed toes on their hind feet. They also have a pronounced spur
on the lower part of their hind feet.

• Platypus have a dark brown coat and wide flat tail that is covered in fur.

• The platypus's bill is a blue-grey, blackish colour with the two nostril holes near the
tip. The lower bill is shorter than the upper bill and the lower bill is held in place by
two elongated dentary bones.

20
 21

• Platypus eggs are small and leathery similar to a snakes egg and with an off- white
colour

Below are some images of the various characteristics that we have described in the
“other information” to assist in the interpretation of the montage.

Duck eggs

Platypus Bill
Platypus hind foot showing spur

Beaver showing flat scaly tail

A Beaver’s hind foot

21
 22
Meaning – Of the pictures in the montage

The pictures are intended to give a visual set of clues to the identity of the animals
instead of writing out a long set of physical characteristics of the animals concerned.
E.g. a picture is worth a thousand words

Background – to the montage

The pictures are simply an exercise in interpretation.

Final analysis

1. The eggs come from the animal with the bill. The bill has a shorter lower section
than the upper section – hence the eggs and bill come from a platypus
2. The webbed foot comes from the animal shown swimming. The foot clearly has a
spur above the webbed toes. The tail of the animal is covered in fur – hence the
lower line shows a swimming platypus
3. All four images in the montage are from a platypus

My original uncritical suggestion was that the correct interpretation of the montage
was that it was showing a duck and a beaver. Experience tells us that a number of
people will uncritically accept what they are told in this sort of situation and so would
then store that interpretation away in their memory as a mental template. This memory
then forms part of the “big picture” through which they then interpret other critical
pieces of information.

The question of whether a person deliberately misinterprets a text or set of data or

circumstances, or whether they simply uncritically accept someone else’s interpretation
is not something that we can often determine. However what we can say is that once
the misinterpretation goes into our internal big picture that we all use to make sense of
the world around us, then there is absolutely no question that we are going to
misinterpret the world around us. The consequences of this can range from very little,
to quite catastrophic.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

22
 23

Just what is a scientific theory?

Or
Are theories simply one person’s or group’s idea on a given subject
or are they something different

The debates on how the universe and life came into existence usually get bogged down
in competing arguments about “theories” of how it all started. This chapter looks at
exactly what a “scientific theory” is – and why some ideas are not considered to be
“scientific”. In this chapter we are concerned with the philosophy of science only and
we will not be concerned with looking at any particular “theory”.

This subject was an important turning point in my journey from creationism to my

current understanding of the creation I see around me. Without a clear understanding of
just what a “scientific theory” is defined as – and why it is defined in that way – it is
not possible to be able to assess the claims of both sides of the creation argument. I
know that a lot of Christians will strongly disagree with this statement. But it is non-
the-less true and the reasons for this will be explored in the rest of this chapter

For many people, the idea of a “theory” is that it’s simply some vague idea about a
particular subject. The main idea that many have is that a “theory” is simply a guess
and has no demonstrated factual basis. A good example of this sort of belief was given
by US President Ronald Reagan in a campaign speech in Dallas in 1980 in answer to a
question about evolution:

Well, it is a theory, it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been
challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific
community to be as infallible as it once was believed. But if it was going to be
taught in the schools, then I think that also the biblical theory of creation, which is
not a theory but the biblical story of creation, should also be taught (Science, 1980,
p. 1214).

In the quotation above I have highlighted four items in different colours. These are the
critical points in the discussion and they underlie the various legal trials that have been
held in the USA on the subjects of evolution, creationism and intelligent design.

The two most significant cases were the “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925. This trial was
a challenge to the Butler Act, which was a 1925 Tennessee law that disallowed public
school teachers to teach that man had descended from apes. At the end of this trial the
teaching of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was still prohibited in public schools.
However, by 1958 this had changed and the teaching of evolution was encouraged in
public schools.

The last of the critical legal cases on this subject was the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in
2005 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The judgement in this case was that the court found
that "intelligent design" was in-fact the teachings of creationism in disguise. The
critical finding of the court was that the underlying belief system of “intelligent design”
does not fit the definition of a “scientific theory” – but was in fact a religious belief. As
such, it was found by the U.S. District Judge John E. Jones to violate the constitutional
separation of church and state. The ruling forbade the teaching of intelligent design in
publicly funded schools as an alternative “theory” to standard evolutionary “theory”.

23
 24
Many people who believe in creationism and intelligent design (ID) don’t understand
the basis for this ruling that ID is not a valid scientific theory. They are not alone as
many people in the general population also don’t understand what make a scientific
“theory”.

In the following sections we very briefly look at the philosophy of science and why
some people think that it is atheistic, and what a theory in the scientific sense means –
as opposed to common usage of the term (e.g. “I have an idea.”) and a very brief
summary of why ID does not meet the criteria of being a scientific theory

The philosophy of science and the development of the “scientific method”

From earliest history, mankind has sought after knowledge about the world around him.
This thirst for knowledge can be found in the writings of the ancient Egyptians and
Babylonians and other races. It can be seen in the inexorable march of technology
across the millennia right up to our present times. It will continue into the future as
well.

From the beginning, right up until today – and probably forever into the future – there
have always been gaps in mankind’s knowledge. In the past it was common to assign
these gaps to the action of God simply on the basis that mankind had no answer to what
was observed in these cases. Not surprisingly, this has become known as the "God-of-
the-gaps” argument".

A typical example of such a belief in the past was how people believed that God
intervened in the universe to control the sky. In mediaeval times it was believed that
angels pushed the planets around the sky because they had no explanation of why the
planets would move and certainly no understanding of what controlled the paths that
they were observed to follow. With the advent of Sir Isaac Newton (4 January 1643 –
31 March 1727) and his discovery of the three laws of motion and later his Law of
Gravitation, we had a good working idea of why the planets behaved as they do – but
no real understanding of the underlying mechanism that caused the behaviour. This
understanding has now been deepened with the insights of Albert Einstein’s theory of
General Relativity which he published in 1916. It is a “theory” (backed by experimental
evidence) that describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time, or
what is known as space-time. Today, theoretical physicists are working on a further
refinement of Einstein’s general theory. This expanded theory is called quantum
gravity. It is not possible to tell exactly how the world will understand gravity and
motion in a hundred years time. All that we can say now is that it will be different to
our current understanding – and that is will be closer to a “full understanding” of these
matters.

The critical point in the description above is that God has now been squeezed out of
this gap in medieval knowledge of what actually causes the planets to move. We now
know that it is not angels. Rather it is “laws” of physics that cause and control the
movement. As time goes on mankind’s knowledge of the laws will continue to deepen
and broaden. In the future mankind will even get to understand what a “law” is at its
fundamental level, where it came from and how it works at its deepest level.

Science long ago realized that this idea of invoking God to explain the things that are
currently not understood meant that as science progressed there would be no place left
for God at all. Eventually He would be squeezed right out of the picture altogether. It

24
 25
was also realized that if science accepted somebody’s assertion that “God is responsible
for a particular matter – so mankind is not capable, nor allowed to investigate that”
then it would be absolutely impossible for mankind to progress at all.

In the general science community, the idea that mankind was not capable of, nor
allowed by God to investigate the universe was clearly not consistent with the proven
ability of mankind to investigate all these matters.

The number of Christian scientists in the world-wide scientific community is about the
same proportion as Christians are in proportion to the total world population. For all of
these Christian scientists, the idea that mankind was prohibited from investigating all
areas of the creation was not consistent with the statements in Genesis that said
mankind was created in the image of God (e.g. a thinking creative being) and to rule
over and subdue the earth and the creation in its wider sense over the fullness of time
(Genesis 1:26-28)

From this background came the understanding across the scientific community that in
order to understand the world around us we first have to accept that it is
understandable. This means that in order to seek knowledge of how the world works we
need to understand that there are laws that govern how everything works. The quest for
knowledge is to discover what these laws are and how they affect the workings of the
world around us.

Over the centuries a common idea of how best to go about discovering the laws that
govern the universe has been developed. This method has been spectacularly successful
in advancing the cause of science and is known as the “scientific method.” The general
outline of this method of investigating any subject is given below

1. You observe a particular phenomenon, but don’t understand how it works

2. You form a hypothesis about how you think that it works. This will be in the form
of a specific prediction that is possible to be shown to be false

3. An experiment is designed and setup to test your hypothesis

4. The data from the test is analysed to see:

• If the specific prediction has not been shown to be true then the hypothesis has
been shown to be false. In scientific terms, it is said to have been falsified. In
this case you repeat steps 2 and 3 until the results agree with your hypothesis

• If the experimental results agree with your prediction then it is possible that
your hypothesis is correct. However, it is never possible to absolutely “prove”
anything for reasons discussed in the next section.

5. If you believe that your experiment has confirmed your hypothesis, then you
submit a paper describing your work and results to a peer reviewed journal that
specialises in that area of work. Providing the peer review panel agrees that your
work is professionally presented – and the methodology of the experiment – and the
analysis of the data is credible – then the journal may agree to publish your paper.

25
 26
6. Other scientists will then read your paper and many of them will try and duplicate
your results. The intention in this duplication is to attempt to find a situation that
will falsify your findings. The work of these individuals and groups may then be
published in a peer reviewed journal – providing the peer review panel finds that
their work meets scientific scrutiny.

Scientific research is a very hard area to work in because of this intense scrutiny of
your work and the intensely competitive nature of science. But this cycle has shown
over time that it is the best way of generating scientific knowledge. It is in fact a form
of Darwinian selection – only those ideas and results that cannot be falsified make it
into the accepted body of scientific knowledge. It makes for much controversy along
the way – but it also leads to a useful, workable body of knowledge that advances
mankind.

What makes a scientific theory?

We must start by differentiating the term “theoretical” from the term “theory” as used
in science. Something that is “theoretical” is usually reserved for an idea that has not
been tested by physical experimentation and confirmed to the extent that it is generally
accepted by other scientists who are expert in the field. Hence we have people who
have the title of “theoretical physicist” They employ mathematical models and abstract
ideas in an attempt to construct a workable model of various phenomenon in the natural
world. They work mainly in the realm of cosmology (the universe at large) and
quantum mechanics (the world of the sub-atomic). However, their “theoretical” work
does not become part of a generally accepted ”theory” until and if it is confirmed by
many experiments and to the satisfaction of other physicists

Turning to the idea of a “theory” it is commonly, but incorrectly believed that a

scientific theory is an undeveloped idea that will eventually be upgraded into a
scientific law (or set of laws) when enough evidence has been accumulated to “prove
the theory”. This is not quite the same as mistaking a “theoretical concept” for a
“theory”. A theoretical concept is generally the subject of a lot of well considered
thought before an experiment is carried out. Whereas the common idea of a “theory” is
that it is more-or-less an uneducated guess where someone says “I have a theory that
all dogs like to eat fish” – but where they have just plucked the idea out of the air
because their dog likes to eat fish.

In reality the exact opposite is the case. A good definition of a theory is given by the
United States National Academy of Sciences and shown below

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely
to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a
theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory
refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported
by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions
about as yet unobserved phenomena,

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the

natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed
through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not
"guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution
is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the

26
 27
atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity
is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an
accepted fact.

Theories are created to explain various aspects of the world around us. A given theory
will only be accepted in the science community if it is able to provide a consistent set
of explanations about a given subject in science. Another critical requirement for a
successful theory is that it is able to make predictions that can be tested to provide
further insights in the subject.

Stephen Hawking, the theoretical physicist who is the Lucasian Professor of

Mathematics at the University of Cambridge makes the statement in his book called
“A Brief History of Time” that,

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately

describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a
few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of
future observations."

He also says in the book that,

"Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis;
you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree
with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not
contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding
even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."

Hawking’s second statement that any physical theory is always provisional and can
never be proved is worth considering in more detail because it runs counter to what
most people believe about the trustworthiness of any particular theory. It also runs
counter to the statement on the first page of this chapter where former President Reagan
said

Well, it is a theory, it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been
challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific
community to be as infallible as it once was believed.

The idea that President Reagan was presenting was that a theory – once established –
was set in stone for evermore. This idea is totally contrary to science and the world
around us. Science is continually making new discoveries about old subjects. A current
very good example is the state of knowledge of gravity. The first law of gravity that Sir
Isaac Newton announced on gravity was simply a law that described how bodies move
in a gravitational field. It said nothing about what actually caused gravity. That
explanation was left to Albert Einstein about 200 years later in his General Theory of
Relativity. It is the current understanding of gravity of modern physics. It unifies
Einstein’s other theory of about the same time that is known as Special Relativity
and Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. It describes gravity arising from the
local curvature of the geometry of space and time, or space-time from the existence of
mass or radiation at any particular location within space-time. However there are still
unanswered questions even with Einstein’s discoveries. Theoretical physics is trying to
further unify Einstein’s tested theories with the fundamental forces of nature
(electromagnetism, weak interaction, and strong interaction) that are described by

27
 28
quantum mechanics. It can be confidently predicted that when quantum gravity
becomes an accepted part of science, that further avenues of discovery will be opened
up that will lead to a deeper understanding again. The essential point in this is that there
will never come a time when challenges to any theory cease to appear. The day that
happened would – by definition – be the end of science. In view of this, we next look at
why Stephen Hawking made the statement that any physical theory is always
provisional and can never be proved. .

One of the problems that scientists realised in their quest for new knowledge and
discoveries was that people looked to experiments to confirm their beliefs about any
subject that they were investigating. However, there is a major logical flaw in this sort
of reasoning, and this flaw can lead to a belief that you have confirmed “that this is so”
when in fact all that has happened is that no one has found a case that contradicts all the
“confirmations.” Human nature being what it is, people can – and do – present evidence
that “confirms” their case, but do not look too hard for evidence that contradicts it.

Sir Karl Popper (1902 to 1994) is one of the most influential philosophers of science
from the 20th century. Popper is probably best known for his work in exposing the
problems of the inherent logical and psychological problems of looking for experiments
to confirm a hypothesis. His big idea was that the purpose of any scientific
experiment was to show that the results were not as predicted by the hypothesis that
was being tested by the experiment. The expression given to this idea is falsification of
the hypothesis. The reasoning for this is shown below.

Suppose somebody proposes a hypothesis that water boils at one hundred degrees
Celsius. There is no problem in carrying out an infinite number of experiments that will
confirm this hypothesis provided that the experiments are all carried out at sea level
Hey presto! - “We have proved that water boils at 100º C.” The only small problem is
that all we have shown is that under the conditions that the experiment was carried out
at (e.g. standard atmospheric pressure at sea level) that water boils at 100º C

Now let’s look at the purpose of the experiment being to disprove the hypothesis
that water boils at one hundred degrees Celsius. This time we conduct the experiment at
a variety of altitudes. If we try it high up on a mountain where the air pressure is
lower than at sea level, we then find that water boils at a temperature below 100º C. If
we try and boil water at the Dead Sea which is below sea level, we find that the boiling
point is above 100ºC. By conducting the experiment on the basis that we are trying to
disprove the hypothesis we have actually discovered the truth about the temperature
at which water boils – namely that the boiling point is directly related to the
surrounding pressure – lower pressure = lower boiling point and higher pressure =
higher boiling point. Some examples of the temperatures that water actually boils at are
given below.

Place Altitude Water boils

London, England Sea level 212.0ºF or 100ºC
Dead Sea minus 1,296 ft below sea 213.8ºF or 101ºC
Denver, Colorado 5,280 ft 203ºF or 95ºC
Quito, Ecuador 9,350 ft 194ºF or 90ºC
Lhasa, Tibet 12,087 ft 188.6ºF or 87ºC
Top of Mt. Everest 29,002 ft 159.8ºF or 71ºC

28
 29
It is not possible to say that a given scientific hypothesis or theory is absolutely true
because we can never be completely sure that the next experiment – under slightly
different conditions – will show that it is wrong. All that we know is which ones have
not yet been proven to be false. The more times that a particular experiment is carried
out by different researchers – all trying to falsify the previous researchers results –
the more confidence that we can have that the hypothesis or theory is probably correct.

By consensus the science community agrees that for any theory to be acceptable it must
have the following characteristics. Failure to meet these standards automatically
causes an idea or set of ideas presented as a theory to be rejected.

1. It must be consistent with pre-existing theory provided that the pre-existing

theory was experimentally verified and has not been falsified by experiments. This
pre-existing theory must also be accepted by the majority of the science community
as valid. However the new evidence will often show that pre-existing theory is
wrong in-so-far as it is only applicable to a restricted case (e.g. Newtonian gravity
is only a restricted case of Einstein’s Theory of General relativity)

2. It must be supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single line of

reasoning. This ensures that any conclusions drawn from it are more likely to be
correct. A good example of this is the dating of rocks and biological material which
will be briefly looked at in a later chapter.

3. It must not assert that it is the final and certain word on the theory as there is no end
to science and new discoveries about existing areas are always being made. It must
allow for expansion and correction as more evidence and new facts are
discovered.

4. It should be the simplest possible explanation of a given phenomenon.

Experience and history have shown that this sort of explanation has always turned
out to be the correct one (as far as it is possible for us to know with certainly.) This
is commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test (e.g. cut right down to the
minimum)

5. The theory must be able to make predictions about the phenomenon that is being
investigated which can then be tested to see if these predictions can be falsified.
The purpose of this is to enable the theory to lead to a deeper understanding of the
phenomenon. Above all else, the really critical point is that the predictions must
be capable of being falsified. Failure to satisfy this point leads to automatic
rejection of it being classified as a scientific theory.

6. It must be heuristic. By this is meant that it must assist in the search for new
discoveries by pointing the way towards new questions that need to be asked (and
answered)

A theory does not have to be completely accurate in order to be scientifically useful. As

an example, the predictions that are made by the Newtonian Laws of motion and
gravity are known to apply only to a limited class of cases. They are not completely
accurate in situation where objects are moving at close to the speed of light relative to
an observer. In this situation, many strange things happen such as time and distance
dilation which stretch or compress both time and dimensions of objects from the
observer’s viewpoint. However Newton’s Laws are sufficiently good approximations in

29
 30
most circumstances and are widely used in the place of the more accurate but
mathematically complex theory of General Relativity.

An interesting aspect of science is that it is not bound by limits on what can be

investigated. This should not be taken to mean that unethical experiments should be
carried out as there are always ways to do things ethically. The idea of not being bound
simply means that everything in the natural world has its origins in the laws that govern
the creation and existence of the universe. As such, all these matters are the subject of
legitimate exploration. This includes stretching back in time to before the beginning
of the universe.

Right at this stage mankind does not have enough information or equipment that would
enable experiments to investigate reality before the beginning of our universe. However
theoretical physicists are currently exploring concepts that may one day enable
mankind to look into this matter. This desire and ability to investigate the natural world
back into infinity past as well as on into future infinity is the hallmark of science. It is
the fulfilment of the God-given command in Genesis 1:28 to “fill the earth and
subdue it” To subdue the creation means that you have to explore the natural world
and learn all about it.

The more knowledge that science accumulates, the greater the wonder becomes of the
intellect, subtlety, imagination, power and majesty of the God who created this. Science
never diminishes God – it always magnifies Him.

The limits of any theory

There is no such thing as a “theory of everything”. All theories have limits to their
explanatory ability. Trying to push the predictions past those limits results in nonsense
statements that are not reflected in what is observed in an experiment to test the
prediction.

A very simple example from mechanics and physics is the formulation known as
Hooke’s law of Elasticity. This states that the amount of linear extension of a spring
is in direct proportion with the load added to it as long as this load does not exceed
the elastic limit of the spring. What this means in practice is that by adding equal
increments of load to a certain spring will cause the spring to elongate by equal
amounts for each equal increment of load To put this into figures, we may have a
certain spring that will extend in length by 1.00 mm for each 1.00 Kg of applied load
(e.g. 2.00 Kg = 2.00 mm extension etc.) You are all familiar with this device in the
form of a spring-balance weighing unit.

At first glance it may look as if you could simply keep adding 1.00 Kg loads to the
spring and stretching it by a further 1.00 mm with each load addition for as long as you
liked. Now leave aside the fact that there is clearly a limit to how far a given spring
could stretch out to if all the coils were straightened out. There is another more
fundamental reason that you cannot go on forever adding equal increments of load and
obtaining an equal increment of spring extension. As the spring extends the stress in the
wire in the spring increases. Eventually it reaches a point that is greater than the elastic
limit of the material. At this point the proportionality between the increase in the stress
in the wire and the force that produces the stress no longer remains constant. After this
point the amount of extension in the spring will become greater and greater for each

30
 31
increment in the load. As an example it may go to 1.5mm extension per 1.00 Kg of load
then increase to 2.5 mm per 1.00 Kg of load and so on.

You see the point – as soon as you reach the elastic limit of the wire in the spring the
prediction of the spring extension per unit of load made by Hooke’s Law breaks down.
You can no longer rely on the predictions of the theory of elasticity to give accurate
answers.

This same condition applies to any theory. There is a limit to how far it can go in
explaining things or making predictions. One of the reasons for trying to falsify the
hypothesis in experiments is to find the limits of applicability of the phenomenon under
investigation. This becomes especially important in theories that try and probe how the
universe began and more particularly, how life arose. We will look at this question in a
later chapter when we look at the problem in science of differentiating between the
process of natural selection in a species that adapts that species to a particular
environment, and the much more difficult question of how different species may have
arisen in the first place.

Why Creation Science and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories

Many people who believe in a literal six day creation about six thousand years ago and
who subscribe to the ideas of Creation Science or Intelligent Design lament the fact that
the science community will not accept their ideas as scientific. I have heard and read
many times that, “You will not find this sort of evidence published elsewhere because
scientists suppress it as it would prove that their ideas of the earth being about four
and a half billion years old and life having arisen by evolution are wrong”

The fact is that it is not only creationists that make the claim that the science
community will not recognise their ideas as being scientific. There are many people
who try and convince others that they have come up with a perpetual motion machine
where, in-principle a motor drives a generator – and the output of the generator drives
the motor – which in turn drives the generator. It sounds plausible at first glance. But it
cannot happen even in theory as there are losses in both the generator and the motor
which are not possible – even in theory – to overcome. These losses mean that one watt
of power output from the motor into the generator will generate less than one watt of
power out from the generator. Similarly one watt of power into the motor from the
generator will produce less than one watt of power out to the generator. These
unavoidable losses make the idea of perpetual motion impossible. There are many other
such “scientific theories” that some members of the community promote that are
likewise impossible. None-the-less, there are many people who complain that the
science community will not take them seriously when they promote these ideas.

Even within the credible science community there are many examples of people who
have fought for years to get their theories accepted. A notable example was the two
researchers, Dr. J. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry J. Marshall who were awarded the 2005
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for showing that bacteria cause stomach ulcers.
They started this work in 1982 and it took until 2002 before there was a consensus in
the medical community that they were correct. This was despite the fact that a lot of
scientific work was carried out by many researchers along the way

This backdrop shows just how hard it is to get a consensus even when we are talking
real science as opposed to non-science (e.g. perpetual motion). We can now look at

31
 32
why the creationist movement has lost the recent legal battles to have Intelligent Design
taught in American schools as a “scientific theory”.

The answer to why the US Court decided that ID was not a scientific theory of how the
universe came into being and how life appeared was given in the words of Dr. Duane
Gish, of the Institute for Creation Research. He is one of the prominent creationist
theorists. In his book “Evolution? The Fossils Say No!” (1973) and not retracted in his
latest edition “Evolution? The Fossils Still Say No!” (2006) he wrote:

"By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the
basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do
not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes
which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we
refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific
investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."

The two critical sections of his statement are highlighted in blue and red. These two
assertions automatically rule out the ideas of creationists as being scientific
because they assert that it is not possible to even begin to investigate the origins of
the universe and life.

As was discussed in the last section, the key criterion that is recognised as the line of
demarcation between a scientific theory and a speculation is that a scientific
hypothesis must be capable of being subjected to a test that can show that it may
be false. If a statement, hypothesis, or theory is not falsifiable then – by definition
– it is not scientific.

In this discussion a clear distinction must be made between a “falsifiable” statement

and a “false” statement. There is a big difference between the two. A “false” statement
has already been proven to be false hence it does not need any further testing. On the
other hand a potentially “falsifiable statement” must be tested by experiment to see if it
can be shown to be false. The purpose is to test whether the hypothesis has some basis
for being believable and also to explore the limits of applicability of the hypothesis.

Duane Gish states in his book that testing of his “theory” of special creation is not
possible – hence it cannot be falsified – hence by definition it is not scientific. It
cannot be that those who hold creationist beliefs can have it both ways. Either they put
up a hypothesis that can be tested to see if it can be falsified – or they cannot claim to
have a scientific basis for their beliefs. In this latter case they would have to admit that
they hold their views on the basis of a religious belief.

A scientific theory must be open to investigation and modification (“What makes a

scientific theory – Point 3)” From the Creationist viewpoint the idea of the original
creation is now final and closed. Not only is it not able to be investigated – but the clear
inference is that it is a forbidden subject to investigate. On this ground alone Creation
Science and ID are ruled out as scientific theories of the creation as they will not allow
any change in the fixed belief of a six literal day creation as a result of scientific
advances in knowledge and new facts that have been discovered.

There is another matter that makes the claims of the creationist’s beliefs unscientific.
This is the idea of the evidence leading the search to wherever it may go. This is

32
 33
enforced by the rigorous testing and attempts at falsification of any hypothesis that is
proposed.

This is not the basis of research undertaken by the creationists according to their
published papers and books. - nor according to various court cases, including the latest
one on the teaching of ID in public schools in the US (Kitzmiller versus Dover Area
School - 2005). The courts have found that the findings of creationist research is based
upon first making a conclusion on a subject from a pre-existing view of what they
believe the Bible says – and then finding and reporting only those cases that supports
the pre-existing conclusion. It is the equivalent of only “looking for cases where water
boils at 100º C” By neglecting to include any evidence that water can boil at other
temperatures depending on the pressure, the conclusion(s) that are reached are simply
not correct or reliable and have no predictive power. However, presented with such
evidence, a person who is not knowledgeable in the subject would be convinced that
water only boils at 100º C. Clearly such a person would have been misled. So it is with
at least some of the “evidence” that is presented by the Creationists

The creationist claim of loss of information over time in the genome as an example
of hypothesis testing

As an example of the creationist’s use of looking only for cases that confirm their
hypothesis and neglecting the cases that show the hypothesis to be false, consider the
following common assertions by various creationist authors.

A quick read of creationist literature in books and on the internet will reveal statements
to the effect that “information” in the genetic structure of all life forms started out in the
“perfect” condition and have since then continually lost “information” over the
intervening time period. These accounts state that mutations are the cause of the loss of
information. The reasoning also continues that any mutation results in a loss of
information in a pre-existing precisely coded system and that the results of this loss
range from neutral to lethal for the organism. They claim also that there is never a
gain in information as that would require an input from an external intelligent source.
Since they believe that all this was set at the time of the original special creation and
that God no longer intervenes in this manner, they do not believe that “information”
increases in the genome can occur.

At its most basic level, information theory talks about the amount of “information” that
is carried in a given sequence of “code” In this case they are referring to the genome
that each living thing contains within it. In modern molecular biology usage it refers to
all of the hereditary information that is encoded in the DNA of that life form.

In order to carry out a scientific exploration of this assertion that any change that
occurs in the genome over time must only result in a loss of information, requires us
to formulate a hypothesis that we can test. To be scientific this hypothesis must be in a
form that allows the hypothesis to be shown to be false if that is indeed the case. If it is
not in this form then it is by definition not a scientific experiment

To meet this requirement of being able to show that the hypothesis may be false means
that the hypothesis is usually framed as an If-Then statement. Three formal hypothesis
examples in this format are given below

33
 34
If the boiling point of water is related to the surrounding pressure, then adding
heat to water that is exposed to the prevailing atmospheric pressure at various
altitudes above and below sea level, will result in different boiling temperatures at
different altitudes.

If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light, then people with a high exposure to UV
light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.

If leaf colour change is related to temperature, then exposing plants to low

temperatures will result in changes in leaf colour.

Formalized hypotheses contain two variables and the prediction that you are making
based on your hypothesis. The first variable is the "dependent" one. This is the part of
the If condition that is the subject of your investigation. It is expected that the value of
this variable will change when the independent variable is changed. The second
variable is the "independent" one. This is the variable that you change to see if it
confirms or falsifies the prediction made in the then section of the hypothesis. The
sample statements above show the dependent variable as blue and the independent
variable as red and the prediction is shown in yellow highlight

We will now formulate a suitable falsifiable hypothesis to test the assertion of the
creationists that only a loss of information can occur in the genome over time. In order
to carry out a scientific exploration of this assertion we define the potentially falsifiable
hypothesis below.

Formal Hypothesis

If loss of information in the genome (from zero to 100%) is the inevitable result
of the passage of time then examination of the DNA of current life forms will
never show a genome that has had extra genes inserted into it by natural
means when compared to the DNA from earlier organisms of that same type

Discussion of the hypothesis

Consider the sentences below as the total genome of an organism. Each word is
considered to be a single gene within the entire genome (the sentence).

1. The cat sat on the mat (the original complete functioning genome)

2. The atc sat on the mat (the total information content in the genome remains the
same – although it may be considered to have a “fatal mutation” as a result of the
scrambling of the “gene” cat e.g. the sentence no longer “makes sense” in the local
context – NOTE simply rearranging a “gene” does not result in a loss of
information. What it means is simply that in the local context a “fault” has
occurred. However, in some other coding system (e.g. in a virus or bacteria) this
“corrupted” or rearranged gene information may well be a valid expression for a
common function in that organism. The rearranged gene may also simply code for a
different eye or hair colour in the host organism. This is not a fault – just a
variation).

34
 35
3. The .... sat on the mat (This genome has lost a functioning gene (e.g. cat – as such
it has “probably” lost information – but see section on epigenetics below for
qualifications on this assumption)

4. The cat sat on the mat and purred (This genome has gained two extra genes and
is a completely functional genome e.g. you can read it and make sense of it)

5. The cat sat urpder on the mat (This genome has gained an extra gene spliced into
it (a corruption of “purred”) However it is not a completely functional genome e.g.
you cannot read it and make sense of it in the local context – NOTE however that
this gene has still gained information because in some other coding system this
“rearranged” gene information may well be a valid expression)

Out of the five examples above of the various possibilities for changes to the “genome”
(the sentence) we see that only example three (3) represented a (probable) loss of
information because one “gene” had been cut out of the genome. In example two (2) we
see a rearranged gene which “may” cause a problem to the organism. It is also true that
the extra gene in example five (5) “may” cause a problem to the organism. However in
both examples four (4) and five (5) the genome has gained information

The experiment then is to see if we can find any naturally occurring cases of genomes
that show the results of examples 4 and 5

Experimental Results

The hypothesis will be falsified (e.g. shown to be false) if a single case can be found of
a naturally occurring instance of a genome that has gained extra genes from another
organism. This sort of gene transfer is known to occur frequently in nature. It is well
known and demonstrated that such gene transfers are often the results of viral
infections. Refer to the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

It is also well demonstrated that if this gene addition occurs in a cell that will become
an egg or a sperm in the host organism, then the host's offspring will also have a copy
of the extra gene in every single cell. – See links below (and many others on this
subject of gene transfer and splicing into the host organism)

http://www.trdrp.org/fundedresearch/Views/Grant_Page.asp?grant_id=384
http://cvr.bio.uci.edu/downloads/01_defil_lat_gene.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

Conclusions and discussion of the results

• The hypothesis that it is only possible to have a loss of information in a genome

set with increasing time is conclusively shown to be false. Many dozens of
research results have demonstrated that various vectors such as viruses bring about
the transfer of genes to other organisms and that these spliced-in genes can and do
become a permanent heritable feature of the organism. In this way the genome is
shown to increase internal genetic information by natural means.

Many gene additions apparently “do nothing” (that we know of at this time) and
some others are harmful. However some gene additions and/or mutations actually
assist the organism to adapt to its environment. Just one such useful mutation is that

35
 36
concerning Lactose tolerance discovered by UCLA and Finnish researchers. This is
a painful digestive condition that afflicts some 30 million to 50 million North
Americans, 75 percent of African Americans and 90 percent of Asian Americans.
The findings are reported in the Jan. 14 issue of Nature Genetics. It is believed that
all early humans were Lactose intolerant

University Of California - Los Angeles. "UCLA And Finnish Scientists Identify

Genetic Mutation That Causes Lactose Intolerance." ScienceDaily 15 January 2002.
26 February 2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020115075427.htm

• Gene splicing of extra genes into a host organism through viral infection is a
naturally occurring mechanism. This contradicts the Creationist claim that only an
external intelligent agent (God) can supply the input of the additional information.

• The statement by Creationists that only information loss occurs over time as a result
of harmful mutations is misleading. It neglects to take into account the opposite
phenomenon of gene splicing by natural mechanisms such as viral infection. This
misleading conclusion comes about solely because the Creationists look only for
instances that confirm their pre-existing belief (e.g. mutations cause loss of
information, which in itself is not necessarily true – see next note) and neglect to
include the many cases that contradict that finding (e.g. gene splicing from viral
activity) In other words they seek to “prove” their hypothesis rather than use the
accepted scientific method of trying to falsify (disprove) the hypothesis

• Mutation of a gene (e.g. a change in the order of its DNA sequence) is not a loss of
information. It is simply a change of the coding. This may or may not affect the
organism. Loss of information only occurs when a gene is cut out of the full
genome. Even this may not necessarily be a loss of information as the new
discipline of epigenetics shows. Studies in epigenetics show that the way in which
information is encoded and read from the genome is not necessarily by reading from
a linear section of the DNA code. Much more complicated ways of reading the DNA
strand are the normal practice in a cell

• People who only read Creationist material and who are not scientifically trained
would be misled by such material into believing that evolution of the organism
cannot occur by natural means

The role of viruses in adding new information into the genetic structure

Virtually everybody in the world has first-hand experience of the genetic code in their
cells gaining information. This happens every time you become infected with a virus of
any sort.

A virus itself is an organism that straddles the fence between a living thing and non-
living. By themselves they can do nothing. It is only when they come into contact with
a suitable living cell (depending on the type of virus) that they are activated. The virus
itself is a sub-microscopic package of genetic material (DNA or RNA) contained in an
outer coat. Once inside the host the virus takes over the host cell DNA. This take-over
process is carried out by inserting their own genes (their DNA or RNA) and
changing the function of the cell. The aim of this takeover is to cause the cell to

36
 37
become a factory for reproducing many copies of the virus. The cell now has new
information that totally changes the way in which it functions.

These viral copies that are produced by the now re-programmed cell quite frequently
have some of the host cell DNA copied into the DNA structure of the virus. It is also
frequently the case that this remains as a permanent addition to the host’s genome in
the infected cells. If this gene addition occurs in a germ cell such as an egg or a sperm
in the host organism, then the host's offspring will also have a copy of the extra gene in
every single cell in the organism. In this way viruses act as couriers and transfer genetic
information from one host to another. The process is known as transduction.

In addition, viruses continually mutate into new versions with slightly different
capabilities. Each new successful mutation then adds “new information” into the viral
DNA. This new information is then mixed with and incorporated into the genomes of
the succeeding hosts that the virus infects as well as the viruses that the infected host
cell manufactures.

This process of transduction has gone on throughout the history of life. It has resulted
in a continuous shuffling of genes across the species in each category of life – that is
animal, plant, bacterial (using bacteriophage – a virus that infects bacteria) and viruses
themselves through viruses that infect other viruses (virophages). Far from the genetic
structure of organisms losing information across time, it has become mixed up with
new information from other organisms through the action of viruses.

The genetic code of DNA is far from understood at this time. Most of the functions of
the DNA in the genome are not understood. In fact some of it is referred to as “junk
DNA” People understand that is not true – but are still at a loss to understand how the
genetic structure works. However some understanding is beginning to dawn and it is
now apparent that the way that the genetic code functions is not necessarily simply by
reading sequential sections of DNA code. The discoveries are published in the
discipline known as epigenetics

History tells us that a genome is remarkably stable as far as maintaining the basic shape
and structure of an organism. It is clear that these new genes don’t necessarily work in
the entire genome the way that it has been assumed in the past e.g. add some new code
– and you disrupt the function and hence the organism. Mankind is still learning the
complexities and wonders of the intellect of God.

A summary of the main points in the Court Judgement in the ID trial

A quick final summary of the main points of the judgements in various court cases
involving Creation science and Intelligent Design as they relate to the validity of
Creation Science (CS) and ID not being a scientific theory are given below. This
judgement confirms in the legal sphere that the beliefs of CS and ID do not fulfil the
requirements of being a scientific theory.

If any individual wishes to believe the ideas that CS and ID teach then it should simply
be on the basis of a religious belief. It should not be promoted as scientific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

37
 38
• The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of
creationism. (page 31)

• The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere

re-labelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)

• After a searching review of the record and applicable case-law, we find that while
ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is
not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is
sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates
the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural
causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the
same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the
1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific
community. (page 64)

• [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains
outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defence experts in
this case. (pages 86–87)

• Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a
pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public
school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

38
 39

Scientific Dating Methods

Or
To be reliable as a dating method you must have agreement
between multiple methods of dating a sample

The controversy

One of the main points of disagreement between scientists and creationists is the
question of the age of the earth. Creationists insist it is only in the order of 6,000 years
old. The view of science is that it is around 4.6 billion years old.

The question of dating techniques is deeply technical. Very few people outside of the
specialists involved in carrying out the measurements understand the technicalities
involved. It is not my intention to attempt to get involved in a deep technical discussion
on matters that I am not expert in – and on a subject that very few people have any deep
interest in. However because this subject is critical in the question of how old the earth
really is we have to look at it in overview. Fortunately this is easily done

Clearly if science can show that the earth is much older than the creationist estimate of
about 6,000 years, then the views of science must prevail in the debate.

There are currently over forty (40) methods of dating samples – including rocks.
Contrary to some creationist statements, these dating methods do not rely on using the
circular dating argument that goes like this:

• How old is that rock? – Well it was found with fossil “X” in it – and we “know”
that fossil “X” is 2 million years old so the rock must be 2 million years old.

• How old is that fossil “X”? – Well it was found in that rock which we “know” is 2
million years old so fossil “X” must be 2 million years old.

The dating methods are all solidly based in theory and practice and have been well
established and accepted by the science community. A list of the main types and links
to them are shown below for those who are interested in further information on how
they work

Radiometric dating methods (radioactive decay of various chemical elements – valid

up to billions of years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Dendrochronology (study of tree rings – Fully anchored chronologies extend back

more than 10,000 years for river oak trees from South Germany. Another fully
anchored chronology extends back 8500 years for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest
US. Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent
dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their
radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages. In 2004 a new calibration curve
INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before
Present (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments.
Evidence from tree growth rings alone go back well beyond the 6000 year age of the
earth claimed by creationists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

39
 40
Ice core dating (the accumulation of snow and ice layers with trapped air bubbles and
other atmospheric inclusions - valid up to hundreds of thousands of years)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

The various dating methods all have their own range of acceptable usage. Provided that
the correct method is used you will get an accurate result. This last point regarding
using the correct method is spoken about in Page 25 of the internet article below. It is
referring to an assertion made by a creationist group where the author quoted clearly
incorrect data on a particular rock dating method. People who are not technically
trained in radiometric dating methods – and who took that assertion at face value –
would have been misled by the author.

The science community is very sceptical. They have to be. Simply because a particular
dating method gives a certain date for a sample under test is not sufficient for that date
to be accepted. It is the equivalent of making a prediction that “this sample is “X”
years old” As covered in great detail in the last chapter, the whole idea of hypothesis
testing is to try and show that the prediction made by the hypothesis is false. In
order to try and falsify the date given by a particular dating method, the sample is dated
using a variety of other methods that are accepted as being applicable to the sample in
question. Using this method of multiple dating techniques the results from all of them
will converge to a single small range of dates for the sample in question. This is an
accurate and reliable result that can be relied on with reasonable certainty.

Using many different appropriate radiometric dating techniques of ancient rocks, the
results all converge to a date for the age of the earth of about 4.6 billion years old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

This is the accepted age for the earth that has been verified many times.

How reliable is it? Well to answer that, it must be understood that science is very
competitive. All scientists put in a great deal of effort in trying to show that the results
of their competitors are wrong. There are two reasons for this. First is a simple matter
of personal pride that “they were correct” and that “their competitor was wrong” This
is also motivated by the fact that their position and pay scale is also directly linked to
how successful they are as a scientist.

The other factor in science is that the money for scientific work comes from
government grants and some money from private sources. The success of any particular
scientist or research department in attracting grant money is directly tied to their
success in their field.

A good part of that success is judged on how many peer reviewed papers that the
individual scientists have published in the various recognised and respected
professional journals. To get a paper past the peer review panel is not easy as your
work is being scrutinized by recognised experts in the field of the paper that is being
submitted. The peer review panel does not have to agree with a given paper – indeed
they often don’t. But for the panel to recommend that the paper be published it has to
demonstrate sound scientific experimental methods and conclusions that are supported
by the data from the experiments.

The science community is made up of Christians, other religious beliefs, agnostics and
atheists in about the same proportion as you find these various groups represented in

40
 41
the general community. As said above, they are all competing for personal recognition
as well as recognition for their group. As part of this competition – as well as for the
science reasons – they are all trying to falsify the hypotheses put out by others. This is a
form of Darwinian selection in its own right. Only those ideas that can show that they
cannot be falsified will be accepted. Looked at another way, the only ideas that are
accepted are those which the data forces them to accept – whether they like it or
not. It is this very hard-to-pass test that leads to confidence in the facts and theories that
are finally accepted.

The creationists are known to assert that “The science community censors and
suppresses the ideas of CS or ID because it shows that the science community are
wrong” As discussed above, papers fail to get past a peer review panel because they are
not good science – not simply because they are controversial. The Darwinian nature of
science itself ensures that censorship cannot work in the long run. It never has and it
never will! A good example is the historical suppression and censorship by the Catholic
Church of the ideas of Galileo. In the end – because it was true – Galileo won. He won
against the power and influence of the Catholic Church. Scientists today don’t have to
battle against the odds that Galileo did. It might be hard to get a new idea accepted –
but if the science is good, then any new idea will succeed as in the example in the
previous chapter where Dr. J. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry J. Marshall were finally
awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for showing that bacteria
cause stomach ulcers.

The rest of this chapter is a direct copy of a website by a Christian scientist on rock
dating. It is non-technical and well worth reading as it makes a very clear and
compelling case that explains why the evidence clearly shows that the earth is very old

NOTE – For reasons of space only selected sections from pages 11, 12, 20, 21 & 25
from the thirty three (33) page article have been included below. These sections are
sufficient to show conclusively that the earth is around 4 and a half billion years old.
The web link for the full article is shown in the header of the article below for those
who wish to read the full article

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The explanation from the world of science

Radiometric Dating
A Christian Perspective
Dr. Roger C. Wiens
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on
isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at
Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first
edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory.

First edition 1994; revised version 2002.

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their
radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are
over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different

41
 42
way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric
dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in
which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the
complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as
counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to
distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of
laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are
also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in
radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques
work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates
themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the
paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This
paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to
promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the
Christian community.

Page 11
There is another way to determine the age of the Earth. If we see an hourglass whose
sand has run out, we know that it was turned over longer ago than the time
interval it measures. Similarly, if we find that a radioactive parent was once
abundant but has since run out, we know that it too was set longer ago than the
time interval it measures. There are in fact many, many more parent isotopes than
those listed in Table 1. However, most of them are no longer found naturally on Earth--
they have run out. Their half-lives range down to times shorter than we can measure.
Every single element has radioisotopes that no longer exist on Earth!

Many people are familiar with a chart of the elements (Fig. 6). Nuclear chemists and
geologists use a different kind of figure to show all of the isotopes. It is called a chart of
the nuclides. Figure 7 shows a portion of this chart. It is basically a plot of the number
of protons vs. the number of neutrons for various isotopes. Recall that an element is
defined by how many protons it has. Each element can have a number of different
isotopes, that is, atoms with different numbers of neutrons.

42
 43
7. A portion of the chart of the nuclides showing isotopes of argon and potassium,
and some of the isotopes of chlorine and calcium. Isotopes shown in dark green
are found in rocks. Isotopes shown in light green have short half-lives, and thus
are no longer found in rocks. Short-lived isotopes can be made for nearly every
element in the periodic table, but unless replenished by cosmic rays or other
radioactive isotopes, they no longer exist in nature.

So each element occupies a single row, while different isotopes of that element lie in
different columns. For potassium found in nature, the total neutrons plus protons can
add up to 39, 40, or 41. Potassium-39 and -41 are stable, but potassium-40 is unstable,
giving us the dating methods discussed above. Besides the stable potassium isotopes
and potassium-40, it is possible to produce a number of other potassium isotopes, but,
as shown by the half-lives of these isotopes off to the side, they decay away rather
quickly.

Page 12
Now, if we look at which radioisotopes still exist and which do not, we find a very
interesting fact. Nearly all isotopes with half-lives shorter than half a billion years are
no longer in existence. For example, although most rocks contain significant amounts
of Calcium, the isotope Calcium-41 (half-life 130,000 years does not exist just as
potassium-38, -42, -43, etc. do not (Fig. 7). Just about the only radioisotopes found
naturally are those with very long half-lives of close to a billion years or longer, as
illustrated in the time line in Fig. 8. The only isotopes present with shorter half-lives are
those that have a source constantly replenishing them. Chlorine-36 (shown in Fig. 7) is
one such "cosmogenic" isotope, as we are about to discuss below. In a number of cases
there is evidence, particularly in meteorites, that shorter-lived isotopes existed at some
point in the past, but have since become extinct. Some of these isotopes and their half-
lives are given in Table 2. This is conclusive evidence that the solar system was created
longer ago than the span of these half lives! On the other hand, the existence in nature
of parent isotopes with half lives around a billion years and longer is strong evidence
that the Earth was created not longer ago than several billion years. The Earth is old
enough that radioactive isotopes with half-lives less than half a billion years decayed
away, but not so old that radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives are gone. This is
just like finding hourglasses measuring a long time interval still going, while
hourglasses measuring shorter intervals have run out.

Figure 8. The only naturally-occurring radionuclides that exist with no present-

day source have half-lives close to 1 billion years or longer, which still exist from
the creation of the Earth. Isotopes with half-lives shorter than that no longer exist
in rocks unless they are being replenished by some source.

43
 44
Cosmogenic Radionuclides: Carbon-14, Beryllium-10, Chlorine-36

Table 2. Extinct parent isotopes for

which there is strong evidence that
these once existed in substantial
amounts in meteorites, but have
since completely decayed away.
Extinct Isotope Half-Life

(Years)

Plutonium-244 82 million

Iodine-129 16 million

Palladium-107 6.5 million

Manganese-53 3.7 million

Iron-60 1.5 million

Aluminum-26 700,000

Calcium-41 130,000

Page 20
Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of
radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not
allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient
events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope. Because God's
universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us.
Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the
pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth. So the
events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago.
And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a
supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe
radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds
of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely
agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that
all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives.

Some individuals have suggested that the speed of light must have been different
in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us.
However, the astronomical evidence mentioned above also suggests that the speed
of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the
half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays.

Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of
radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-

44
 45
understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it.
While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives.
The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In
fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking
about.

There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do
not affect the dating methods we have discussed.

1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for
an isotope used for dating. According to theory, electron-capture is the most likely type
of decay to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and this should be
most pronounced for very light elements. The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7
has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment
(Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 325-328, 1999; see also Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 131-
139, 2002). In another experiment, a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent
was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure,
equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth (Science 181, 1163-1164,
1973). All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much
shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of
only 54 days, and heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the
dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few
hundredths of a percent.

Page 21
2. Physical conditions at the center of stars or for cosmic rays differ very greatly from
anything experienced in rocks on or in the Earth. Yet, self-proclaimed "experts" often
confuse these conditions. Cosmic rays are very, very high-energy atomic nuclei flying
through space. The electron-capture decay mentioned above does not take place in
cosmic rays until they slow down. This is because the fast-moving cosmic ray nuclei do
not have electrons surrounding them, which are necessary for this form of decay.
Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are
not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different
kind of decay can occur. ' Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an
electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. This has been observed for
dysprosium-163 and rhenium-187 under very specialized conditions simulating the
interior of stars (Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2164-2167; Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 5190-5193,
1996). All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has
electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything
colder than several hundred thousand degrees.

As an example of incorrect application of these conditions to dating, one young-Earth

proponent suggested that God used plasma conditions when He created the Earth a few
thousand years ago. This writer suggested that the rapid decay rate of rhenium under
extreme plasma conditions might explain why rocks give very old ages instead of a
young-Earth age. This writer neglected a number of things, including: a) plasmas only
affect a few of the dating methods. More importantly, b) rocks and hot gaseous plasmas
are completely incompatible forms of matter! The material would have to revert back
from the plasma state before it could form rocks. In such a scenario, as the rocks cooled
and hardened, their ages would be completely reset to zero as described in previous
sections. If this person's scenario were correct, instead of showing old ages, all the

45
 46
rocks should show a uniform ~4,000 year age of creation. That is obviously not what is
observed.

3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by
atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly
(only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in
our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates.

These cases are very specialized, and all are well understood. None of these cases alter
the dates of rocks either on Earth or other planets in the solar system. The conclusion
once again is that half-lives are completely reliable in every context for the dating of
rocks on Earth and even on other planets. The Earth and all creation appears to be very
ancient.

Page 25
Refer to the notes at the beginning of the chapter regarding one of the assertions
of creationists using incorrect data

14. A young-Earth research group reported that they sent a rock erupted in 1980 from
Mount Saint Helens volcano to a dating lab and got back a potassium-argon age of
several million years. This shows we should not trust radiometric dating.

There are indeed ways to "trick" radiometric dating if a single dating method is
improperly used on a sample. Anyone can move the hands on a clock and get the wrong
time. Likewise, people actively looking for incorrect radiometric dates can in fact get
them. Geologists have known for over forty years that the potassium-argon
method cannot be used on rocks only twenty to thirty years old. Publicizing this
incorrect age as a completely new finding was inappropriate. The reasons are
discussed in the Potassium-Argon Dating section above. Be assured that multiple
dating methods used together on igneous rocks are almost always correct unless the
sample is too difficult to date due to factors such as metamorphism or a large fraction
of xenoliths.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

46
 47

The Scientific view of the Universe and Life

Or
How do scientists view this question in light of their personal beliefs
and exactly what do they say about the origins of life

Do the ideas of the science community contradict the Biblical account of creation? This
is too large of a question to be answered in one hit. We need to break it down into the
views of “science” as a body and “scientists” as individuals. The question of whether
science as a community agrees with the Genesis account of creation will be answered in
a later chapter (“The Genesis account of creation”).

The views of individual scientists

Individual scientists are people just like anybody else. Apart from their work in science
they hold a great variety of personal belief systems. They are Christians, Hindus,
Buddhists, many other religions, humanists, agnostics (don’t know), atheists as well as
“really don’t care” The proportions of each belief system within the science community
would almost certainly be much the same as the proportions of those beliefs throughout
the rest of the wider community. It is against this backdrop that we have to try and see
the motivations of all the people who make up the science community.

At a personal level many scientists hold various religious views. All of this group will
have some form of belief of how the world was created. However they don’t – or
shouldn’t – allow these beliefs to influence their scientific work. A professional
scientist will follow the science wherever it goes with the assurance that whatever is
discovered will simply deepen their understanding of how God really created the
universe and all that is in it. A good example of this is the furore that Galileo created in
the Catholic Church around 400 years ago when he published his findings that
supported the ideas of Copernicus who said that the sun was at the center of the solar
system and the earth rotated around the sun – not the other way round as had been
believed up until that time. As a result of that controversy, today everybody has a much
deeper view and understanding of the grandeur of the universe.

“Religious” scientists know that whatever the findings in the current search for the
origins of the universe – and all the current controversies – in the end, the final picture
that emerges will enlarge our understanding of our origins and increase our awe at the
complexity and intellect of the God who created it all.

The important point is that “religious” scientists don’t seek to confirm their pre-existing
ideas. They understand that unless they follow the scientific method of trying to
disprove their own hypotheses, then they run the very real risk of putting themselves in
the position of the Catholic Church when it opposed the evidence of Galileo. In this
case they end up rejecting the truth of creation and leading themselves, and those who
look to them for guidance, up a dead-end path.

In the expanded version of this book called, “From Creationism to the Creation”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-Creationism-to-the-Creation I explored the
Biblical claims that God chooses who He will reveal himself to. In the case of Christian
scientists, God has placed in them a basic belief that He created everything. While it is
true that science still does not have anywhere near the full answers, at least Christians
have a “vague idea” that God is behind it all. However those scientists who are agnostic

47
 48
or atheist have not had this revelation that God created the universe. It is human nature
that we all like to have some overall sense of “how things are” even if we don’t know
the full details. Somehow agnostic and atheist scientists have got to form an opinion on
how everything came into existence in order to fulfil that “need to know.”

In the current scientific state of knowledge that “grand idea” is that which was
proposed by Charles Darwin in his 1859 book “On the Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection: Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”
and his later book and better known book, “The Origin of Species by means of natural
selection” http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/

Darwin’s ideas of the evolutionary process are the scientific equivalent to

Newton’s ideas on gravity – a good beginning, but a long way to go

One critical issue needs to be emphasised at this point, and this understanding is often
missed – even by a lot of evolutionary biologists. Darwin’s ideas are the biological
equivalent to Newton’s ideas on gravity. Both of these learned gentlemen describe
what is observed to happen in nature. However, neither of them give – or attempt to
give – an explanation of the deep mechanisms that underlie their observations.

In Newton’s case this was left to Einstein to explain the deeper aspects of gravitation
and is now being expanded with the ideas of quantum gravity – which in turn will in
the future give way to an even deeper understanding of gravity, space, time and mass.

In the case of Darwin we have a very curious situation. Even very prominent
evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins has openly stated on TV that he
believes that “all the big questions” in science are now close to being answered.
(Excerpt below from interview with Andrew Denton on Australian TV show called
“The Elders” 21 December 2009 – transcript available at:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/transcripts/s2757522.htm)

ANDREW DENTON: What would you like to live long enough to know the answer
to?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I'm not a physicist but physicists talk about a theory of
everything, talk about understanding those corners of physics, of the universe, of
the cosmos, which we still don't yet have a grasp of. And it's not impossible that
that will come in the next few decades, even in the next couple of years perhaps.

ANDREW DENTON: That concept to me is my small brain is starting to explode

thinking about that...

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well me too, yes, I mean I agree with that, and I'm pretty
pessimistic that I would personally understand the theory of everything. I don't
know enough physics or mathematics to do that, but I think if the theory of
everything said, we now understand where the laws of physics come from, where
the physical constants come from, why there is a universe at all, how it started, if
indeed "started" means anything. I think physicists are not far from that now and
it may just need one more little push and they might they might be there.

It is strange to me that many biologists don’t appear to understand that natural selection
is simply a mechanism that adapts an organism to an environment. They appear to

48
 49
believe that the description of the natural selection mechanism is very close to a full
understanding of the complete story of the emergence of life in all its spectacular glory
and wonder. They appear to think like many did in the time of Newton, that he had
“explained gravity” with his mechanistic law that described how objects move in a
gravitational field. But like many then – and still today with biology – they don’t seem
to understand that these simple explanations (e.g. natural selection and Newtonian
gravity) only describe “what happens”, but give no clues as to “how” or “why”

Even more amazing is the apparent dismissal by many biologists of the question of the
nature of, and the emergence of, consciousness and intelligence and its apparent
connections to the quantum world. Surely if something as “simple” as Newton’s ideas
of gravity have now become enmeshed in the quantum world (quantum gravity) –
surely something much more complex like consciousness with its observed connections
to the quantum world would logically mean that there is much more to discover about
life? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

I think that there are very few physicists who believe like Richard Dawkins that they
are about to reach the end of physics anytime within the foreseeable future.

I agree that life clearly evolved over huge periods of time because that’s what the
evidence unquestionably shows. In that respect Darwin was correct. However, I have to
say that much of the evidence in the writings and utterances of many biologists shows
that they have the same limited view of life as many scientists did in Newton’s time in
regard to gravity. This is a serious shortcoming on the part of those scientists who seem
to believe that there are no more “big ideas” to be discovered yet about the emergence
and development of life. It erodes their credibility.

In many ways these biologists are just as much fundamentalists in science as many
Christians are fundamentalists in their beliefs about the origin of the universe and life.
The Creationists take a very simple and naïve view of the Bible and the world around
them. As a result, their views are discounted by those people who think about the real
facts of science.

However many fundamentalist biologists are really not a lot different to the Christian
fundamentalists. These Darwinian fundamentalists take the relatively simple
observations of Darwin and then insist that a simple adaptation mechanism (natural
selection) is all that is needed to explain the origin and development of species and
complex phenomenon such as life and consciousness. This despite the fact that there is
no satisfactory explanation of what life or consciousness is. As an example of what I
mean, think about why an animal or a person is alive “now” but dead “a “few moments
later” What exactly is it that changed so that they are dead – but was alive a few
moments earlier? Think also about the huge intellectual gap that exists between humans
and animals. There is still today no real idea of what brings about this intellectual gap.
Some people say it is because we are “a conscious being” But what does that mean in
concrete terms? We can all recognise “consciousness” but so far no one can define it.
The evidence of the truth of this statement is simple. If we could actually define and
describe consciousness – then we could program it into a computer program. Science is
currently nowhere near being able to do that

But still despite all these currently unanswerable questions we still have some “true
believers” in the “Gospel according to Darwin” – who say, “natural selection” is the
answer to all these mysteries” They apparently, don’t believe – or can’t understand –

49
 50
that there are more “big ideas” to come before we unravel the mysteries of life. In the
eyes of most critical thinkers they are just as discredited as Creationists as they cling to
their primitive and outmoded ideas.

The rest of this book will look at Darwin’s ideas and the attempts by Creationists to
undermine them. It will also look at some of the emerging ideas that attempt to explain
some of the diversity and shapes of life on the planet

Charles Darwin and his ideas

I don’t think that any single book has created more controversy – and confusion – than
Charles Darwin’s books on his theories on how life evolved.

Darwin himself anticipated and understood the problems that his books were going to
throw up and wrote in 1872, "it is always advisable to perceive clearly our ignorance.”
This is advice that should still be followed today.

It has to be realized that from the day that “On the Origin of Species” was published
even the science community was divided on the claims in it. This situation still exists to
this day. It must also be clearly understood that if Darwin came back today he would be
hard-pressed to recognise much of his original theory as science has advanced so much
since he published the book. One aspect of this is the science of genetics and
inheritance as well as the structure of the genome made up as it is with DNA. This new
knowledge has given the scientists of today a much better understanding of how the
mechanism of natural selection works. Still it was a remarkable insight that Darwin
had.

Darwin’s theory rests on two main pillars which he announced in his books. They are
the ideas that all life has descended from a common ancestor with modification along
the way, and the idea of natural selection as being the mechanism of the
modification. The concept of natural selection is indisputably correct. Decent from a
common ancestor is less certain and is the subject of dispute.

Descent from a common ancestor

Darwin believed that all present-day life forms have descended from much simpler
ancestors. While molecular biology supports this theory up to a point it has a major
problem with what is known as the Cambrian Explosion which we will very briefly
look at below.

Briefly, there are several reasons that science believes that all life forms today have a
common ancestor. The two top level reasons are:

All known life shares a common biochemistry and genetic code – The form of the
genetic code is essentially identical for all known life-forms, from single celled
organisms such as bacteria to humans. Analysis of the genes of many organisms also
provides support for the idea of descent from a common ancestor. As examples, about
97.5% of the genes in both humans and mice are the same. For chimpanzees, we share
about 99% of the same genes.

The Tree of Life – This is a phylogenetic tree diagram that is constructed using genetic
information. In biology, phylogenetics is the science of tracing evolutionary

50
 51
relationships among various groups of organisms such as different species. The method
used is to trace through the molecular sequence in the various genes. It also uses
morphological (shape) information, such as all dogs look like dogs and all birds look
like birds to help trace out the branches on the Tree of Life.

Traditionally, these trees were only constructed using morphological methods that took
into account the appearance of the animals in a given type (e.g. wolves, dogs etc.). It is
now possible to compare the genetic structures of a line of creatures running back
through time. The morphological trees and the genetic trees all produce similar results.
This is considered to be strong evidence that all life forms do have a common ancestor.

The real problem that arises in the idea of a common ancestor comes from the fossil
evidence of what has become known as the Cambrian Explosion. This is a time about
500 million years ago, which lasted for about 40 million years, when the majority of the
major groups of animals first appeared in the fossil record. There are fossils that extend
back to earlier periods, but the majority first appear during the Cambrian Period. By far
and away the majority of these life forms occur in the ancient seas. It is generally
accepted that no significant land plants existed at this time. However it is probable that
there were simple precursor life forms to complex plants such as fungi, algae and
lichens on the land.

These fossils represent the grouping of animals based on the general body plan of
each group of animals that eventually made its appearance in later time periods.
However it must be noted that these fossils are only the precursors of animals and
most plants today. For instance you will not find a fossil of a rabbit or an elephant –
only the distant precursor forms that eventually led to these later animals. This is an
important statement as some groups today specifically state that fossils of all animals –
or at least similar animals – appeared in the Cambrian Era fossil records.

This sudden “explosion” of life forms during this period is the single greatest problem
for the idea that all life came from a single common ancestor. The existence of these
fossils was known by the middle 1800’s and Darwin himself recognized the problem
and said that it was one of the main objections to his theory. Even today, there is still
great scientific debate on this subject of a common ancestor. In the interest of good
science it must be clearly stated that some scientists today are starting to question
whether the “explosion” of fossils during this period is real – or whether it just looks
as if an “explosion” of life forms occurred at the time. Only time will give the answer
to this question.

We will look at this sudden explosion of life in a little more detail in the chapter,
“Observations of the Natural World” and see that this sort of sudden expansion of
complexity is very closely related to the concept of fractal mathematics. As that chapter
will explain, the natural world is fractal by its very nature. The ideas behind “fractal”
will be explained in the preceding chapter entitled, “Did God need a special act of
creation for each different living organism?”

Natural selection

Most people when they think of Darwin’s idea of “natural selection” think of the saying
“the survival of the fittest” or the “the survival of the strongest” The idea suggested
here is that of a fight between a stronger animal and a weaker animal where the
strongest animal wins the battle and probably ends up eating the weaker animal. The

51
 52
idea is that there is a constant “war” and the strong live at the expense of the weak.
However this is not what he meant. In order to get the flavour you need to read the
actual account in his book.

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection - Page 53

http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/

Can it then be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man have
undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the
great and complex battle of life, should occur in the course of many successive
generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more
individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having any
advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving
and procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation
in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of
favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those
which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest.
Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection,
and would be left either a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in certain
polymorphic species, or would ultimately become fixed, owing to the nature of the
organism and the nature of the conditions.

Page 62
Natural selection acts only by the preservation and accumulation of small
inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being

Page 82
But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals
thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for
life; and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce
offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, or the survival of
the fittest, I have called natural selection. It leads to the improvement of each
creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life; and
consequently, in most cases, to what must be regarded as an advance in
organisation. Nevertheless, low and simple forms will long endure if well fitted for
their simple conditions of life

As the quotations above, taken directly from “The Origin of Species” shows, Darwin’s
concept of the “the survival of the fittest” is quite different to the savage jungle-like
“dog-eat-dog” idea that creationism casts this expression as.

The idea behind natural selection is very simple. Any plant or animal that has a
particular characteristic that makes it more successful at surviving in a given
environment will be more likely to breed and pass on that heritable characteristic than
other less well adapted plants or animals. Over time, the general population will contain
more animals or plants that have this “desirable” characteristic than those who don’t. It
is an example of Darwin’s statement (above) “This principle of preservation, or the
survival of the fittest, I have called natural selection.” Hence, over time we will see a
change in the species as it adapts to the changing environment around it. Given that the
environment has, and is, constantly undergoing changes it would be a very “poor
design” that did not have an inbuilt mechanism that allowed the plants and
animals living in it to adapt to changes in their environment.

52
 53
Natural selection is at work all around us constantly. However the best known example
is the Galapagos finches that Darwin studied on the Voyage of the Beagle (1831 to
1836). During that voyage he visited the Galapagos Islands. On 14 different islands he
found finches that – although they were similar to other finches on the mainland of
South America, about 600 miles to the east – all had various changes to their beaks.
These changes allowed the birds to take advantage of different food niches on the
island.

Some of the finches had beaks that were adapted for eating large seeds – others were
adapted for small seeds. Some of them had beaks similar to parrots for feeding on buds
and fruits. Others had thin beaks for feeding on small insects. One type was observed to
use a thorn to probe for grubs in tree trunks and wood on the ground in the same way
that some types of woodpeckers do. Six species of the finches lived on the ground. The
other eight lived in trees.

These islands did not have other birds already filling these various food niches. This
enabled the original finches from the mainland to diversify and fill these niches instead.
If this diversification had not occurred, then the total population of finches on the
islands would have remained limited by the original food types that the mainland
finches lived on. This would have meant that the total finch population would have
been much smaller. More importantly, many of the islands would never have been
suitable for the finches to live on as the ecology of each island in the group varied from
the others.

A “species” is defined as a group of organisms that cannot breed with other closely
related versions of the organism. There has been – and still is – much argument about
how a separate species arises and splits off from a parent population. It is not proposed
to get into a discussion of how speciation is believed to occur as anybody who is
interested can easily find many documents on the internet that describe the general
process. Suffice to say for this discussion that it is strongly believed to occur simply as
a result of an accumulation of specific useful characteristics – that are preserved in a
species by natural selection – as the environment changes around them.

As an example, consider what would eventually happen if an environment went from a

very dry to a flooded environment over many decades and generations of the animals.
Any animals that had small naturally occurring variations in their feet that would help
them to swim and hence get to food sources in the new wetter environment would have
a natural advantage over animals who could not swim as well. The better swimmers
would be “naturally selected” by the environment by the simple fact that they would
be the most successful breeders (e.g. you can’t breed if you don’t survive or are in poor
condition). By breeding, the useful changes in their feet that allowed better swimming
would be preserved in the population made up of their offspring. Eventually you
would probably see animals that actually developed webbed feet so that they could
swim, whereas their older relatives were adapted to walking on hot dry sand.

The above general description of how a species can split off from a parent population is
only one of a range of known speciation mechanisms. A more detailed discussion of
speciation can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

The main point here is that natural selection is an easily identifiable mechanism in
nature that allows animals to spread out and fill all of the available food niches that
exist throughout the environment – as well as adapting to any climate changes that

53
 54
occur. It is a direct fulfilment of God’s command for the living plants and creatures to
“fill the earth” (Genesis 1:20-28) Although it cannot be “proved” that natural selection
was a design feature that God built into the creation, it can certainly be inferred that it is
the case. Any good human machine designer who makes something such as the small
interplanetary mobile robots that we send out to explore the planets, strives to design
and build into these robots the ability to adapt to strange and unknown conditions. If
mankind does that with “primitive” mobile robots – then would we expect God to do
less with the marvellous diversity of life that He created and that would need to adapt to
an ever-changing world in order to survive and prosper in the long term?

You also see a modified form of the process in the “human selection” that occurs when
people deliberately intervene in nature. This happens whenever people use selective
breeding to produce plants and animals that have certain characteristics that can be used
in commercial farming operations.

Genetic tracing methods can follow gene trails back along the “Tree of Life”. This is
an international web based project that is sponsored by the US government agency the
National Science Foundation (NSF) The goal of the project is to reconstruct the
evolutionary origins of all living things.

http://tolweb.org/tree/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Life_Web_Project

It started in 1995 and it still has a long way to go. However it is making progress. The
big problem that it will eventually run into is the Cambrian Explosion that we discussed
earlier in this chapter.

In summary, the theory of evolution is very well grounded in the idea of a common
ancestor, mutations and natural selection. However at this stage the support for the
formation of different species arising from a single common ancestor by the process
of natural selection would have to be considered to be on “shaky ground”. Being on
“shaky ground” does not rule out mutations and natural selection as the mechanism. All
it means is that at this time there is not enough hard evidence to make a concrete
judgment one way or the other. How this will eventually be resolved is far from clear.
However one idea is that the tree of life is fractal by its very nature (see later chapters).
If this is true, then the answers as to how different species arose may lie in the now well
known mathematics of fractal geometry.

The questions that arise from trying to account for all types of life forms (animals,
plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses etc.) having arisen from a single common ancestor by the
mechanism of natural selection highlights a problem with some scientists. When
Darwin first suggested this, it seemed to be a “reasonable” idea. Although certainly still
not ruled out today, it is far less certain that all the various classes of life arose through
natural selection. For instance, there does not appear to be fossils – or genetic evidence
– that show animals turning into plants.

There is however the curious situation of the carnivorous plants. Not a lot is known
about them as there are very few (close to zero) fossils of this class of organism. The
tantalizing question about these plants would have to be – are we seeing a plant evolve
towards a carnivorous animal? It’s an interesting question. The answer may go some
way towards understanding whether natural selection could have accounted for all the
various classes of life forms arising from a single common ancestor. Even if they really

54
 55
are showing plants evolving towards a carnivorous animal, it is not necessarily the case
that the only mechanism of change between different classes of organism is natural
selection. You are still left with the possibility that you are seeing an unfolding of
events that are programmed into the genetic structure of this particular class of plant.
An example is the changes in the body shape and the type of body that a butterfly goes
through in its life cycle. We will look at this in a little more detail in the later chapters
on “Did God need a special act of creation for each different living organism?” and
“Observations of the Natural World”

Some scientists have spent their entire career pursuing the idea of “natural selection” all
the way back to the common ancestor. This huge investment of time in a single idea has
left some of them unable – or unwilling – to realize that there may be other mechanisms
that gave (and still gives) rise to different life forms. In effect, these scientists become
like many of the people that they criticise who hold ideas about a literal six day
creation. They neglect to consider the accumulating evidence that the many different
life forms found in the world may not be best understood by natural selection. In effect
their thinking becomes fossilised. It has “died” and becomes “fossilized” (frozen in
time) in their writings that are left for later people to read – just the same as an
organism dies and is preserved as a fossil in the ground for later generations to see.

Is evolution still occurring today?

The basic premise of evolution is that life forms are constantly changing and adapting
to a changing environment. Because the world is constantly changing we would expect
– and do – see new species constantly arising to take the place of species that can no
longer survive in a given area.

A more fundamental question is whether the body of man is still evolving. This is an
interesting question that brings about many different opinions.

It is certainly true that natural selection is still at work. In hot equatorial regions people
tend to have a body shape that maximises their surface area in relation to the total mass
and volume of their body. The greater the surface area of the skin, the more heat you
can radiate. This means that they tend to be leaner per unit of height and weight than
people who live in colder regions. This is because the thinner a shape is in relation to
its volume, the greater the surface area required to enclose that given volume. People in
colder regions need to conserve body heat. Consequently their body shape tends to be
“rounder” as a sphere has the smallest surface area for a given volume.

Likewise, the lung capacity of people who are born to parents who live at high altitudes
are more likely to inherit genes that give them a larger lung capacity than a person
whose parents and grandparents lived at sea level.

These body shape changes are examples of beneficial evolutionary changes that are
preserved by natural selection in their respective populations. However the answer to
the wider question as to whether humans will develop two heads or three arms, is that
this is not a likely scenario for reasons of “sexual selection” Quite simply, it is hard to
envisage a time in the future when having two heads, or a single eye in the middle of
your forehead, is likely to be considered to be such an attractive attribute that it would
give anybody an advantage in finding a partner with whom to have children with.

55
 56
The far more likely scenario is for “human selection” to take over as far as humans are
concerned. We are already doing this when some people decide not to have children
and so pass on harmful genetic disorders such as haemophilia. We are also seeing
people resort to plastic surgery to “improve” their body image. With gene therapy now
beginning to become a reality, it is probably only a matter of time to when people elect
to gain various physical bodily attributes by way of gene manipulations in their bodies.

The jury is still out – but it would appear that the human body will continue to evolve,
but in a way that is guided and controlled by “human selection”

There is another interesting aspect of the issue as to whether we see evolution still
occurring today. This is the question as to whether at least some viruses and other
single celled organisms are not examples of life forms that have started from scratch in
the “near” geologic past, and are in the process of evolving into more complex life
forms. It’s not a question that we can answer today. But maybe in say, ten thousand
years from now, science will be able to look back at our records today and trace the
evolutionary path of these entities into new life forms.

A summary of the scientific view of the appearance of life on earth

The definition of “life” itself is even controversial. It depends on the class of organisms
that are being considered e.g. human, the lower animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses
etc. Leaving aside humans for a moment, “life” can be defined at one level by the
structure of the cells that make up the life form. But this still does not really answer
what “life” is as opposed to non-life (dead) or that strange in-between world that
viruses inhabit. In the case of humans the definition becomes really difficult as we have
an animal body – but we have a conscious being that inhabits that biological body. This
takes us into both theological considerations which are explored in the expanded
version of this book called, “From Creationism to the Creation” and some of the
deeper aspects of theoretical physics (quantum mechanics) that probe the nature of
consciousness.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-Creationism-to-the-Creation

For this section we have no interest in pursuing these definitions of life (interesting as
they may be). We will simply accept that “life” exists and then look at a summary of
how the science world sees the start and progression of life. The reason for this
summary is to compare it to the Biblical account in Genesis to see how they compare.
If a good match is obtained with the Genesis account, then it would be very strong
evidence that Genesis is actually describing the evolutionary account that science has
since come along and discovered quite independently from the Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution

The Big Bang – Observations suggest that the universe as we know it began around
13.7 billion years ago

The basic timeline is a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with (very approximate) dates:
NOTE – Mya = millions of years ago

Hadean eon – 3800 Mya and earlier.

• 4567.17 Mya – The planet Earth forms from the accretion disc revolving around the
young Sun.

56
 57
• 4100 Mya – The surface of the Earth cools enough for the crust to solidify. The
atmosphere and the oceans form

First appearance of life on the now cooled planet

Archean eon - 3800 Mya to 2500 Mya
• 3500 Mya – Lifetime of the last universal ancestor; the split between the bacteria
and the neomura occurs. Bacteria develop primitive forms of photosynthesis which
at first do not produce oxygen..
• 3000 Mya – Photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolve The oxygen concentration in
the atmosphere subsequently rises3.8 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),

Proterozoic eon 2500 Mya to 542 Mya

• By 2100 Mya – Eukaryotic cells appear. Eukaryotes contain membrane-bound
organelles with diverse functions
• 1200 Mya –Simple multicellular organisms evolve, mostly consisting of cell
colonies of limited complexity.
• 580–500 Mya – Most modern phyla of animals begin to appear in the fossil record
during the Cambrian explosion.
• Around 540 Mya – The accumulation of atmospheric oxygen allows the formation
of an ozone layer. This blocks ultraviolet radiation, permitting the colonisation of
the land.

Phanerozoic eon –542 Mya to present time

The Phanerozoic eon, literally the "period of well-displayed life", marks the appearance
in the fossil record of abundant, shell-forming and/or trace-making organisms. It is
subdivided into three eras, the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic, which are divided
by major mass extinctions.

Paleozoic era – 542 Mya to 251.0 Mya

• 530 Mya – The first known footprints on land date to 530 Mya, indicating that early
animal explorations may have predated the development of terrestrial plants.
• 475 Mya – The first primitive plants move onto land, having evolved from green
algae living along the edges of lakes. They are accompanied by fungi, which may
have aided the colonisation of land through symbiosis.
• 363 Mya – By the start of the Carboniferous period, the Earth begins to be
recognisable. Insects roamed the land and would soon take to the skies; sharks
swam the oceans as top predators, and vegetation covered the land, with seed-
bearing plants and forests soon to flourish. Four-limbed tetrapods gradually gain
adaptations which will help them occupy a terrestrial life-habit.
• 251.4 Mya – The Permian-Triassic extinction event eliminates over 95% of species.
This "clearing of the slate" may have led to an ensuing diversification.

Mesozoic era – 251.0 Mya to 65.5 Mya

• From 251.4 Mya – The Mesozoic Marine Revolution begins: increasingly well-
adapted and diverse predators pressurise sessile marine groups; the "balance of
power" in the oceans shifts dramatically as some groups of prey adapt more rapidly
and effectively than others.
• 220 Mya – Gymnosperm forests dominate the land; herbivores grow to huge sizes
in order to accommodate the large guts necessary to digest the nutrient-poor plants.

57
 58
• 200 Mya – The first accepted evidence for viruses (at least, the group
Geminiviridae) exists. Viruses are still poorly understood and may have arisen
before "life" itself, or may be a more recent phenomenon.
• 130 Mya – The rise of the Angiosperms: These flowering plants boast structures
that attract insects and other animals to spread pollen. This innovation causes a
major burst of animal evolution through co-evolution.

Cenozoic era – 65.5 Mya to present time

• 65.5 Mya – The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event eradicates about half of all
animal species, including all dinosaurs except the ancestors of modern birds
• 35 Mya – Grasses evolve from among the angiosperms; grassland dominates many
terrestrial ecosystems.
• 200 kya (200,000 years ago) – Anatomically modern humans appear in Africa.
Around 50,000 years before present they start colonising the other continents,
replacing the Neanderthals in Europe and other hominins in Asia. The Holocene
epoch starts 10,000 years ago after the Last Glacial Maximum, with continuing
impact from human activity.
• Present day – With a human population approaching 6.76 billion the impact of
humanity is felt in all corners of the globe. Overfishing, anthropogenic climate
change, industrialization, intensive agriculture, clearance of rain forests and other
activities contribute to a dramatically rising extinction rate. If current rates
continue, humanity will have seen the eradication of one-half of Earth's biodiversity
over the next hundred years.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

58
 59

Self-organising systems? – Or do we need a Special Creation?

Or
Psalm 90:2 (NIV)
Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God

The conflict between religion and society

Religion and the state and society in general have had a long, and for the most part,
uneasy relationship throughout the history of mankind. While the details of each
instance of the battles between the parties differ, the root of these conflicts remains the
same.

For all people who believe in some form of “god”, religion is a personal belief system.
The essential underlying idea is that their eternal destiny depends on remaining true to
the teachings of their particular religion. This applies irrespective of whatever “god”
they believe in.

For the most part, people do not question the opinion leaders in their particular religion
or belief system. They are content to accept the “conventional wisdom” that is taught.

Often, religious leaders have their own agenda in any society. These agendas are
usually based in some “spiritual” values. For whatever reasons, these values are often at
variance with those of the political leaders, or the society at large. This inevitably leads
to the religious organizations being pushed to the sidelines of the society. Sometimes
this sidelining is warranted and sometimes it is not. The rights and wrongs of this are
not the subject of this discussion.

All we are interested in is the fact that the beliefs of religious groups often cause the
members of that group to hold a contrary view to that of the general population. More
to the point, because these views are often – but not always – based on the “internal
feelings” (emotions) of the individual member of the group, they are not necessarily
based on hard, observable and testable facts.

Is evolution consistent with Genesis?

Many people who believe in a literal six day creation about six thousand years ago
appear to think that belief in Genesis and in science are incompatible with each other.
There also appears to be a common belief in both the Christian and non-Christian
camps that the science that demonstrates the reality of evolution also “proves” that
there is no God. The reasoning goes that as the process of natural selection in its day-
to-day operation does not require the intervention of a “god” for it to operate – so the
world can be explained without using God as the original cause.

This reasoning of some people that “if evolution is a fact – then there is no God” is the
direct equivalent to those religious and non-religious people who cannot accept that life
started independently on this planet. This group insist that life had to have been planted
here either by “aliens” from another civilization, or from meteorites that contained the
“seeds of life” that landed on the earth. For reasons that I simply cannot understand,
these groups are apparently unable, or unwilling to understand that far from answering
the question of how life started – all they have done is to avoid the question altogether.

59
 60
They simply push the question of the origins of life out to a remote point in space and
time so that (at this stage) they have no hope of finding an answer. At best it is an
intellectually lazy approach. At its worst it is intellectually dishonest because they
insinuate that it is not possible for life to arise independently on any given planet – but
they refuse to give any sort of answer as to how life did arise.

There are well known laws that govern the operation of the universe. At this stage we
are almost certainly not aware of all these laws. If we were, this would mean that we
are at the end of science – and that is plainly not true. Even if natural selection, and not
some other mechanism, is eventually shown to be the mechanism that gives rise to
different classes of organisms e.g. trees, dogs, fishes etc. then the process of “natural
selection” is still operating as a law of natural selection. At the law level it is no
different to Newton’s and Einstein’s laws of gravity or the law of conservation of
energy that states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains
constant. For reasons that elude me, the “if evolution is a fact – then there is no God”
camp apparently don’t (or won’t) recognise that all the laws that govern the universe
came into existence at the instant of creation of the universe.

Now science freely admits at this time, that nobody has the slightest idea of exactly
what a law is composed of as you cannot pick up a “gram weight of law” and
physically examine it. All you can do is infer that the law exists because you can
reliably carry out experiments anywhere in the universe (as far as is known) and
consistently predict the outcome on the basis of the law in question. Science also freely
admits that nobody has the slightest idea of how a law causes the things that we
predict to actually happen. Take Fermat's Principle as an example of the operation of
a law. He proposed that a light beam will always travel along a path that ensures that
it takes the least time to travel between two points on that path. We experimentally
know that it does because all lenses that guide and focus light work on this principle.
Much is understood about the mathematical relationships of why this happens – but
nobody has an answer (at least yet) as to why a photon will always “obey the law” Is
there for instance a “light beam policeman” who enforces this path on each and every
individual photon in existence? If there is, then what does the “policeman” look like –
and why has “he/she/it” never been observed?

Snowflakes, salt and sugar - Crystals that self-organise and self-assemble

Some people have difficulty believing

that the many and various life forms
that fill the earth, and apart from
humans, probably also fill much of the
rest of the universe. In particular, these
groups have trouble believing that life
could have arisen by the operation of
the natural laws that govern the universe. But everyday most of
us would come into contact with two common materials that self-assemble into their
characteristic shapes. These are common table salt which has a cubic structure and
common table sugar which has a multi-faceted polygonal shape that is characteristic for
particular sugars. This self assembly process is built in by the shape of the individual
molecules of the substance. These molecular shapes cause the self-assembly of larger
crystals as each molecule packs into the growing structure. Of course there are deeper
atomic forces in the atoms that help align all the molecules as well in ways that are not
completely understood yet. But the essential point is that these are non-living

60
 61
chemicals that self-assemble into their characteristic shapes purely under the
influence of the natural laws. There are many other crystals that do the same.

Snowflakes are a good example of self assembly that

show beautiful and very complex structural shapes and
patterns. One example of a snowflake is shown from the
website below. This and many more different naturally
occurring shapes can be seen at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals

Snowflakes start out life as water vapour in a cloud. As

the temperature drops the vapour condenses. If the
temperature is low enough the water super-cools – that is
it drops below the freezing point of water, but is does not
crystallise (freeze). In order to freeze it usually requires
the presence of a microscopic nucleus particle around
which the ice begins to form. This can be anything from other water molecules if the
super-cooled water is down to about minus 35ºC or dust particles, even bacteria in the
air if the water temperature is say around minus 1 to 10ºC.

All flakes initially start out as a small hexagonal (6 sided) prism of ice. This is the first
critical point in the growing architecture of a snowflake. The hexagonal form is set
entirely by the atomic structure of an ice crystal. The atomic structure of each element
is entirely determined by the natural laws that define and govern the universe.

At a certain point branches begin to sprout and grow from the six corners of the base
hexagon. Again, this is not a random process. The growth takes place at the corners
because that is the section in the atomic structure of the ice crystal that the natural
laws require the new water molecules to attach onto. It is this operation of the basic
laws of nature which give the final crystal its basic hexagonal shape irrespective of the
infinite variety of shapes that snowflakes have.

As the snowflake blows around inside the cloud it moves through different temperature
regions as it continues to grow. It is known that the final shape of the snowflake
depends on the temperatures at each stage of the crystal growth. But the full details are
not completely understood as it is a very complex business.

All the six arms grow quite independently to each other under the same apparently
“random” conditions. In the natural world most snowflakes are not totally symmetrical.
But in a surprising number of cases you find that all six arms end up looking
surprisingly similar. This demonstrates the ability of “random” events to produce very
orderly and complex structures simply by the natural laws “self organising” molecules
into those complex entities.

Did this self organization of salt and sugar crystals (and others) and the beautiful and
complex shapes of snowflakes come about from pure random chance? Well of course
they didn’t! Everybody who is familiar with physics understands the basic laws and
general process that brings these crystals about. Most people who look at the science
understands that the natural laws that brought this self-organising and self-
assembly process about are the direct result of the fundamental laws that came
into existence at the moment of the creation of the universe. Most people who think

61
 62
deeply about science understand that the existence and fundamental operation of these
laws is one of the great mysteries of science today.

These natural laws are clearly the work of God when He created the universe. Without
these laws the universe would not exist, or certainly not in the form that we know and
could exist in. God has always used these laws to self-organise and self-assemble all
aspects of the natural world. This includes both inert solids as well as biological
entities.

Increases in information in the self-organized and self-assembled entity

The subject of information theory has, as one of its branches, the study of how many
“bits” of information it takes to code a given set of information. As a simple example,
we will look at the number of lines of information needed to code (describe) how to
draw a square. For simplicity sake we will consider that each line of instructions
corresponds to one “bit” of information. These lines of information would be.

1. Start at the bottom left hand (LH) corner of the square

2. Draw a horizontal line 100mm long to the right hand (RH) lower corner
3. From the lower RH corner draw a vertical line 100mm long to the top RH corner
4. From the top RH corner draw a horizontal line to the top LH corner
5. From the top LH corner draw a vertical line down to the start position of the lower
LH corner.

As the example above shows, we need five (5) “bits” of information to code the
drawing of a simple square.

Now look at the picture of the snowflake on the previous page – and then think about
how many lines (bits) of information would be required to draw that. I have enlarged
the picture and looked at all the branches in greater detail. What you find are smaller
sub-branches. Without even attempting to describe how to draw that geometric shape,
we can confidently assert that it would take many dozens and maybe even hundreds of
lines of instructions to explain how to draw the snowflake. This is a critical
observation. The “information” that is coded into the shape of the snowflake is
many times greater than the simple rectangle example that we used.

It is worth considering how this “information” that is finally found in the snowflake is
built up.

1. The snowflake starts as amorphous (without shape) water vapour in a cloud.

2. It freezes and crystallizes around a microscopic “seed” of some type or another. The
shape of the seed can be anything

3. A small hexagonal ice crystal begins to grow around the seed. At this point the first
increase in information occurs as the hexagonal shape has a definite “coding” that
is determined by the natural laws that govern the world.

4. Random changes in temperature in the cloud and random wind velocities and
directions and random variations in the water vapour concentrations in the cloud
– along with the natural laws then combine to continue the increase in complexity
of the coded shape of the final snowflake.

62
 63
In the case of a snow flake, we see the natural laws that govern the world take an
amorphous (shapeless) patch of water vapour and turn it into a very complex form
that has an infinite variety of shapes that finally appear in the countless billions of
snowflakes that form every year. With crystals such as salt and sugar you see a
consistent and regular crystal shape appear as the crystals form out of a pool of
shapeless liquid as it evaporates. These increases in complexity – hence information
content – are the direct result of the operation of the underlying natural laws.

At this point we need to revisit the idea of a “random” event that was described in the
expanded version of this book called, “From Creationism to the Creation” which is
available free on SCRIBD at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-Creationism-
to-the-Creation in the chapter, “Choosing to be a Christian” in the section on “Free
will”. We will also look at this subject of randomness again in a little more detail in the
chapter on, “Did God need a special act of creation for each different living
organism?”

As is shown in those chapters, there is no such thing as a truly random event at the most
fundamental level of nature. It is certainly true that mankind does not have at this time
the ability to measure to an infinite level of precision the “initial conditions” at the
instant of the start of the universe. Nor do we have the ability at this time to follow the
trail of events back to the instant of the start of the universe when the “initial
conditions” of interest existed.

However simply because we don’t have the ability to follow this all back does not
mean that the universe itself did not have all that information available to “guide” it as
it unfolded. By definition the universe did have the absolutely precise values of the
initial conditions. Unless each and every particle and molecule “knew” what the
exact initial conditions are in each and every interaction that it was involved in it
would not have been possible for any interaction to have proceeded at all.

As an example, think of two billiard balls colliding with each other. The exact path that
each ball will follow after the collision is determined wholly and solely – and only –
by the initial conditions that existed at the exact instant of contact between the balls.
These initial conditions include such things as:-

• The exact mass of each ball

• The exact angles between the paths of the two balls in relation to the centers of
mass of each ball
• The exact velocities of each ball
• The exact geometric shape of each ball in relation to the center of mass of each ball
at the point of contact with each other
• The exact elasticity value of each ball at the point of actual contact
• The exact position that each ball impacted on the other ball in relation to the two
centers of mass of the two balls
• The exact coefficients of friction that existed on the exact point of contact on each
of the two balls
• The exact coefficients of friction that existed on the exact point of contact on each
of the two balls and the billiard table
• The exact angle that the plane of the table at the point of contact of each ball makes
with respect to the local gravitational field
• The exact value of the local acceleration due to gravity

63
 64
In the initial conditions above, the word exact means to an infinite level of precision. If
you could measure all those parameters then you could specify precisely – to an infinite
level of precision – exactly what each ball would do after the collision. We can’t do
that. However the fact that the balls “know” exactly what path to follow and what the
required velocity is of each ball after the impact is only because they are affected by
the exact values of all the parameters listed above as they are operating at the time of
impact. Although their behaviour seems “random”, in fact it is precisely controlled by
all those factors – which if you knew the values, you could precisely compute the
behaviour yourself. You can extend this out to include those two balls colliding with
other balls that were moving on the table at the same time. Although the resulting paths
and collisions of all the balls appear to be totally “random” they are in fact precisely
calculated and predicted by the natural laws. This means that you could – in principle
– predict exactly what each ball will do as their paths and velocities have been
“programmed” in at the instant of the collisions.

The point in this is simple! The “random” events from our perspective were – and are –
anything but random. In a very real sense the universe has “run on rails” from the
instant of the creation. These unbelievably complex and beautiful shapes of
snowflakes were “programmed in” at the very instant of the start of the universe.

Not only have individual snowflake designs “run on rails” since the instant of the
beginning of the universe – but everything else that you see around you has also “run
on rails”.

The original DNA molecules – an example of self-assembly

At the heart of all life is the genome that

determines the shape and functions of each
cell in an organism. The genome itself is made
from DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid)

The short DNA segments along the length of

the genome that carry the coded genetic
information are called genes.

From the chemical viewpoint, DNA consists

of two long side chains that form the structural
backbone that hold the cross chains. These
“rungs” on the “ladder” are made up of two
different molecules of amino acids called
bases. Because each “rung” has two bases
they are called “base pairs”. There are only
four different amino acid bases, Adenine, Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine. The coding
of the genetic information is carried by the sequence of these four bases along the
length of the entire genome. The latest estimate of the total length of the DNA in a
human cell is about three meters long if it was stretched out. It has approximately 220
million base pairs along its total length

Just for the moment leave aside the actual number of base pairs along the DNA strand
and the complexity that the actual code in the DNA molecule represents. Look instead
at the structural complexity of the molecule. It is essentially a long “rope ladder”
where each of the “rungs” is made up by joining two base pairs of amino acids together

64
 65
and then joining the other ends of the base pair to the main structural side members.
The self-assembly of a structure such as this is not anymore difficult – and is probably
easier – than assembling the structure of an intricately shaped snowflake.

Self-assembly of molecules relies on two basic mechanisms.

First, the individual molecules must have sites on them that act as “attractors” for other
molecules that have matching (opposite) attractors. A simple example is a set of small
bar magnets that have north and south poles at opposite ends of each of the magnets. As
we all know, like poles repel each other (e.g. two N poles or two S poles will repel
each other) – whereas opposite poles attract each other. (e.g. a N pole and a S pole
will attract each other). All chemicals have atomic bond sites of various types on them
that act as “attractors” for other molecules.

The second requirement for self assembly is that the molecules must be moving
around in “random” patterns of movement. Over time the molecules will touch in
various positions. Whenever they contact at a point of mutual attraction, the molecules
will tend to stick together. Over time, more such collisions occur and the molecules
grow in size. They have now self-assembled into a much larger compound molecule.

To see self-assembly in action all you need to do is make some “artificial molecules”.
You can easily do this by making some small wooden blocks in various shapes such as
rectangles, squares, hexagons, triangles, and small cylinders etc. Into the sides of the
“molecules” and the ends of the cylinders, you then drill some small holes into which
you insert small weak cylindrical magnets to act as the “attractor sites” To demonstrate
self assembly of a DNA molecule you would also need two longer rectangular strips
with holes along one side only of their length into which the attractor magnets can be
inserted. When putting the magnets into the holes in the “artificial molecules”, you
need to ensure that one side of the “molecule” has a north pole facing outward and on
the other side of the “molecule” that you have a south pole facing outwards. This
duplicates the atomic structure of real molecules.

To demonstrate the self-assembly process all you need to do is first ensure that all the
“molecules” are separated, then the gently shake the tray on which they are sitting so
that the “molecules” all start moving around. Then watch how they begin to self-
assemble into the various shapes that are essentially pre-programmed into them by
virtue of the individual block shapes and the locations and polarities of the magnets that
are set into the sides of the individual “molecule” shapes.

In the real world, the actual shape of the final self-assembled molecule is dependent on
both the types of chemicals that are present and the distribution of the attractor and
repelling sites on the individual molecules. This self-assembly at the molecular level is
a basic everyday occurrence. Whenever you mix two or more chemicals together and a
chemical reaction occurs that results in changes to one or more of the original
chemicals or the formation of a new compound chemical – you are seeing a form of self
assembly, or maybe disassembly, taking place

In science, self-assembly is generally taken to mean that the self-assembled structure

has certain defined properties. These are:

65
 66
• The self-assembled structure must have a higher order of organization than the
individual components. This can either be in the final shape of the structure or any
tasks that the self-assembled entity may be able to perform.

• In self-assembly, the key bonding forces are generally considered to be the “weak”
interactions (e.g. Van der Waals, capillary, hydrogen bonds) instead of the more
"traditional" covalent, ionic or metallic bonds. The “weak” forces are the ones that
determine the physical properties of the materials and are the ones that determine
the organization of molecules in biological membranes.

• In self-assembled structures the building blocks are not only confined to atoms and
molecules. They can, and do include a wide range of material building block sizes
from the atomic scale up to scales that can be described without having to resort to
discussing their atomic properties. (mesoscopic)

The whole world is a good example of self-assembly. This includes our own bodies
which are examples of self-assembly of complex structures out of simpler components.
It is not some vague pie-in-the-sky concept. Without self-assembly the universe
would just not exist. This is the mechanism that God used in creation.

However the deeper foundation of self-assembly are the laws of nature that God put
in place at the start of the universe. It is these laws (whatever they are – and however
they work at the deep fundamental level) that is the guiding mechanism that allows
self-assembly to take place. The process of natural selection in evolution could not
occur at its deepest level without relying on the process of self-assembly – which in
turn is not possible without the fundamental natural laws that came into existence at the
creation of the universe itself.

Having dealt with the “relatively” minor problem of self assembly we now have to
consider the self-organization aspect of the total design of the genome. One of the
very real problems that many people have about self-organization is that they see this as
saying that there is some sort of “intelligence” that is doing the “organization” This is
not what is meant by the expression.

The earlier example of the snowflake is a good example of the expression. It has a very
self-organised complex shape – but neither it, nor “anybody” else actually made the
snowflake. It came about as a direct result of the natural laws operating on the
molecules of water that made it up. The snowflake as an “entity” (non-living and non-
knowing) then “self-organised” its own final shape simply as a result of the fact that its
water molecules have a certain shape set by atomic considerations with “attractor”
points at certain positions – and this interacted with the conditions it encountered in the
cloud where it grew.

As I have said earlier, no two snowflakes are exactly the same as each other. They
range from fairly similar to completely different to each other. Because over history
there have been countless billions and zillions of snowflakes then there will have been a
huge number of individual shapes that have been formed just by “chance”.

This then brings us to the next question of how DNA could have formed to start off life
in the beginning. After all, I quoted a figure earlier of the human genome having
approximately 220 million base pairs along its total length. People say, well how could

66
 67
you get that sort of complexity by “random” chance? Well the answer is that it would
be most unlikely. However that is not how it started.

The first “living” cell (what is life anyway? This is a deep question that still has no
answer) was just that, a single very simple cell. The DNA for that cell would have
been much shorter. The process of “bootstrapping” then occurred over billions of years
where the world pulled itself up by its own bootstraps (so to speak) from very simple
cells into much more complex systems over huge periods of time – and absolutely
countless replications that covered all possible variations. The only variations that
survived were those that were suited to the local environment that they found
themselves in. The better suited to the local environment – the more likely a given cell
or organism is to survive and divide or breed – and hence pass on its characteristics. By
this mechanism we see Darwin’s principle in action in which each slight variation, if
useful to the organism, is preserved by the process of Natural Selection"

A common objection to even having a simple cell arise by natural means is that even a
simple cell has a huge variety of chemical needs that have to be met in order for a cell
to function. The claim is made that the number of bits of information needed to produce
a working cell is far too large to have come about by chance. The claim is worth
looking at. For the evolutionary scenario to be realistic, experimental evidence will
have to be produced that demonstrates a realistic pathway for a cell to arise by natural
means. At this stage in the search for the origins of life a realistic pathway has not yet
been found.

However what needs to be kept in mind is the old saying that, “Absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence” This is the basis of the scientific method of investigation
where you are constantly looking for the case which shows that the hypothesis, as it has
been formulated, is wrong – not looking for cases that “confirms” the hypothesis, As
an example, take the “common knowledge” about swans that European zoologists
believed before Australia had been discovered. They believed that all swans were
white, simply because all the swans that they saw were white. There was no shortage of
corroborating evidence that “all swans are white” – until black swans were found in
Australia. So it is with the search for the beginning of life – it hasn’t been found yet –
but that does not mean it won’t be.

A lot of work is being done on the subject. Various groups have calculated that a
minimal cell would require somewhere between 200 to 250 genes to exist and function.
They made this calculation by what is known as the top-down approach. The aim was
to simplify existing simple organisms to arrive at what is considered to be the minimal
genome possible for the cell to exist. The idea is to then find a way to self-assemble
such a minimal cell.

Other biologists have taken a wider viewpoint and believe that it is not necessarily the
case that the original cells were in the exact form that we know them today. The
biologists who work on this path are taking the bottom-up approach. This group make
the assumptions that originally what are referred to as proto-cells (e.g. a forerunner)
existed. These cells may have been much, much smaller than bacteria and with much
smaller genomes. A number of laboratories are currently working on building these
proto-cells. They are making steady progress towards their goal of actually producing a
functioning basic cell.

67
 68
A question that must be asked

There is a very simple question that must be asked in the debate about whether God
really did create the entire universe about six thousand years ago in a literal six day
period. To my knowledge, this question appears to have never been thought about by
either side of the debate. If it has, I have never read or heard about it.

God says that He has existed from everlasting past and will exist to everlasting in the
future. He also says that time has no meaning to Him in the sense that we commonly
understand time.

Micah 5:2 (NKJV)

2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of
Judah,Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose
goings forth are from of old, From everlasting."

Psalm 90:2 (NIV)

2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God

Psalm 90:4 (NIV)

4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a
watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8-9 (NIV)

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a
thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

The question then is simple. If God is eternal and time in our sense has no meaning to
Him, then why would He have been in such a hurry to create the universe and all
therein in just six literal days?

This is especially strange when you consider that for eternity past the universe had
not existed – then hey-presto! In six days everything comes into being in
essentially the form that we know today – then the universe starts its journey on
into eternity future, slowly but surely changing (evolving) from the Stone Age
conditions 6000 years ago into unknown and currently unimaginable complexity
in future ages to come.

This idea of the sudden appearance of the completed universe in one stroke does not fit
with the scientific knowledge of the age of the universe. Nor does it fit with the
observations of life around us where we see things slowly evolve from one state to
another becoming more complex as the changes progress. This includes not only
biology, but also geological changes in the planet. It especially applies to events that we
see happening in space. It also encompasses the slow evolution of the affairs of man
from the Stone Age about 6,000 years ago right through until the present science age of
mankind. Included in the affairs of mankind is the slow progressive unfolding of
revelation in the Bible over the period of about the sixteen hundred years that it took for
all the books in the Bible to be written.

By comparison, it is clear that “six days” out of all of eternity is not even equivalent to
one grain of sand on all the beaches on all the planets in the universe. It is utterly and

68
 69
totally insignificant! Nothing that we see in the world and universe around us or in
history is characterised by a sudden appearance. Empires rise and fall over long periods
of time. God himself is timeless. The idea then that God “needed” to act in an instant in
time to create the completed universe is simply not consistent with the Bible or the
observed world around us – or a reasonable understanding of how God would act.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

69
 70

Don’t mention the war

Or
The real battle between science and creationism is not about science
Rather it is a war for the supremacy of competing philosophies – one based in science
and one based on a literalist view of the Bible.

Much thought went into whether I should include this chapter

I realize that most people who read this chapter will be Christians and it is certainly not
my intention to offend anybody. For that reason I considered whether I should not just
skip over this section of my journey from creationism to the creation. However, I
simply cannot pass over this as the subject discussed here was an early central point in
my turning away from my earlier belief in creationism. As such, it must be included.

There is a second reason as well. I did not write the Bible – but I have read it (very
deeply). One of the stand-out commands in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is that
God commands His people to speak the truth. Doing so, cost both Paul and John the
Baptist their heads and caused great pain and death to virtually all the other major
figures in the Bible. Below are some (only) of the scripture references that I have been
aware of since I started my journey some years ago from creationism to the creation. It
is these scriptures that have made me decide to include this chapter.

Proverbs 16:2 (NIV)

2 All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the LORD.

Ezekiel 13:8 (NIV)

8`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because of your false words
and lying visions, I am against you, declares the Sovereign LORD.

Matthew 12:36-37 (NIV)

36 But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for
every careless word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted,
and by your words you will be condemned."

Proverbs 16:13 (NIV)

13 Kings take pleasure in honest lips; they value a man who speaks the truth.

Zechariah 8:16 (NIV)

16 These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to each other, and render
true and sound judgment in your courts;

John 4:24(NIV)
4 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Ephesians 4:25-26(NIV)
25 Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his
neighbour, for we are all members of one body.

I ask everybody who reads this chapter to read it right through before making a
judgement. I suspect that many people will be shocked at the contents. I wish it was not

70
 71
so. However, in the end I must stand before God and give account of my life. As such, I
am duty bound to present the situation as I have found it.

One of the reasons that I changed my belief from creationism

The debate between science and those who believe that the Bible teaches a literal six
day creation about six thousand years ago is in fact not a debate – but a literal war. It is
between those people who want a religious philosophy to dominate the life of a
nation and those who wish to live in a secular society.

As in any war we have two groups on each side – the planners and leaders – and those
who follow the leaders. In all walks of life, the great majority of people are followers.
As such, very few of the people in this group will ever question what the leaders are
telling them. They also very rarely check-up on the accuracy of the statements that the
leaders make. This is a major reason for many of the controversies that arise in the
public debates on evolution versus special creation. I firmly believe that most people in
the Creation Science and Intelligent Design camps are sincere in their beliefs. But if
people actually did some simple due-diligence checks on the accuracy of some of the
leader’s statements in the debate we would, I believe, see a very different picture than
the current war-like state of affairs

My change in belief from creationism to the reality of the creation came about in large
part from actually investigating the claims of creationism in some detail. It happened as
the result of the probing and investigation that I began after the day I went into cardiac
arrest. I discovered that “all is not as some people in the creationist camp are saying”

In fact some creationists are making statements that simply cannot be supported by the
facts. Even worse, some of them are publishing quotations that have been changed from
the original publications. The effect is to twist the original meaning of the texts in
question to the exact opposite meaning as clearly stated in the original text.

In addition, some creationists appear to be leaving out material data (e.g. of

importance) in their publications about the results of scientific experiments – which if it
had been included, would have shown their “conclusions” to have been false.

While these people may have good intentions, they appear to be resorting to the
political stance of the writer and Italian politician Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 –1527).
He is considered to be the founder of modern political science. His most famous
assertion is that “The end justifies the means” By this he meant that “if something is
considered to be good” then it is acceptable to pursue any means – fair or foul – to
achieve the “good goal”.

As a Christian, I simply cannot accept that the aims of Christians can ever be achieved
by distorting the truth. Quite apart from the moral aspect of this – and the fact that
those who knowingly engage in this must give account to God for their actions – it
destroys any credibility that these people may have. Once you have been caught out
in an untruthful statement, then every assertion that you make is scrutinized to see if it
can be relied upon.

Quite apart from the damage that this sort of thing does to the effectiveness and
credibility of the church, is the question of why some people who claim to be Christian
think that they have to resort to untruthful and deceptive claims to get the Biblical

71
 72
message across. Everybody is entitled to their viewpoint. But if people have to distort
the truth to “prove” their case then they don’t have a case at all.

The Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute is a conservative think tank based in Seattle, Washington.

Bruce Chapman (a former Reagan administration official) established the Institute in
1990. According to its website its reason for existence is to research and lobby
governments on a number of public policy areas. These include religion and its
expression in public life, science and technology, defence issues, law reform,
environmental issues, the economy and foreign affairs. However its “flagship” project
is that of being the driving force behind the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

It sees Intelligent Design as the head issue of a political program which the Institute has
created as its way of restoring what it sees as a loss of direction in the world from
godless forces. In particular they single out Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund
Freud as three particularly insidious individuals whose ideas – in their opinion – have
been particularly influential in destroying a belief in God and promoting a materialistic
philosophy in its place. Because ID has been chosen to head this public campaign, the
principal target of the ID movement is Charles Darwin.

In order to implement the campaign the Institute compiled a strategy that is detailed in
a document entitled “THE WEDGE” Unfortunately for the Institute this paper found its
way onto the internet in February 1999. After initially denying that the document was a
statement of their strategy, the Vice President of the Institute (Stephen Meyer)
eventually admitted that the strategy document did originate in the Discovery Institute.
A copy of the document can be found at
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

The Wedge document lays out a strategy for a public relations campaign that is
designed to influence public opinion, public policy makers and opinion leaders in all
fields. The intent is stated in the opening paragraph of the document.

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political
legacies"

• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature
and human beings are created by God"

It intends to achieve this through both short and long term plans that are referred to as
phases in the strategy

• Phase I: Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity,

• Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making
• Phase III: Cultural Confrontation & Renewal.

As in any battle the planners have an overall strategy, or plan, that they have laid out in
order to achieve their objectives. However in order to translate that plan (the strategy)
into effective actions on the ground a series of tactical steps are also needed. There are
many political tactics that any political scientist uses to put their strategies into action.
However the main requirement is a large pool of “grassroots” supporters to act as the
political pressure group that push governments to implement the strategy’s plans.

72
 73
Without this “popular” grassroots support to pressure politicians it is almost impossible
to implement a political program of any sort. This aspect of the tactical side of the
Wedge strategy is covered in the Wedge document in the following statement.

Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular

base of support among our natural constituency, namely Christians. We will do
this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and
equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as to
“popularize” our ideas in the broader culture.

The phrase “apologetics seminars” simply means seminars that are run by “apologists”
for the cause. In other words, people who are known for, and sympathetic to, the points
of view being presented.

The first thing to be noticed in the quote from the Wedge document above is the term
“our ideas”. In other words, the people who attend these seminars are being
indoctrinated into believing the ideas of the leaders of the Discovery Institute – not
ideas from the Bible, but “our ideas” It is worth visiting the Discovery Institute website
and also the Wikipedia entry on the Institute to discover what their ideas are –
particularly the Wikipedia entry shown below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Technology_.26_Democracy
"Though the Discovery Institute describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in
national and international affairs,' the group's real purpose is to undercut church-
state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers."

In order to recruit good-intentioned and well-meaning people in the churches into

supporting “their ideas” the Institute needed an effective focal point to influence
Christians. For a focal point to be effective it must grip people’s emotions. The
evolution versus special creation debate is about the most emotional – therefore the
most effective – focal point that you can find in the churches since the time of the
publication of Darwin’s ideas. Naturally this was selected. However in order to make it
the rallying point against “atheistic” science they had to take the opposing viewpoint to
science on the one subject that matters to many Christians. Namely, how did life in
general and humans in particular arise?

In order to achieve this goal of setting Christians against science they took advantage of
the simple fact that most people have little or no background in science – and for the
most part, very little real interest in the subject either. The planning question then
became how to achieve the tactic. As all political science students know, one very
effective weapon in any political campaign is to try and discredit your opponents.
Given that very few people know much about science it was decided that they would
attempt to discredit any part of science which was in conflict with the ideas that the
Discovery Institute was promoting. In the next section and in the rest of this chapter we
will see exactly how they decided to do this. The methods they have selected should
raise serious questions about the motivations of the people who engage in the selected
tactics.

They have certainly been successful in misleading many people. However I wonder if
the people who engage in these tactics – and if they know of the underlying trickery
involved – ever think of the scriptures at the start of this chapter?

73
 74
While the Discovery Institute serves as the intellectual wellspring for the Intelligent
Design movement and underpins much of the promotion of ID, it is also true that ID
has taken on a life of its own at the grassroots level. But many of the big-ticket
promotional items such as books, DVDs and seminars on the subject all appear to be
associated with the Institute as part of their Wedge strategy.

This year (2009) marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birthday. The
scientific community is using this as a reason for a year-long celebration of the ideas
that he presented to the world. Personally, it leaves me rather cold – but to each their
own. Leaving aside my opinion of the merits or not of a year-long celebration, the ID
movement have taken advantage of the celebrations to mount their own PR program
designed to attempt to discredit evolution in the eyes of their supporters and potential
supporters. A significant part of that public program is the release in 2008 of a DVD
entitled, “EXPELLED – no intelligence allowed”. It is narrated by a man called Ben
Stein.

I could have used many other examples in the rest of this chapter to show how the
systematic trickery that is employed in the war against science works. However the
DVD “EXPELLED” is current and more people will be familiar with it than would be
the case in some of the other less publicly known examples. The same techniques are
used and there are more than enough examples to show how the system works. For that
reason I will concentrate mainly on the DVD. As always, everyone is free to make up
their own mind about the claims on the DVD. My only comment would be to
remember that it was when, over the last decade or so as I became aware of how
creationists were blurring the truth that I began to look much more deeply into the
claims of these people. The end result was that I have now totally rejected their version
of how the universe and life began.

General philosophy of the creationist viewpoint

Before proceeding, we need to first lay out the general propositions of the creationist
belief system. Creationism as a general body is a movement which claims to use
scientific means to prove that their particular interpretation of the Genesis account of
creation is correct and that the generally accepted scientific view is wrong. Creationists
believe that Genesis teaches that a literal six day creation occurred about six thousand
years ago as opposed to the observational evidence of science that the universe and the
earth are billions of years old. In order to “prove” their beliefs they try and cast doubt
on and/or disprove the accepted scientific theories on cosmology (the universe) the
origins of the earth, and the appearance of life on the earth.

There are two main groups within the general creationist school of beliefs today. These
are Creation Science (CS) and Intelligent Design (ID).

The main beliefs of the creationists as a whole are summarized below.

• Creationists reject the evolutionary theory of descent from a single common

ancestor by undirected mutation and the mechanism of natural selection. They
claim that each class of organism, which they call "baramin" were the focus of an
act of special creation that occurred on the days specified in Genesis. The
creationists claim that these baramin are the common ancestor of all the different
classes of life forms on the earth today

74
 75
• The concept of catastrophism such as the world-wide flood of Noah and
earthquakes etc. are used to account for the earth's geological formations. The role
of plate tectonics in shaping the earth does not appear to be recognised

• Creationists usually reject the evidence of the Big Bang cosmological model of the
origins of the universe because it shows the universe to be very old. Likewise they
reject the data and methods of scientific dating which measure radioactive decay,
tree rings and ice-cores as they do not support the creationist ideas of a young earth.

• Creationists claim that the processes that God used during His week of special
creation are no longer at work in the universe – hence it is not scientifically possible
to investigate how the universe was created.

The creationists techniques of camouflaging the truth

For anyone who is not familiar with science and the requirements and principles used
in the scientific method it is very easy to become confused as to who is telling the truth
about what science actually shows in a particular case. This is the point that the leaders
of both CS and ID exploit in their public presentations in order to attempt to discredit
the evidence from science that proves creationism’s ideas wrong.

There are three main tactics used by the leaders of the creationist movement to disguise
the truth and present it as something else to people who have no background or real
interest in science. These are:-

• Manipulation of the scientific method in order to “prove” their pre-existing ideas.

• The consistent denial of counter evidence – and the acceptance and publishing of
only that evidence that “proves” their pre-conceived ideas

• Telling scientifically untrained people that “science is in crisis” over some point of
debate.

It is the consistent use of the three tactics above that leads scientists to make the claim
that CS and ID are pseudo-science (pretend science). Scientists say that creationists
start off with an idea from the Bible that they wish to “prove” – then they only accept
evidence that can be used to support that idea. They do not follow the scientific
method of trying to find cases that would disprove the hypothesis. Because most
theories cover a range of possible outcomes, then it is often possible to find a
restricted case that – if taken in isolation – will “prove” your hypothesis.

Tactic one – misuse of the scientific method

A classic case of how to manipulate the scientific method to mislead people who are
untrained in science is the example I have given earlier about the boiling point of water.
The actual boiling temperature of water depends (mainly) on the surrounding
pressure that the water is exposed to. (It also depends to a lesser extent on the
impurities in it as well as how much “heavy water” is present) At sea level the boiling
point is 100ºC. Lower air pressures = lower boiling point and higher air pressures =
higher boiling point. That is the actual situation that has been shown repeatedly to be
true and has not (so far) been able to be falsified (and is not likely to be – the “theory”
is now well established).

75
 76
Now suppose that someone needed to “prove” that water actually boiled only at 71ºC
as proof of some larger “theory” that was based on a pre-existing conclusion that
they had an interest in presenting to a particular audience. As we all know now, it
would be easy to “prove” the pre-existing conclusion to an audience who were not
trained in science by simply carrying out a water boiling experiment on the top of
Mount Everest at an altitude of 29,000 feet where water does boil at 71ºC – and then
simply neglect to report that if the experiment was carried out at lower altitudes
the boiling point would have been higher. Note that in this case the “experimenter”
has not directly lied – this was the result that they obtained. However any reasonable
person understands that they have effectively misled an untrained audience by violating
the first rule of evidence (Ref the chapter “Interpretation and Mental Templates”) and
shown again below

It also means that presenting a “fact” that has had certain information withheld
about it, and that would otherwise change the interpretation if that information
was disclosed makes the “fact or evidence” unreliable. If that information is
knowingly withheld in order to mislead the reader (for whatever reason – even
“good intentions”) then the evidence is fraudulent.

People will have to make up their own minds about whether a particular publication
uses this technique of selective reporting of results with the consequent misleading of a
scientifically untrained audience. However reputable scientists claim that at times they
do. An example of this claim is given in the last page of the chapter on dating
(Scientific Dating Methods) where a creationist group appears to have misled
scientifically untrained people into questioning dating methods in order to “prove” their
assertion that the earth is only 6000 years old.

Tactic two - continue to use discredited ideas to mislead people

Many reputable scientists regularly complain that some creationists knowingly and
habitually misquote them. The say that despite bringing these blatant misquotes to
the attention of the offenders they continue to misquote them. They also claim that
the same people knowingly mislead their audience by altering the original text to
“prove” their point. In fact if the original text had been presented, the exact opposite
conclusion would be drawn. On top of this, these scientists also state that creationists
often claim support from the general scientific community on a given point, when in
fact no such support exists

The main difference between the two creationist groups (CS & ID) is that Intelligent
Design people assert that certain naturally occurring structures that are found in living
organisms are so complex that it is inconceivable that they could have arisen by
evolution. These structures are called irreducibly complex. The reasoning being that if
just one of the parts was missing, then the structure as a whole could not function –
hence it would not have had any evolutionary advantage that would have led to its
preservation across multiple generations. A commonly quoted example is the Flagellum
molecular motor found in some bacteria. Below is an excerpt giving both the ID view
and the science view of the debate of these motors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Flagella
The flagella of certain bacteria constitute a molecular motor requiring the
interaction of about 40 complex protein parts, and the absence of any one of these
proteins causes the flagella to fail to function. Behe holds that the flagellum

76
 77
"engine" is irreducibly complex because if we try to reduce its complexity by
positing an earlier and simpler stage of its evolutionary development, we get an
organism which functions improperly.

Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in

the light of fairly recent research. They point out that the basal body of the flagella
has been found to be similar to the Type III secretory system (TTSS), a needle-like
structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject
toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has ten elements in common
with the flagellum, but it is missing forty of the proteins that make a flagellum
work. Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the
flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Kenneth Miller to note
that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have
functions of their own."

Further down in that same article we find the following finding of the court in the case
of teaching ID in public schools in the US

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on
the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's
claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research
papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Nonetheless,
irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument by
creationists, particularly intelligent design proponents.

The creationist claim is that the motor itself could not have evolved all of its parts
separately – hence it must have been created in one hit as an act of special creation.
However they ignore the published findings in respected peer-reviewed journals that
conclusively show that parts of the motor are found in other organisms. They ignore
these findings that falsify their hypothesis that an act of special creation was necessary
to create the entire motor in one act. They do this because to accept the finding of
“parts of motors” elsewhere would mean that their hypothesis is wrong.

The persistent use of claims that have been shown to be false such as the one above
seriously erodes the credibility of the creationist’s claims on how life came into
existence.

Tactic three – claims that science “is in crisis” over some point of debate

Science is an ongoing endeavour as we will never reach the “end of science” A

scientific theory consists of those facts that have been solidly established by the
inability of repeated (and determined) attempts to show that they are false. These facts
are accepted by all genuine scientists. As explained earlier, there is no such thing as a
“final theory” There are always areas that the theory is being extended into. It is in the
extension of the limits of any theory that scientific controversies arise. These
controversies continue until a consensus is reached that any particular disagreement has
been settled to everybody’s satisfaction.

One of the great complaints of the genuine science community is that the CS and ID
people point out these areas of “theory extensional controversies” and say to their
scientifically untrained audience, “See – science is in a crisis! The theory of evolution
is failing” They create a false impression in the minds of the scientifically untrained

77
 78
that “science is in crisis” and so is not even believed by scientists themselves. In so
doing, these creationist authors and speakers are misleading the people who look to
them for guidance.

It is not for me to judge the individual people who distort and mislead. But I do believe
that I am required to make known what the Bible says on this matter and shown in the
scriptures on the first page of this chapter.

It is this selective reporting of results that are incorrectly used to “prove” the pre-
existing ideas of the creationists that cause them to be dismissed by the science
community. This leads to creationists being excluded from the big science debates and
from being allowed to publish their “creationist reports” in peer-reviewed journals.

There are two important things that flow from this attitude of selective reporting of
results in order to “prove” the ideas of the creationist camp.

1. People who are untrained in science are misled into believing something that is
demonstrably not true by people who have a particular agenda to pursue

2. By being misled, people in the church are automatically excluded from the large
debates in society where they should in fact be the opinion leaders in order to help
overcome the huge injustices and problems in the world.

Freedom and the religious state

In the DVD, “EXPELLED – no intelligence allowed” Ben Stein starts off with a
statement about the need to preserve all varieties of freedom in the US – and by
extension everywhere in the world. However the rest of the DVD is essentially a plea to
put religion at the center of the modern state. There is a strange dichotomy between his
opening address and the rest of what he advocates. The discerning viewer is left with
the very strong impression that he and the producers of the DVD had not really thought
out the full implications of what they were saying. Or if they had, then their
motivations really have to be brought into question as will be discussed below.

If you ask many Christians – particularly those associated with the Evangelical branch
of the church – whether the laws of the land should be shaped by religious beliefs, then
they will say “Yes!” By “religious”, they of course mean “Christian religion”.

I think that everyone understands that the Ten Commandments from the O.T. related
only to the secular (non-religious) governance of Israel. They had nothing whatever to
do with the religious aspects of the national life of Israel. Given that western style
democracies already have their legal systems grounded in the secular Ten
Commandments, we already have our legal system based on the Bible. It’s not perfect.
But it’s a lot better than many countries in the world – and many of those countries
have legal systems that are based on religion.

Leaving aside non-Christian religion for the moment, consider the following and then
decide if having a religious influence on the legal system leads to a free and just society

For instance, hands up all those people would like to go back to the pre-reformation
days when the Catholic Church ruled supreme. Historians estimate that somewhere
between ten (10) and fifty (50) million people lost their lives because they did not hold

78
 79
beliefs that were in conformity with the teaching of the Church of those days. I suspect
that I won’t find many people who wish to return to those times!

Coming into the present, consider the situation as it was in Northern Ireland until
recently (and looks as if it may yet return) Both Protestants and Catholics were
maimed, murdered and terrorised just because they held the “wrong religious” views
according to the “enforcers of purity of the religion and its associated politics” from
the other side. Do we have any takers for bringing in a “them and us” atmosphere like
the Northern Island religious environment? (I certainly hope not)

Still keeping with “Christian religion” let’s examine the “Pew Forum on Religion &
Public Life ... Report 2: Religious Beliefs & Practices / Social & Political Views” The
full report covers 210 pages. A summary of the report can be found at
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf
http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

This survey in the U.S examined religious beliefs in the country. It could be confidently
expected to show a similar result if conducted in most other western countries. Below is
a small part of the summary from the website above. All those in favour of letting the
“Christian” believers” in the US or in their own country decide “what the Bible
says” – and then have the laws adjusted accordingly, please stand up. How strange –
nobody is standing up. I wonder why? Perhaps the answer is given in the summary
from the report below

Religion in America: Non-Dogmatic, Diverse and Politically Relevant

Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions – not just their own –
can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition,
seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a
majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of
members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%). Only among members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and other Mormon groups (57%) and
Jehovah’s Witnesses (80%), which together comprise roughly 2.4% of the U.S.
adult population, do majorities say that their own religion is the one true faith
leading to eternal life.

Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting

the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults
affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to
interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions.
The exceptions are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 54% and 77% of whom,
respectively, say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their
religion

The lack of dogmatism in American religion may well reflect the great diversity of
religious affiliation, beliefs and practices in the U.S. For example, while more than
nine-in-ten Americans (92%) believe in the existence of God or a universal spirit,
there is considerable variation in the nature and certainty of this belief. Six-in-ten
adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship; but
one-in-four – including about half of Jews and Hindus – see God as an impersonal
force. And while roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they are absolutely certain of
God’s existence, more than one-in-five (22%) are less certain in their belief.

79
 80
We next need to consider religions other than “christianity” (Yes the lower case “c” is
deliberate after reading the summary above). If “religious christianity” is incorporated
in the law of the land, then all of these other religions also have a valid claim to be
incorporated into the law as we have many people who hold these beliefs as citizens in
our societies.

How many people in a western style democracy would like to see Islamic Sharia law
incorporated into their legal system? In particular, would people in western countries
like to be forced to abide by the religious aspects of Sharia law? I strongly suspect that
we would not have too many in favour of granting Islam a prominent role in a western
nominally Christian society.

I think that all thinking people would admit that having religious based law is the worst
thing that can happen to any country. No matter “how good” the intentions of the
people who introduce and administer the law, the reality is that you are then at the
mercy of many who are cranks, crooks and dictators in a religious-legal system. There
has to be serious questions raised about the understanding and motives of those people
who promote such a system. When you see in the Discovery Institute’s Wedge strategy
document the statement "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic
understanding that nature and human beings are created by God", then it appears that
one item on the political agenda of the ID movement is to implement a religion based
legal system. This is an agenda that should be strongly resisted.

Are creationists really “persecuted” by the scientific community?

There is in fact some truth to this claim. However it is not for the reasons that
creationists say. They claim that they are persecuted because they hold a contrary view
which, if allowed to take root, would threaten the basis of modern scientific beliefs in a
number of fields (biology, cosmology and geology as the main areas). However, the
science community takes them to task because the creationists present pseudo-science
to a group of people who are for the most part not knowledgeable in science – and dress
it up as science in order to push a religious-political agenda.

The DVD “EXPELLED – no intelligence allowed” puts a lot of time into presenting
claims of censorship along with the claims that Darwinism leads to atheism and in the
case of Nazism, the genocide of Jews.

We will look only at the claims of censorship in this section. The DVD interviews a
number of people who claimed that they were victimised for either teaching, or just
even referring to ID in their work areas. The four people who were in the DVD are
listed below, along with their claims and website links that give a “very different”
account of the “facts” in each case. Given that nobody has challenged the Wikipedia
Encyclopaedia accounts – as everybody has the right and ability to do as part of the
charter of Wikipedia – then we must assume that the Wikipedia accounts are basically
correct. In each case the Wikipedia accounts – if correct – would indicate that the
stories as presented on the DVD are deceptive and that the people concerned were not
victimised at all for their creationist beliefs.

It is the right of every person to make up their own mind on any matter. These cases are
no exception. That is why I have included the internet links so that everyone can do
their own research. However, when I see what – on the face of it – appears to be

80
 81
distortions of the truth such as in these four cases, how can I, or anybody else, have any
confidence in anything published by people pushing creationism?

Dr. Richard Sternberg

The Claim in the DVD (Expelled)
“The paper ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent
design might be able to explain how life began.”

He claims that as a result of the firestorm that he lost his job at the Smithsonian
Museum of Natural History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternberg_peer_review_controversy

Dr. Caroline Crocker

The Claim in the DVD (Expelled)
“After she simply mentioned Intelligent Design in her cell biology class at George
Mason University, Caroline Crocker’s sterling academic career came to an abrupt
end.”

“[My supervisor] said ‘nonetheless you have to be disciplined’, and I lost my job.”
(Caroline Crocker, Expelled)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker

Michael Egnor
The Claim in the DVD (Expelled)
“When neurosurgeon Michael Egnor wrote an essay for high school students saying
doctors didn’t need to study evolution in order to practice medicine, the Darwinists
were quick to try and exterminate this new threat.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Egnor

Professor Robert Marks

The Claim in the DVD (Expelled)
“A few months after this interview Baylor University shut down his research website
once they discovered a link between his work and intelligent design.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Marks_II

Do Darwin’s ideas encourage or lead to atheism?

In the EXPELLED movie on the DVD Ben Stein quotes evolutionary biologist and
well known atheist Dr. Richard Dawkins (Oxford University) where he says:-

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”

While Ben Stein does not directly state that Darwinism must lead to atheism, the clear
inference is that it does. He implies that Dr. Dawkins is somehow representative of all
scientists. In so doing, Ben Stein is implicitly stating a “scientific hypothesis” in the
form shown below (ref. the chapter “Just what is a scientific theory?” for details)

If atheism is related to Darwinian ideas, then all evolutionary biologists and other
scientists will be atheists.

81
 82
Discussion – Hopefully everyone remembers that when testing any hypothesis, the
scientific method requires that you try and falsify the hypothesis. You do not look for
situations that confirm the hypothesis. E.g. you can “prove” that water boils at 71ºC –
providing you carry out the experiment only on the top of Mt. Everest. However that
does nothing towards explaining what influences the boiling point of water. Using the
scientific method you only have to find a single case that contradicts the hypothesis
to absolutely prove that the hypothesis is wrong.

Hence, if we can find just one single Bible believing – or other “god” believing –
evolutionary biologist or other scientist, then Ben Stein’s implicit hypothesis will be
proven wrong.

Conclusion – One such Christian scientist is Professor of biology Dr. Kenneth R.

Miller of Brown University in the US. http://bms.brown.edu/faculty/m/kmiller/

There are many others as well – but all we need to find is just one to disprove Stein’s
implied hypothesis. We also have to consider the fact that atheism has always been a
feature of all societies across time – e.g. before Darwin. So what caused their atheistic
belief before Darwin came up with his ideas?

In this instance we see a scientifically untrained audience being misled by the use of
Tactic one – misuse of the scientific method. He sets up an implicit hypothesis and
then looks only for the case that supports his claim. He doesn’t tell his audience that
there are in fact many Christian evolutionary biologists and other scientists whose
existence disprove the hypothesis.

If Richard Dawkins or anybody else is an atheist, it is simply because God has not
revealed Himself to that person (at least at the time in question). In Dawkins case, he
clearly felt a sense of bewilderment at how life may have begun because he could not
believe in God. Then, finding an alternative view that could “explain” how life began
would naturally make “it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” The real
criticism of Dr. Dawkins and others like him is that they apparently fail to ponder the
deeper question of where the natural laws came from that evolution requires to operate
– not the fact that they are atheists.

As in all of these cases, I ask why creationists mislead people if their case is so
watertight and evolution simply could not account for the appearance of any sort of life
by natural means.

The attempt to “jump-start life” – Ben Stein in the DVD “EXPELLED”

In the EXPELLED movie on the DVD Ben Stein makes the following statement.

“The most popular idea has been that life emerged spontaneously from primordial
soup. In 1953 Stanley Miller mixed water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen to
simulate the early earth’s atmosphere. Then he ran electricity through it in an
attempt to jump-start life. It didn’t work! While the initial results seemed
promising, 50 years later most serious scientists have abandoned this approach in
favour of alternate theories”

Generally when making claims such as the three above, the person will check the facts
first. If he had done this and still made the claims, then everyone who reads this will

82
 83
have to make up their own minds about his motives. Let’s examine the facts of the
three highlighted claims separately.

The object of the Miller-Urey experiment was not to spontaneously generate life. The
object of the experiment is shown below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
Specifically, the experiment tested Soviet scientist Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S.
Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical
reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors.

Nowhere in the above description of the hypothesis for the experiment can I see any
reference to “spontaneously generate life” It was simply an attempt to see if the basic
building blocks of life – e.g. amino acids – could be synthesized naturally in the
assumed prevailing early earth conditions. Here we have the first example of Tactic
two - continue to use discredited ideas to mislead people. The question has to be
asked – why not tell people about the true hypothesis of the experiment – particularly if
it can be clearly demonstrated that the natural laws cannot self-assemble the molecules
that form the basis of life?

Ben Stein then goes on to assert, “It didn’t work!” Many who have studied high school
biology are aware that this claim is categorically wrong. The reason that they know this
is because the experiment is simple enough to be duplicated in high school science
classes – and in fact has been carried out by many schools. It has been repeatedly
demonstrated that significant quantities of organic compounds are generated in a week-
long run of the experiment. In fact in a recently published paper a re-analysis of
material from the original Miller-Urey experiments showed that twenty two (22) amino
acids were created in one of the original experiments (they performed many) (Johnson
AP, Cleaves HJ, Dworkin JP, Glavin DP, Lazcano A, Bada JL (October 2008). "The
Miller volcanic spark discharge experiment". Science 322 (5900): 404.
doi:10.1126/science.1161527. PMID 18927386).

The experiment showed that the hypothesis was correct – and that the building
blocks of life (amino acids) would self-assemble under the influence of the natural
laws in the natural environment.

If Stein had reported the real results it would have shown the exact opposite of the
case that he is presenting – e.g. it showed that one of the first steps necessary for
evolution occurs unaided by way of the natural laws

The question has to be asked. Why did Ben Stein not report the actual results and hence
mislead the scientifically untrained audience that the DVD is aimed at? As usual,
everyone will make up their own minds as to the reasons and motivation of the people
who made the DVD

Ben Stein’s last assertion is that “50 years later most serious scientists have abandoned
this approach” The reality is that experiments of the same general type have been –
and still are – being carried out right up until this very day. I have already made
reference to the Johnson AP, Cleaves HJ, Dworkin JP, Glavin DP, Lazcano A, Bada JL
(October 2008) paper in the second point above. This type of work is still being
performed in order to refine the understandings of exactly which organic compounds
form and the conditions necessary for their formation along with the mechanisms

83
 84
involved. Here we have the third example of Tactic two - continue to use discredited
ideas to mislead people.

In Ben Stein’s statement at the start of this section we have a total of sixty five (65)
words. In that section of 65 words we have three (3) demonstrably inaccurate
statements. If the ID movement is so certain that the natural laws cannot – nor do not –
produce the organic molecules needed to start building up more complex organisms,
then why do they have to resort to statements that even a quick search on the internet
will show to be untrue? Is it because they know that many people in their target
audience will not do their own due-diligence checks?

Yet again, these people destroy their own credibility in the eyes of those people who do
their own due-diligence checking.

The manipulation of Darwin’s quotation in his book “The Descent of Man”

In the DVD EXPELLED, Ben Stein attributes the following statement to Charles
Darwin's book “THE DESCENT OF MAN AND SELECTION IN RELATION TO
SEX” (First edition 1871 – second edition 1874). He does this in order to support his
claim that the ideas of Darwin inspired the Nazis and their ideas that led to the
Holocaust.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on
the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums
for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized
societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic
animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly
anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Stein stops the “quotation” at the point shown above and implies that Darwin’s
“quotation” provided the scientific basis for the Nazi’s ideas on Social Darwinism and
its subsequent eugenics program. By eugenics is meant the controlled breeding of
humans in order to achieve desirable traits in future generations. Anybody who took Mr
Stein at face value would then believe that the “quotation” above is exactly as it
appears in the book, “The Descent of man”. Having learnt in the past to be very wary of
the quotes from creationists I found a copy of the book and checked the actual
quotation myself. What I found did not surprise me as over the years I have come to
expect this sort of selective “quoting” from creationists

The sections in blue on the next page are the parts that Ben Stein quotes from the
book, “The Descent of man”. The red sections are the sentences that he leaves out. As
can be clearly seen the meaning of the original text has been changed by leaving
selected parts out. It now has an entirely different meaning – the exact opposite of
what Darwin actually said.

The Descent of man (Charles Darwin)

Chapter 5 - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During
Primeval and Civilised Times
http://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/

84
 85
NATURAL SELECTION AS AFFECTING CIVILISED NATIONS.- Page 90
I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human
condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural
selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably
discussed by Mr. W.R. Greg (9. 'Fraser's Magazine,' Sept. 1868, p. 353. This article
seems to have struck many persons, and has given rise to two remarkable essays
and a rejoinder in the 'Spectator,' Oct. 3rd and 17th, 1868. It has also been
discussed in the 'Quarterly Journal of Science,' 1869, p. 152, and by Mr. Lawson
Tait in the 'Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science,' Feb. 1869, and by Mr. E.
Ray Lankester in his 'Comparative Longevity,' 1870, p. 128. Similar views appeared
previously in the 'Australasian,' July 13, 1867. I have borrowed ideas from several
of these writers.), and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. (10. For Mr.
Wallace, see 'Anthropological Review,' as before cited. Mr. Galton in 'Macmillan's
Magazine,' Aug. 1865, p. 318; also his great work, 'Hereditary Genius,' 1870.) Most
of my remarks are taken from these three authors.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand,
do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the
imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men
exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is
reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak
constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak
members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the
breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the
race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed,
leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man
himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental
result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the
social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated,
more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at
the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows
that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect
the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an
overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of
the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of
society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely
increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is
more to be hoped for than expected.

Any person reading the above actual quotations from the book can see how certain
sections have been left out – and that these omissions have the effect of twisting the
meaning to completely opposite to what Darwin actually said. It is this very sort of
thing that years ago caused me to lose faith in any statement from creationists.

Now I must make it clear that I don’t know the reasons or motivations that led to the
changed text on the DVD. However, as usual, everyone will make their own judgments
as to why the text was presented like this.

85
 86
It gives added credibility to the claims of the many scientists who complain that their
words are twisted from their original meaning in order to “support” the creationist
account.

It is true that what became known as Social Darwinism became popular in the 1800s in
England and Europe. The first appearance of the concept is generally attributed to
Herbert Spencer (1820 to 1903) who was a very influential English writer and political
theorist. He rejected the idea of caring for the poor and sick. However, Spencer’s
concepts are at complete variance with Darwin's personal views as is made very clear
by the real quotation from Darwin’s book on the previous page. Most other scientists
and philosophers of that era – and current times – categorically rejected the ideas of
Social Darwinism that Spencer put forward. They see no support for the ideas in
evolutionary theory.

The essence of the idea of Social Darwinism is that the strongest and fittest should
survive and prosper in society, while the weaker ones should be allowed to die.

In a booklet that came with the DVD EXPELLED, Ben Stein quotes from an author,
Californian State University historian Richard Weikart that he interviews on the DVD.
Weikart’s book is entitled “From Darwin to Hitler”

“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism,
especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his
Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince
themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was
really morally praiseworthy”

Now it is certainly true that the Nazis murdered many millions of Jews, criminals,
political opponents, homosexuals, people with mental illness, some religious dissenters
and anyone else that opposed their insane ideas. However Darwin cannot be held
responsible for what they did. Darwin himself was strongly against any such
interpretation of his writings.

Herbert Spencer (noted above) was the one who corrupted Darwin’s ideas and
advanced the ideas of Social Darwinism that rejected the idea of caring for the poor and
sick. Under Spencer, only the strongest should survive in order to ensure the health of
the population. He was more likely one of the sources of the insane Nazi corruption that
led to mass murder under Hitler. Hitler also modelled his sterilization program on the
US “Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring” which came into
force on July 14, 1933. This law required doctors in the US to register all cases of
hereditary illness that they were aware of. The only exceptions were women over forty-
five years of age as they were considered unlikely to have any further children. Anyone
reported under this law were – subject to a court appeal – sterilized against their will in
order to prevent them from having children.

Hitler also supported the ancient city-state of Sparta’s (6th to the 4th century BC)
treatment of deformed children. He regarded Sparta as a good example of a society that
had historically practiced the type of social policy that he favoured. Hitler said:-
(Hitler's secret book by Adolf Hitler Published in 1961, Grove Press (New York) )

"Sparta must be regarded as the first folkish state. The exposure of the sick, weak,
deformed children, in short their destruction, was more decent and in truth a

86
 87
thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves
the most pathological subject" .

He is also reported to have said at a Nazi party convention in 1929:-

“The worst danger is that we are interrupting the natural selection process
ourselves (by caring for the sick and the weak). ... The most far-sighted racial state
in history, Sparta, systematically implemented these racial laws.”

The idea that Hitler based his eugenics ideas only on the corrupted Darwinian concepts
that Herbert Spencer peddled around the western world is somewhat fanciful to say the
least. The American ideas and especially Hitler’s fascination with ancient cultures
(Refer to Mine Kampf) had as much if not more influence on his evil thoughts and
plans that resulted in the Holocaust.

One again we see creationists using Tactic one – misuse of the scientific method in
order to create a false belief in those who follow them. What Ben Stein does on the
DVD is to implicitly state a “scientific hypothesis” in the form shown below. He then
proceeds to ignore and fail to report all the instances of racism and eugenics that have
existed totally separate to any Darwinian influence and which would falsify the
hypothesis if reported.

If racism and the ideas of eugenics have Darwinian ideas as a necessary condition
for their implementation, then no examples of racism and eugenics will be found
that do not depend on the ideas found in Darwin’s books.

Commonly known examples of racism include traditional European anti-Semitism that

has existed for centuries because the Catholic Church branded the Jews as “Christ
killers”. Also we have the example given above of ancient Sparta over 2000 years ago
as the first state to practice eugenics as a matter of state policy. Coming into more
modern times we have the Ottoman Turkish government which committed an act of
genocide against the local Armenian population in Turkey. It involved both massacres
of the Armenian people as well as deportations. It was known as the Armenian
Genocide and also known as the Armenian Holocaust. The total number of Armenian
deaths is generally believed to have been between one and one-and-a-half million.
Historians date the beginning of massacre as April 24, 1915. In more recent times we
have the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 with the mass killing of somewhere between
800,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandan Tutsis and Hutu political moderates by Hutus under the
Hutu Power ideology. These instances of racism and genocide had nothing to do with
Darwinism.

No mention is made of any of these well documented racist and eugenic events that
had absolutely nothing to do with Darwin’s ideas and which destroy the hypothesis that
Darwinian ideas are a necessary condition for eugenic political systems to arise. It is an
example of withholding critical information that would otherwise destroy the
impression that the creationists are trying to create,

The simple fact of the matter is that Hitler was evil. Like all people who seek to do
wrong they look for some “authority” to give support to their ideas. A very good
modern example is the conflict in Northern Ireland between the Catholics and the
Protestants. The “christians” on both sides of that conflict claim the Bible as “their
authority” to maim and murder those on the other side. Does this mean that we

87
 88
should mount a campaign against the writers of the Bible – and the Bible itself –
just because some “christians” decided to misinterpret it and use it as their
“authority” to commit murder?

Trying to link the ideas of Darwin with the eugenic ideas of Nazism is as credible as
trying to link the Catholic and Protestant murderers of Northern Ireland to the Bible.
There is no connection to the Bible, religion yes – but not the Bible!

The creationists preoccupation with evangelism

This has been a long and difficult chapter that I really do wish that I could have avoided
writing as I know that it is going to offend some people. But it was not possible to
avoid it as it was my discovery of the practices of some creationist leaders that made
me look much deeper into the war between creationism and science. But there is also
another reason that is involved with this discussion that I want to finish the chapter on.

Most evangelical Christians seem to have the idea that their calling outside of actual
church activities is to evangelize the world around them. Now it is certainly true that
evangelism – along with other callings – has a place in the church.

Ephesians 4:10-12 (NIV)

He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in
order to fill the whole universe.) 11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to
be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to
prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built
up

But the purpose of evangelism is to reach those who God is calling in order to build up
the church for the “works of service” that God has called the church to. As we have
covered at great length in the expanded version of this book called, “From Creationism
to the Creation” http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-Creationism-to-the-
Creation not all people are called into the “NT priesthood of the believers”. But it is
through this NT priesthood that God is working to save the whole world. This
“salvation” of the whole world is from the ravages of the kingdom of Satan (sickness,
oppression, poverty, disease, death, lack of education etc.)

But how many times have I (and probably everyone else) heard that all we in the
church have to do is go out and evangelize people by telling them that “Jesus loves
them – and if you will just accept Jesus as your saviour, then when you get to
heaven everything will be just great”.

Well, as the scripture on the next page states, the Bible is calling the NT priesthood of
Christians to do more than just evangelise. It’s no good saying “Jesus love you and
when you get to heaven everything will be fine” to the boy from Accra, Ghana in the
picture on the next page with the severe case of smallpox lesions on his face, or to the
person who is starving, or blind from easily correctible cataracts, or who has had their
leg blown off by a landmine. These people will say to you. “Well if he loves me – then
what is he doing to relieve my misery NOW?” These people want Christians to do
what Jesus did – and what he called Christians to be (e.g. the light of the world and salt
of the earth) – that is, to help relieve their misery and make the world a better place
NOW, not at some indeterminate time in the future.

88
 89

Matthew 25:37-40 (NIV)

37 Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did
we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give
you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a
stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and
clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison
and go to visit you?' 40 "The King will reply, `I tell you
the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these
brothers of mine, you did for me.'

The big problem I see with many (not all) in the evangelical churches is that nobody
wants to be anything other than an evangelist. According to the Bible, God calls people
to many different areas in order to fulfil all the functions of the “Body of Christ”
(Ephesians 4:10-12 above.) So then how do we account for the idea that everyone in the
church is called to primarily be an evangelist – but not one of the other roles? Is it
because God made a mistake and “forgot” about all the other roles that are needed to
fulfil the functions of the “Body of Christ”? Well that doesn’t seem very likely to me. I
think that a better answer is that many Christians have other calls from God – but
appear to have “selective hearing”.

More to the point, I believe that this selective hearing is strongly influenced by two
separate movements in the churches. The first major factor in this lack of balance in the
church is the Church Growth Movement that has risen to prominence in the last
twenty to thirty years or so and whose only preoccupation appears to be evangelism.
This has happened because the church has abdicated its full calling to the NT
Priesthood of the Believers.

The second major factor is the creationist movement in the Evangelical churches. It is a
well known and documented fact in psychology that at least seventy five percent of all
people form their opinions based on what the group around them “says is the correct
thing to do, say or believe.” They are unable to resist the group pressure to conform. I
believe that creationism and their call to “evangelism only” is at least partly responsible
for this lack of balance that has directly led to the marginalization of the church in
society.

Particularly noticeable in creationist literature are the claims that the “atheistic”
scientists are competing for the hearts and minds of all the “unsaved”. And if “we can
just discredit these atheists then we can win these souls for Jesus.” But I have never
come across a statement in their literature that says “We can use the findings of real
science to save these people who are oppressed by poverty and disease and lack of
education – and hence help bring in the Kingdom of God on earth” In the light of the
complete Big Picture of the Bible, isn’t this preoccupation with evangelism by
creationists and the Church Growth Movement in general, unbalanced and
unscriptural? How will they answer Jesus on Judgement Day when they are asked
about Mathew 25:34-40?

The hard cold facts are that nobody can “prove” the existence of God. We are saved by
faith in the risen – but invisible at this time – Christ. The Bible makes crystal clear that
saving faith is a direct gift from God. No amount of human persuasion will ever
convince anybody of the death and resurrection of Jesus – or the fact that they have
sinned and need to repent and ask God for forgiveness.

89
 90
Ephesians 2:8 (NKJV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is
the gift of God,

Paul’s conversion as he travelled along the road to Damascus from being an active
persecutor of Christians to that of one of the main characters of the NT is direct
testimony that a person’s current beliefs are irrelevant when God steps in and
confronts that person.

So it is with science. There are many hundreds, maybe thousands of Christian scientists
who absolutely agree with evolutionary theory and who absolutely believe in the Bible.

Very few people have a stronger faith than I do. Yet I strongly believe that science is
working along the correct path as it pursues the facts of evolution as we know them up
to now. If Darwinian beliefs lead to atheism, then how do creationists account for the
existence of Christian evolutionary scientists and other Bible believing Christians? The
simple fact is that there is no connection between Darwinian ideas and atheism. To try
and say that there is a connection is simply another case of the use of Tactic two -
continue to use discredited ideas to deceive people

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

90
 91

The Genesis account of creation

Or
The Biblical account of creation compared to the scientific view only to
discover that there is no difference

The mystery of Genesis chapter two

Before we can look at Genesis chapter one, we need to examine the apparent
contradiction in chapter two as this gives some of the keys to the information in chapter
one.

Genesis 2:4-7 (NKJV)

4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the
day (OT:3117) that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any
plant (OT:7880) of the field was in the earth and before any herb (OT:6212) of
the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth,
and there was no man (OT:120) to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the
earth and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And the LORD God formed
man (OT:120) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life (OT:5397); and man became a living (OT:2416) being (OT:5315).

Much controversy is attached to Chapters one (1) and two (2) in the Book of Genesis.
Creationists believe that the Bible teaches a literal six (6) twenty four (24) hour day
creation about 6000 years ago that took place according to the account in Genesis 1:1-
31. In this account man was made on the sixth day after everything else had been
created. However when a literal interpretation is taken of the first seven verses of
chapter two, a problem immediately becomes apparent. In Genesis chapter two, we
have man being created after the heavens and the earth were created – but before any
plants appeared on dry land which happened on the third day according to Genesis
chapter one.

The apparent contradictions between chapters one and two are well known and many
people have tried in various ways to explain the differences. Some explanations are
more likely than others. Some people have tried to say that we should just ignore the
first seven verses of chapter two and simply concentrate on the creation account in
chapter one. We can’t do that. Chapter two is there and we must deal with it.

The whole of chapter two is focussed not on the original creation – but rather it deals
with the events in the Garden of Eden. The first seven verses are simply a
recapitulation of the history that led up to the establishment of the garden and what
followed from there on. It says this in Genesis 2:1, “Thus the heavens and the earth
were completed in all their vast array.” The Garden of Eden is concerned with “life” in
the form of the visible bodies of Adam and Eve and the plants and animals that were in
the garden

However we cannot just ignore the first seven verses as they say some important things
that we need to examine so that we don’t miss something in all this discussion. As
background to this statement, consider the “small problem” that was discovered by
scientists as they studied the Solar System. It was found that the orbit of the planet
Mercury around the sun did not behave exactly as predicted by Newton's laws of
gravity and motion. The deviation in the orbit was truly miniscule – but nonetheless it

91
 92
existed. People could have said that it was too small to even worry about. But being
“real” scientists they did worry about it – it had to be explained. History records that
they were right to worry about this “insignificant discrepancy” The matter of the
deviation was resolved in 1915 when Albert Einstein showed in his new General
Theory of Relativity that Newton’s laws were incomplete and that the deviation was
explained by the fuller explanation of gravity and motion in the General Theory of
Relativity. In fact, explaining the problem of Mercury’s orbit was one of the first
“proofs” of the General Theory of Relativity.

The point here is simple. Very small discrepancies between accounts of some things,
can often point to a significant fact that explains the discrepancy – which then points
the way forward to new facts and discoveries. So it is with the first seven verses of
chapter two.

Let’s begin by looking at the word “day” as used in both chapters one and two of
Genesis. The underlying word itself is the Strong’s Number OT:3117 – “yowm” (see
listing of Strong’s Concordance words at the end of this chapter). It can mean a literal
twenty four hour day. It can also be used to speak of an undefined period of time that
ranges from one day to eternity itself. The actual meaning in any given situation is set
by the context in which it is used. The question that we are considering at this time is
what does a “day” mean in the context of chapters one and two of Genesis?

The meaning of “day” in the context of creation is fairly clearly laid out in Genesis 2:4-
6 (above). In these two verses God says that there was no man to till the ground and
also that at that time it didn’t rain but He had arranged for a mist to rise up from the
earth to keep the face of the planet watered. Two questions arise.

First, if the period in Genesis 1:9-27 that covers the third to the sixth days were three
literal 24 hour days, then why was it important to mention that there was no man to
till the ground? Let’s face it, nothing much happens to the plants growing in your own
garden in three days – it slowly runs itself. So why was it so important to mention that
nobody was present to tend the garden if it was only for three 24 hour days? As in all
interpretation, you have to find the one and only explanation that fits all the
descriptions of a given event. In this case, the only explanation is that the “days” were
simply periods of time that were “considerably longer” than twenty four hours.
This interpretation is reinforced by the answer to the second question below.

The second question that must be asked is why the whole face of the earth needed
watering if there were no plants in the ground? Well you could answer that the ground
needed to be moistened ready for plants to grow. But the underlying text specifically
states that it was a “mist” or fog that rose up from the ground. This means that the
ground was already wet in order to be able to supply the vapour for the mist. This
means that whatever was being watered didn’t have its roots in the ground – but rather
sat on top of the ground and needed a wet atmosphere to water it. This is entirely
consistent with what science says is the sequence of the first type of plants to appear on
the earth – e.g. about 475 million years ago saw the first primitive plants move onto
land e.g. algae, fungus and lichens (ref the last section of the chapter The Scientific
view of the Universe and Life). Now we know why the Bible made the point about
there being “no man to till the ground”. It was simply that what was growing didn’t
need to be tilled or tended. The Bible is simply describing a long period of time where
the atmospheric and soil conditions needed for “in the ground” types of plants to grow
were being established in the creation of the earth.

92
 93
Having dealt with the question of the length of the “days” in the creation account, the
next question is why Genesis 2:4-7 appears to be saying that God created man before
any plant was formed? If this is taken at face value, then we have two immediate
problems. First, this directly contradicts the sequence in chapter one. The second
problem is that Adam was human. This means that he needed to eat (Genesis 1:29 and
2:16). If there were no plants (or animals) to eat – then what did he eat?

But there is an even more difficult question. Genesis 2:5 states that “there was no man
to till the ground” But in verse seven we find that God created “man of the dust of
the ground “. The question immediately arises as to how we can have the situation
where “there was no man to till the ground” – but the “man” has nonetheless already
been created? Here again, we have to find an interpretation that is consistent with all
that the Bible says

There can be only one interpretation of the appearance of the plant life that was not
rooted in the soil and that only needed a mist in the air to water it – and how despite
there being a “man” present, there was no “man” to till the ground. This could only
have occurred if we accept the scientific view of the creation. Namely, that the plant
life on the land came from the early seas – and that these early land plant forms (algae,
lichens etc.) were the forerunners of the subsequent much larger and more varied plants
and trees in later periods of history. Likewise, the ancient living ancestors of “man”
were present in the sea – and that over huge periods of time these early life forms
transformed into the natural body of man. And that it was into this naturally formed
(evolved) body of man that the act of special creation described in Genesis 1:26-27
took place. This idea is expanded in the next section.

Adam and Eve and the Doctrine of Man

When God implanted the “spirit of man” into the naturally formed body of man in
Genesis 1:26-27 you had a transformation from the “human animal” body of “Adam”
that had a limited animal type of intelligence into the creative human being of
mankind. This has its counterpart concept in the NT where the Spirit of God comes to
live in the bodies of believers (Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 3:16) as an act of
regeneration. In Genesis we first see the “spirit of man” take up its abode in the body
of man – then in the NT we see God regenerate Christian mankind by joining him in
the body of humans.

The wording of Genesis 2:7 clearly states that the original creation of man was a two-
part process. First came the forming of the body from the naturally occurring chemical
elements that make up any living body – then the special act of human creation, namely
the fusing of the “spirit of man” into the body of man occurred at Genesis 1,:26-27

Genesis 2:7 (NIV)

(Genesis 1:1- 25) the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground (i.e.
the chemical elements) and (Genesis 1:26-27) breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life, and the man became a living being.

In the NT we then see a third phase in the life of mankind where The Spirit of God
joins the spirit of man in the natural body of believing mankind. In some sense this
mirrors the Triune nature of God in the natural world which is spoken about in Romans
1:19-20.

93
 94
This is the concept that is covered in the chapter called the Doctrine of Man in the
expanded version of this book called, “From Creationism to the Creation”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-Creationism-to-the-Creation . It’s not our
bodies that separate us from the animals. We have a natural body just like any other
animal and that comes into existence the same as say, a horse, or a chimpanzee does. It
has the same organs, nutritional needs and excretory functions as any other animal body
does. It has much the same DNA genetic makeup as any other animal body. It suffers
the same sorts of diseases and it dies just like any other animal body. Where we differ
is that mankind is a spirit being that is fused into a natural – but mortal – body.
This is the definition of a human being according to the Bible

The difference between humans and animals becomes very clear at the moment of
death. The Bible states, and the experience of those who die and return, makes very
clear, that at death the soul and spirit of the person leaves the body. Or as Paul
describes it, the person leaves the “tent” (2 Corinthians 5:1-4 and 2 Peter 1:13-14) and
takes on their eternal form in the presence of God. With animals, they die and are no
more!

The appearance of Eve

In the Genesis 1:26-27 description of the creation of man, the Biblical account clearly
appears to speak of only a single literal Adam and Eve. This would come about
because God appears to have only implanted the “spirit of man” into one only (Adam)
of the humanoids that apparently were on the on the earth at that time. It would appear
that Eve was made later as shown below

Genesis 2:20-22 (NIV)

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to
fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs
(OT:6763) and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a
woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The word that is translated as ”rib” (OT:6763 – tsela`) literally means “curved” (see
Strong’s Numbers below). Bear in mind that when the original text was written and
later when the translations were done into English the idea of DNA had not even been
conceived in the mind of man. If you were the translator, “a rib” may have been the
natural choice for an internal part of the body that was “curved” Today of course we
know that the genetic material that controls the formation and shape of the human is
DNA and that the characteristic of DNA that sticks in everybody’s mind is that it is
shaped as a double helix – e.g. it is curved. A schematic picture of DNA is shown in
the chapter Self-organising systems? – Or do we need a Special Creation? at the start
of the section “The original DNA molecules – an example of self assembly”

It would appear that Genesis 2:20-22 actually describes God using some of the DNA
from Adam’s body to create Eve’s body by a process that we can speculate about, but
not prove at this time.

The Doctrine of Man and the question of Cain’s wife

Consider the appearance of Adam’s “human animal” body just prior to Genesis
1:26-27 and then again immediately after God’s special act of creation where he fused
the “spirit of man” into Adam’s body and Adam became a human being. It was – in

94
 95
Pauls words ((2 Corinthians 5:1-4 and 2 Peter 1:13-14) – simply the “spirit of man”
entering the “tent” (e.g. the natural body). You would not notice any outward
difference in the body (“tent”). But what you would immediately notice is that the
“body” now has a very considerably greater intellectual capacity than immediately
prior to the person “entering the tent’. This has come about because of the nature of the
“spirit being” (e.g. the person) who now lives in the body (the tent)

Even though Adam – and later Eve – had a much greater intellectual capacity than the
humanoid animals that lived in the Stone Age, they did not have much in the way of
actual knowledge at that time. The end result of that would be that although they would
have been clearly intellectually superior to the humanoid animals around them when
you spoke to them – they would not, at least in the early stages, have been that much
more knowledgeable than those around them. The difference between a real human
and a humanoid animal at that time would be similar to the difference between an
intelligent, but totally uneducated and illiterate person and a chimpanzee. The person is
obviously much smarter and can reason and rapidly learn – but really does not know
too much more than the chimpanzee at that point in time.

Now take Cain, as he was cast out after he killed Able and went to the Land of Nod to
the east of Eden. There he took a wife. Where did the woman come from? Well clearly,
she was part of the very large population of “humanoid animals” on the earth at that
time. While intellectually she would no doubt not have been Cain’s first choice, at the
physical appearance level she was no doubt “acceptable” given his circumstances.

Now we return to the account of when God made Eve. God took a part of Adam to
create Eve. This was almost certainly some of his genetic material. Using that
“material” from Cain, God made an equal intellectual partner for Adam – namely,
Eve.

Given that the account in Genesis appears to indicate that God only imbued those
people with a human “spirit” who carried the genetic makeup directly from Adam
himself, then it seems likely that the same conditions applied with Cain as well. In this
situation, Enoch, who was Cain and his wife’s first child, would have likewise inherited
Cain’s true human attributes as a result of Cain’s genetic seed.

Over time as more true humans – as opposed to humanoid animals increased on the
earth there would have been a natural selection process that would have favoured the
real humans. They were more intelligent, hence they would be better adapted to the
environment. The other real selection pressure would have been sexual. Given a choice,
people will always select those who are closest to them. Higher intelligence would very
rapidly lead to differences in knowledge, physical grooming and appearance, hygiene
and lifestyle. Very few people would willingly choose a partner that had the IQ and
habits of a chimpanzee if there was an alternative. This alone would ensure that the old
humanoid animal section of Homo sapiens would rapidly die out.

The question of how Jesus can be both fully God and fully man

Many people have great difficulty in understanding how Jesus was (and is) both fully
God – but at the same time, fully man.

The answer lies in the question of what it means to be a member of mankind. In other
words, we are talking about the definition of a human being. (The Doctrine of Man)

95
 96
This definition is simply that a human being is a compound being that is composed of
a “spirit being” (the actual person who will leave the body at death and then live on
eternally) that God has somehow fused into the natural human body.

This is what it means that Jesus is fully man. Jesus the man is composed of the Spirit
Being of Jesus that was fused into a natural body that was exactly the same as every
other human body. By Jesus living in that body he experienced exactly the same things
that every other human that ever lived has. His body showed that it was a natural body
when he was crucified. He bled, He thirsted – then He died. He rose again three days
later – but in a different transformed eternal body that could appear in closed rooms and
with many other attributes of which we as yet don’t understand.

He was also fully God as the Spirit that inhabited the natural body of the “man
Jesus” was none other than the WORD – God himself (Mathew 1:23 and John 1:1).
This is exactly the same as saying that we are fully human because we are a spirit
being that lives in a “natural body”. But we are human spirits – not the Spirit of God
as was Jesus. Although we are “made in God’s image” and have certain attributes of
God, (consciousness, creativity etc.) we are not the same as God.

There are great mysteries about how God fuses a human spirit into a natural body, and
there are huge unfathomable mysteries about who God is. However there is no mystery
about how the man Jesus was – and now is – both fully God and fully human. The man
Jesus was simply the Spirit – the WORD of God Himself – who was fused into the
natural body of the man Jesus.

Genesis chapter one compared to the scientific view

We will look very briefly in this section at the scientific evidence and compare it to the
Biblical description of the creation sequence and see that there is no difference in the
two descriptions.

“Day” one – Creation of the universe and the solid, liquid and gaseous matter
needed for the planets

Genesis 1:1-2 (NKJV)

1 In the beginning God created the heavens (OT:8064 – the universe) and the
earth.( OT:776 - from an unused root probably meaning to be firm)
2 The earth was without form (OT:8414 – empty place, without form, nothing),
and void;( OT:922 – emptiness) and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the
Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters (OT:4325 – water). .

This is a general statement that God created not only the earth – but the entire
universe as well. The universe is estimated to be around 14 billion years old. The event
that started the universe has become known as the Big Bang. This was an explosion of
space and time – not an explosion in space and time. The universe has expanded
from a primordial hot “soup” of pure energy and sub-atomic particles at some finite
time in the past, and it continues to expand to this day.

Within a few minutes after the expansion of the universe began, the very high
temperature and thick primordial soup of sub-atomic particles, “condensed” as protons
and then later into hydrogen along with some “heavy hydrogen” (Deuterium) and small

96
 97
traces of other light elements. In the early universe, mainly all that existed were vast
clouds of hydrogen gas.

The earth is only around 4.6 billion years old. There is a good reason for this. Stating
the obvious, the earth and all other objects are made from many different elements.
Initially the only elements that existed were hydrogen and much smaller quantities of
its heavier cousin, Deuterium. Some process had to create all the heavy elements. This
took time – hence the earth and all other solid material have to be younger than the
universe itself.

It must be noted that there are multiple measurements of both the age of the universe
and the age of the earth. In all cases the different methods of measurement all converge
to the same general figures as given here. Universe = about 14 billion years and the
earth = about 4.6 billion years old. These figures are reliable.

Genesis 1:3-5 (NKJV)

3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the
light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called
the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning
were the first day.

Now God created light. This is a very significant statement as it now gets into the
specifics of how He created the “earth” after the universe had come into existence. You
will notice that this light was not the sun and moon as spoken about in verses 14 to 19
on the fourth day. Clearly this light was related to the universe at large. Scientists
believe that the first stars probably formed about 100 million years after the “Big Bang”
that started the expansion of space and time that formed our universe. These stars were
much bigger, brighter and much hotter than stars today. Because they were much hotter
than current stars, they would have generated huge amounts of ultraviolet radiation that
would kill any form of life such as we know today unless it was shielded in the deep
sea or in dark caves.

There is a far more important point here though. The visible natural light in the
universe comes from those “nuclear furnaces” known as the stars. The sun is our star.
Stars form when local gravitational forces cause huge clouds of hydrogen gas to
coalesce into massive balls. The heat and pressure in these huge balls of gas then
“ignites” a fusion reaction where four hydrogen atoms fuse to form helium, giving off
huge amounts of energy and light during this process. By a complicated set of nuclear
reactions all of the elements that make up matter are then formed later within the
star.

Any stars that start off under a certain mass (weight) end up collapsing into incredibly
dense stars known as “white dwarfs” when they have used up all their fuel and ‘burn
out”.

Of more interest to us are the stars over a certain critical mass. As they age and “burn”
up all their fuel (initially hydrogen – then later helium) they expand catastrophically
and explode (supernova). During this stupendous supernova explosion all the heavy
elements that were made in the stars and that make up solid and other matter are ejected
out into space. The elements that are ejected from the dying stars include not only the
solid elements such as iron, carbon, calcium, sulphur, copper etc. but also the many
different gasses such as nitrogen and oxygen.

97
 98

Normal water is simply Hydrogen Oxide. (H2O) This consists of two hydrogen atoms
combined with one oxygen atom. We know the original hydrogen came from the Big
Bang itself. There are still vast clouds of hydrogen throughout space from which new
stars are still forming. After a few hundreds of millions of years some of the original
stars would have exploded (supernova) at the end of their life cycle and spewed out
huge quantities of elemental oxygen that formed in the stars during their life cycle. This
oxygen then would have reacted with the vast hydrogen clouds in space to form water
floating around in space. The oxygen would also have reacted with the heavy hydrogen
(deuterium) to form “heavy water” This process of water formation would have
occurred throughout the universe.

So what we have are huge clouds of atoms and small clumps of the many different
solid elements as well as great quantities of water just floating around in “deep” and
dark space waiting for the next phase of creation to begin.

Now an important point arises here. Genesis 1:2 says:

“The earth (OT:776 - from an unused root probably meaning to be firm) was
without form (OT:8414 – empty place, without form, nothing), and void;( OT:922
– emptiness) and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was
hovering over the face of the waters (OT:4325 – water).

What Genesis 1:2 is saying is that initially, the “earth” consisted of “firm” material that
was “without form”. This is the exact situation described by science where we have all
the atoms of the various solid elements, gases and water all floating around in space –
but they have no specific form because they have not yet formed into solid bodies such
as asteroids, comets (rocks & ice) and planets etc.

Gravity eventually caused all this solid material to coalesce and solar systems are then
formed out of this stellar debris. That is why all the solid bodies in the universe must be
younger than the universe itself.

The elements that make up our bodies – along with all other matter – was originally
formed in the “light” (the stars) that God created on the first “day”

“Day” two – The earth forms and the atmosphere is created

Genesis 1:6-8 (NKJV)

6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament (OT:7549 – an expanse, i.e. the
firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky) in the midst of the waters, and let
it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided
the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven (OT:8064 –
sky). So the evening and the morning were the second day.

It is clear that by “day” two gravity had caused the earth itself to have been created and
that the Genesis account is describing the formation of the atmosphere around the earth
e.g. a firmament that divided the water on the earth from the water in space e.g. the
comets that are found in the Oort Cloud which is described below and many other icy
asteroids.

98
 99

The formation of an atmosphere was a critical step in allowing the earth to accumulate
and keep a significant body of water. Because this step was critical, it is almost
certainly the reason that the Bible makes specific mention of this stage of the earth’s
development. A very brief description of the process (as it is understood up until now)
is given below.

It is worth noting here that the firmament (sky) (OT:7549 above) is what you see when
you look at the sky exactly as described in verse six – e.g. a visible dome above you
that – on a clear day – varies in colour as you look from the horizon to directly
overhead. On days with clouds you see all sorts of cloud patterns. If there was no
atmosphere all, you would see a uniformly black sky with only stars showing in it.

The current scientific ideas of the formation of our solar system, and the others that go
to make up a galaxy are fairly well supported with observational data. It goes like this.

A small area within a gigantic cloud of gases and dust (a nebula) was disturbed,
probably by a nearby star exploding. This squeezed the cloud causing the particles in it
to come closer together. This increased the gravitational attraction between all the
particles and started the gravitational collapse of the cloud. Eventually, the cloud
became very hot and dense near its center and was surrounded by a cooler disk of gas
and dust. For reasons of physics (conservation of angular momentum) the cloud began
to spin. As it sped up the cloud became thinner in the plane at 90 degrees to the spin
axis and became like a large plate of spinning gas. Particles began to stick together and
form clumps. Some clumps grew bigger as small particles and smaller clumps stuck to
them. These eventually formed planets and smaller bodies such as moons and large
asteroids. The moons were later captured by the gravitational fields of the planets.
Close to the center of the cloud, small rocky planets such as Mercury, Earth and Mars
formed as only rocky material could stand the great heat in this region. Complex forces
in the disc led to the giant gas planets such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune
forming in the outer regions of the spinning cloud. In the very cold outermost sections
of the spinning cloud, ice formed from the water molecules in the cloud. Today we see
that these outer regions are the home of the frozen planet of Pluto and the Oort Cloud
which is mainly composed of various ices, such as water, ammonia, and methane and is
the source of the comets that occasionally pass by the earth.

At the time the earth first formed it was a very hot rocky ball with a molten core –
which we still have today. As it cooled, huge quantities of gas were released by many
volcanoes over the entire surface of the earth. The early atmosphere of the earth was
composed essentially of all these volcanic gases. The gas composition of the
atmosphere in those days was probably mainly methane, carbon dioxide and ammonia.
There would have been very little free oxygen in the mixture. This thin atmosphere was
held around the earth by its gravitational field. However this situation would not have
lasted long without the existence of the earth’s magnetic field.

This magnetic field originates from within the molten core of the earth and extends for
several thousand kilometers out into space, where it is known as the magnetosphere.
This magnetic field is a major part of the earth’s protection from the solar wind. This is
a stream of very energetic particles that are generated in the sun and sweep outwards
across the solar system. Without the protection of the magnetosphere, the gases that
make up the atmosphere would simply be swept away into space and all the atmosphere

99
 100
of the earth – including any water vapour – would be lost. Life would never be able to
develop on the earth.

Now that an atmosphere had developed, the conditions were right for free water to start
accumulating on the surface of the earth. It is believed to have come from two different
sources.

The first water source was likely to have been from the huge quantities of super heated
steam (e.g. in the form of invisible water vapour) released by the many volcanoes over
the earth. In time this (invisible) water vapour condensed into minutes droplets of
visible steam as the earth continued to cool. It was vitally important that both an
atmosphere and the magnetosphere existed in the very early stage of the formation of
water on the earth. Without any atmospheric pressure the (invisible) water vapour
would have never been able to condense into “heavy” visible clouds of steam. Without
the magnetosphere, the water vapour would have simply been swept away into space by
the solar wind and most of this source of water would have been lost forever.

However, it is believed that the earth gained most of its water from the many icy bodies
such as the water-rich meteoroids that burn up in the atmosphere or the meteorites (a
portion of a meteoroid that actually reaches the ground) that bombarded the earth in its
early stages of formation and development. This belief is reinforced because the ratio of
normal “light” to “heavy” water in these meteoroids is close to that of the sea. Because
the ratio of heavy water to normal (light) water in some comets that have been analysed
is about twice as high as the ratio of heavy to light water in the sea it is not believed
that comets were the principal source of water on the earth.

However, the existence of an atmosphere (or firmament) was still a critical

requirement in the earth’s ability to retain this water. The atmosphere slowed down the
incoming “icy bodies” and so minimised the impact energy. This slowing down of the
incoming bodies helped prevent the impact explosions from blasting the superheated
steam back out into space.

The main point in all this discussion is the statement that the formation of water on the
earth was only possible because the “firmament” (atmosphere) had been created – and
that this firmament separated the water on the earth from the water that is spread
throughout space in the rest of the universe. This was a significant step in the
development of the earth. For more details, explore the links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Earth#Origin_of_the_oceans_and_atmosp
here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

Science tells us that this is the sequence of the creation – first the universe came into
being – then stars formed from the condensed hydrogen gas – the stars manufactured all
the chemical elements (including oxygen) – then the stars exploded spewing all the
chemical elements out into space – then the oxygen and hydrogen combined to form
water – there were also all the other solid matter elements floating around in space. The
scene is now set to create galaxies, planets and solar systems. This all took a
minimum of many hundreds of millions of years before the first solar system began to
take form

100
 101
So far the account of “days” one and two in Genesis follow exactly what science tells
us were the steps in the creation.

“Day” three – The dry land appears and the sea and plants created

Genesis 1:9-10 (NKJV)

9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one
place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land
Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it
was good.

The next very significant step that science tells us was necessary for the world to
continue on in its development was the formation of the seas. Unsurprisingly – we see
that this is exactly what the Bible states as the next step in the sequence of creation of
the earth.

The temperature at which water boils depends on the atmospheric pressure. To refresh
your memory, I have reproduced the chart from the earlier chapter, “Just what is a
scientific theory?” below that shows how the temperature varies with pressure.

Place Altitude Water boils

London, England Sea level 212.0ºF or 100ºC
Dead Sea minus 1,296 ft below sea 213.8ºF or 101ºC
Denver, Colorado 5,280 ft 203ºF or 95ºC
Quito, Ecuador 9,350 ft 194ºF or 90ºC
Lhasa, Tibet 12,087 ft 188.6ºF or 87ºC
Top of Mt. Everest 29,002 ft 159.8ºF or 71ºC

Because free water boils at low temperatures with low atmospheric pressure, then there
could not have been any free water present on the earth until an atmosphere had first
formed as described in “day” two. However, because the earth and the atmosphere was
still very hot in the early stages of its development, the water that did exist in this early
atmosphere (from volcanic steam and asteroids hitting the earth) was in the form of
water vapour in the atmosphere. As the earth and atmosphere cooled and the
atmospheric pressure increased, the invisible water vapour in the air began to condense
into small visible droplets that formed the clouds in the sky.

At a certain point, the clouds began to rain. Because of the huge quantities of water
vapour in the air, there would have been a very significant amount of rain. In the same
way that rivers today drain the rainfall from the land and flow into the low lying areas
and depressions in the earth’s crust and form the seas, so the same mechanism operated
to form the original seas.

Truly, “the waters under the heavens were gathered together into one place, and the
dry land appeared” We now have the situation where the earth and the other rocky
planets, including earth, formed. The atmosphere on the earth had formed making it
possible to accumulate water vapour in the earth’s atmosphere and this had all
proceeded to the point where the water vapour could condense out as rain and form the
seas. This explanation from science coincides exactly with Genesis 1:9-10.

The conditions on the earth were now set for the appearance of life on the earth to
proceed and we can now look at the next stage in the development of life on the planet.

101
 102
Genesis 1:11-13(NKJV)
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the
fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the
earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields
seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself
according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the
morning were the third day.

All life that we know of on the earth requires water to exist. Although the Bible doesn’t
specifically state this, it none-the-less implicitly makes the point by stating that the seas
were formed before we saw the emergence of any form of life on the planet. As
covered in the beginning of this chapter, science believes that life first started in the
oceans and then spread to the land about 475 million years ago. This period saw the
first primitive plants such as algae, fungus and lichen start to colonize the rocky
surface of the planet. Initially there was no soil on the planet – it was all rock. Plants
that have roots simply could not grow in that environment. The only things that could
grow were plants that sat on the hard rocky surface. It was the gradual build-up over
many millions of years of the dead material from these early plants that led to the
development of the soils needed for the plants that have roots to grow in.

Initially there was no breathable atmosphere as the original atmospheric composition

was poisonous to most life forms that exist today. The later plants and animals all
needed a different atmosphere to survive. Plants need carbon dioxide, and animals need
oxygen to survive. For these organisms to appear, it all relied on the original primitive
surface types of plants to start off the complex process that led to the changes in the
original atmospheric composition, to the composition that was needed for the later
more complex life forms to survive.

Although a dim protostar existed at the center of the solar system, it did not give out
huge amounts of light and heat as it had not yet fully ignited. However the seas would
have been warm because of heat in the earth and also the greenhouse effect from the
composition of the early atmosphere. The cellular life in the sea would also have been
adapted to the very low-light conditions in much the same way that we find life forms
that live today exclusively in pitch blackness in caves and at the bottom of the sea,

It is no accident that the Bible records the existence first of the formation of the earth –
then the sea – then the emergence of the first primitive plants. This is the exact same
sequence that science lays out. The simple fact is that an ordered sequence had to be
followed in order to establish the conditions necessary for the emergence of life on the
planet. It is not coincidence that science and the Bible agree on the exact sequence of
events.

“Day” four – The sun and the moon start shining – and other stars in the sky

Genesis 1:14-19 (NKJV)

14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide
the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and
years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light
on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light
to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17
God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to

102
 103
rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And
God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

In Genesis 14 it says, “Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and
for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to
give light on the earth"; and it was so.” Note the sequence here, before we see the sun
and the moon in our own solar system the Bible says that there are already, “lights in
the firmament” that would be used as, “and let them be for signs and seasons, and for
days and years”. It also says, “to give light on the earth” – in other words these lights
in the sky are clearly visible on earth. The “lights” may have been other stars in our
own galaxy or they may also have been other galaxies – or a mixture of both. However,
and more to the point, mankind has historically used these distant stars for exactly the
reason that the Bible stated.

Here again, this is exactly what science says about the formation of the universe – that
the formation of our star (sun) and our solar system is a relative latecomer and is only
about 4.6 billion years old compared to about 14 billion years for the universe and its
early stars. Once more we have a one hundred percent agreement between the Bible
and science.

The Bible clearly records that the “two lights in the sky” appear after the earth has
formed and life started appearing on the earth. This is exactly the sequence that science
gives as well. Initially when the solar system formed we have the early planets, moons
and assorted debris such as asteroids all orbiting around a central protostar. All this
occurs by “about” ten million or more years after the start of the process of solar system
formation.

A protostar consists of a ball of very hot glowing gas. However it has not reached the
internal pressures and temperatures that are needed to “ignite” the nuclear reactions that
start the process of fusing four hydrogen atoms together to form helium. This can take
up to about fifty million years to occur. As the temperate and pressure rise the
brightness of the star increases – hence its light and heat output goes up. Once fusion
starts in the star it becomes what is known as a “main sequence” star. It remains in this
form until nearly all of its hydrogen has been converted to helium. In the case of our
sun (star) this will take about another five billion years or so.

The important point in this is simply that when the earth started brewing life in its
oceans and when the first plant life appeared on the surface, there was no “bright light”
in the sky. Only a dim protostar existed. This means that “daylight” was very dim.
Even if the earth had actually gravitationally captured its moon at that time, there was
no bright light to reflect from the moon’s surface as “moonlight” and shine on the earth
at night time. It was only many millions of years later that the sun (our star) fully
ignited as the fusion reactor that we see today that the “two lights” appeared in the sky.

Genesis 1:16 also says that He made the stars also. This is consistent with how a
galaxy forms. The event that started the gravitational collapse of the portion of the
giant nebula of gas and dust that led to the formation of our solar system, would
almost certainly also have started the gravitational collapse of other parts of the nebula
as well. This would have led to the formation of other solar systems, which we see as
stars (suns) in the “Milky Way” galaxy that we live in.

103
 104
Here again, there is an exact one-to-one correspondence between the Biblical
account of the events and the actual sequence of those events and what science
reports as having occurred.

“Day” five – Sea creatures and birds appear

Genesis1:20-23 (NKJV)
0 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures,
and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which
the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged (OT:3671) bird
(OT:5775) according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God
blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and
let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth
day.

The Bible records that the sea began to abound with an abundance of many different
types of life as the next step towards the world that we know today. This is consistent
with the scientific record of fossils. The fossil record also shows that some of the first
major life forms outside of the sea were the winged birds – just as the Bible says.

The fossil record shows that the earliest known bird was Archaeopteryx It lived in the
late Jurassic Period around 150 –145 million years ago. It shows distinct features that
appear to be feathers. It is believed that it either flew as a bird does today, or it was a
glider. It had jaws with sharp teeth and appears to be a transitional form between more
ancient dinosaurs and modern birds.

More modern examples are contained in the fossils from Cretaceous sediments in
China. These sediments are believed to be the remains of ancient lakes which covered
the Liaoning Province in north-eastern China, during the Cretaceous period (145 to
65.5million years ago). This area has many fossils of plants, insects, shellfish, fish,
frogs and other amphibians, turtles and lizards, some early mammals and birds that
appeared to have either feathers or proto-feathers (forerunners) Whether these “birds”
truly flew is open to some debate still. But what is not in debate is whether they had
feathers or at least proto-feathers.

It is conspicuous that these fossils are found in sediments that contain large numbers of
water living animals. This would appear to corroborate the Biblical account that “birds”
are the next significant life form to appear on the scene. There is debate as to whether
birds are directly related to dinosaurs – or whether they actually predate them. It
doesn’t matter in this debate as birds – with feathers – appear “directly” after the
appearance of major life forms in the sea – exactly as the Bible says.

“Day” six – Appearance of life on land and the entrance of mankind

Genesis 1:24-25 (NKJV)

4 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its
kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind";
and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle
according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind.
And God saw that it was good.

104
 105
On the beginning of the sixth “day” God made the animals that live on the face of the
earth. In other words these animals are those who didn’t directly live in the water –
although their ancestors did. This would include all the vertebrates such as mammals as
well as marsupials and any other classification such invertebrates (insects, slugs, snails,
worms etc). In the mammals we would find the predecessors of the body of man such
as the line stretching back from Homo sapiens (man)

Here again we see a direct correspondence between the Biblical account of

creation and the view put forward by science. The sea was the original incubator of
life that led to the development of the sea plants that adapted to the land – this built up
soil and made the atmosphere – sea animals developed and some of then moved onto
the land (e.g. we currently find about 120 species of marine mammals, seals, whales
etc. – and some mammals moved onto the land) – then all the land animals developed,
including the animal bodies that led to modern man.

Genesis 1:26-28 (NKJV)

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the
cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27
So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male
and female He created them.

The final crowning step of the creation according to the Bible is that God created man
in the image of God. The Doctrine of Man has already been covered at great length in
the chapter called, The Doctrine of Man in the expanded version of this book called,
“From Creationism to the Creation” and again in the earlier section in this chapter
called “Adam and Eve and the Doctrine of Man” Here we find yet again that the
Bible is in complete agreement with science and history.

History and the fossil record show a long line of ancestors to the body of man. Despite
the existence of these man-like early animal ancestors to man, we only find evidence
stretching back for about 6000 to 10,000 years of the sort of intellectual activity that
characterises man as representing the “image of God”. These include such things as the
rise of civilization and those other activities that clearly separate mankind from the
animal world. Such things as complex language, music, literature, advanced
mathematics, science, architecture and large scale political and organizational activities.
The other principal trait that defines man is that he alone has a spiritual dimension that
leads him to “worship” a higher order of being. These activities are restricted to the last
few thousand years of the history of the world – just as the Bible says.

The total agreement between the Biblical account and the science account

The scientific view of the world has been put together by many people who for the
most part are not Christian and hence don’t regard the Bible as a credible account of the
origins of the universe. Even so, you would be hard pressed to find a more complete
and concise scientific account of the history of the universe than that found in the
first chapter of Genesis. The first twenty seven verses in the NKJ version of the Bible
only have 680 words. Yet that summarizes – and exactly agrees with – the scientific
view of the origins of the universe, from the Big Bang right up until today.

105
 106
It is an easily demonstrated fact that the natural laws that govern all aspects of the
origin and operation of the universe are structured in such a way as to bring into
existence plant and animal life without any external assistance. This will lead to all the
forms of life throughout the universe in any domains that allow life (as we know it) to
exist. It is inconceivable that all the literally billions of inhabitable planets in the
universe are just barren rocky balls in space. They are there for the future expansion of
the human race under the everlasting Kingdom of God. Is it reasonable to presume that
mankind will eventually travel out into the vastness of this everlasting Kingdom only to
find barren rocky deserts? Of course the answer is no – we will find nicely greened and
grassed planets with large animal populations waiting for us.

Although it almost certain that plant and animal life abounds throughout the universe, it
is almost certain that mankind exists only here on earth. The Bible would lead us to
believe that only once did God “make man in His own image” This makes sense. We
are destined to live forever in the coming Kingdom of God – which will in turn expand
forever. This requires a very large universe in which to expand into. This is what we
see when we look up at the night sky.

A challenge

I am certain of the facts presented in this chapter. In the true scientific approach, I lay
out a challenge at this point for anyone to show that there is any difference in the two
accounts of creation – science and Biblical. If anyone can show where they differ, then
I am willing to reconsider my current beliefs.

Strong’s Concordance definitions for Genesis chapters one and two

Below is a listing of the Strong’s Concordance entries for each the Strong’s Numbers
shown in this chapter. It should be noted by studying the Strong’s Concordance entries
that the Genesis chapter two account does not necessarily describe the formation of the
creation of man in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:26-27) e.g. as a creative being. It
may – but it clearly describes the creation of a “living being”. In particular take note of
the OT word neshamah (OT:5397). This describes the signs of “life” in the living body
of man and animals. While it can, it does not necessarily include the meaning of “soul”
For example an ant is alive – but it seems to stretch the imagination to say that an
individual ant has a personality, let alone an immortal soul.

OT:6763 – tsela` (tsay-law'); or (feminine) tsal` ah (tsal-aw'); from OT:6760; a rib (as
curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side,
literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object or the sky, i.e. quarter);
architecturally, a (especially floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collective, i.e.
a flooring):
KJV-beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).

OT:6760 –tsala` (tsaw-lah'); a primitive root: probably to curve; used only as

denominative from OT:6763, to limp (as if one-sided):
KJV-halt.

OT:3117 – yowm (yome); NOTE – this word is used 2304 times in the OT with many
different meanings – depending on the context – as shown with the many translations
of the word in the King James Version of bible.

106
 107
from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal
(from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time
defined by an associated term), [often used adverb]:
KJV- age, + always, + chronicals, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day,
(now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X
full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually,
presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as
at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole
(+age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

OT:7880 – siyach (see'-akh); from OT:7878; a shoot (as if uttered or put forth), i.e.
(generally) shrubbery:
KJV-bush, plant, shrub.

OT:6212 – `eseb (eh'seb); from an unused root meaning to glisten (or be green); grass
(or any tender shoot):
KJV-grass, herb.

OT:120 – adam (aw-dawm'); from OT:119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or
the species, mankind, etc.):
KJV-X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree),
person.

OT:5397 neshamah (nesh-aw-maw'); from OT:5395; a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital
breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal:
KJV-blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

OT:2416 chay (khah'-ee); from OT:2421; alive; hence, raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water,
year), strong; also (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural)
life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively:
KJV-+ age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life (-time), live (-ly),
living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw,
running, springing, troop.

OT:5315 nephesh (neh'-fesh); from OT:5314; properly, a breathing creature, i.e.

animal of (abstractly) vitality; used very widely in a literal, accommodated or
figurative sense (bodily or mental):
KJV-any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, X dead (-ly), desire, X [dis-]
contented, X fish, ghost, + greedy, he, heart (-y), (hath, X jeopardy of) life (X in
jeopardy), lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, (her-, him-, my-,
thyself-), them (your)- selves, + slay, soul, + tablet, they, thing, (X she) will

NT:5590 psuche (psoo-khay'); from NT:5594; breath, i.e. (by implication) spirit,
abstractly or concretely (the animal sentient principle only; thus distinguished on the
one hand from NT:4151, which is the rational and immortal soul; and on the other
from NT:2222, which is mere vitality, even of plants: these terms thus exactly
correspond respectively to the Hebrew OT:5315, OT:7307 and OT:2416):
KJV-heart (+-ily), life, mind, soul, + us, + you.

OT:8064 – shamayim (shaw-mah'-yim); dual of an unused singular shameh (shaw-

meh'); from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps

107
 108
alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether
where the celestial bodies revolve):
KJV-air, X astrologer, heaven (-s

OT:776 - erets (eh'-rets); from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth
(at large, or partitively a land):
KJV-X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness,
world.

OT:8414 - tohuw (to'-hoo); from an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of
surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain:
KJV-confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity,
waste, wilderness.

OT:922 – bohuw (bo'-hoo); from an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, i.e.
(superficially) an undistinguishable ruin:
KJV-emptiness, void.

OT:7549 – raqiya` (raw-kee'-ah); from OT:7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the

firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:
KJV-firmament.

OT:3671 – kanaph (kaw-nawf'); from OT:3670; an edge or extremity; specifically (of a

bird or army) a wing, (of a garment or bed-clothing) a flap, (of the earth) a quarter, (of
a building) a pinnacle:
KJV-+ bird, border, corner, end, feather [-ed], X flying, + (one an-) other,
overspreading, X quarters, skirt, X sort, uttermost part, wing ([-ed]).

OT:5775 – `owph (ofe); from OT:5774; a bird (as covered with feathers, or rather as
covering with wings), often collectively:
KJV-bird, that flieth, flying, fowl.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

108
 109

Did God need a special act of creation for each different

living organism?
Or
Was God clever enough to use the laws of mathematics that He created to be able to
generate an almost infinite variety of life forms from either a single, or maybe just a
few original designs?

How many special creations would have been required?

Many people who hold to creationist views of a literal six day creation also believe that
God had a special act of creation for each type of organism that exists. They refer to
these original special creation organisms as baramin. The term was created in 1941 by
a creationist called Frank Marsh. It is formed from the Hebrew words bara (create) and
min (kind). The idea was based on the belief that God created organisms that could
reproduce according to “own their kind." It is unclear exactly how many baramin are
supposed to exist in the creationist system. It started off with only four (4) general
classifications. However, within each classification there were apparently very large
numbers of separate types of organisms that would all have required their own special
act of creation.

The underlying reason for the idea of baramin is that creationism does not wish to
believe in the single common ancestor of science. Yet the general concept is exactly the
same – all that the creationist concept has done is to cut the process short by a little bit
in comparison to the science view. Creationism starts with a limited number of
‘different types” – whereas, science starts with just a “single” common ancestor.

In reality the idea of just a literal single organism that started off all life is, to say the
least, quite fanciful. Science says that all life started in the ancient seas from a “single
cell” that formed as a result of the natural laws. While life certainly started in the seas
by this method, the idea that “only one cell” formed that was the “single common
ancestor” is quite plainly ludicrous. If the natural laws are setup to produce life, then
there would have been huge numbers of prototype cells that formed in the sea. As we
saw in the earlier chapter called “Self-organising systems? – Or do we need a Special
Creation?” we get variety in the formation of snowflakes. So it would almost certainly
have been the case with the “single common ancestor” of science. In reality it would
have been “quite a number” of cells – all of which were slightly different to each
other. In that respect, there is really not much difference between the creationist
baramin and science’s “single” common ancestor.

In the creationist system, individual baramin have changed over time – by natural
selection – into many different species of organisms today – all according to “their own
kind” (e.g. cats, dogs, trees etc). The results today then show many different individual
species of each kind such that we have many different species of cats and other types of
organisms. Creationists however still hold to the same definition of a “species” as that
of science. Namely, that a species is defined as that group of say, mice, that can
interbreed with each other – but not with other similar species of mice.

This definition of a species however is a stumbling block for the creationists as they do
not believe that this mechanism can lead to one species of organisms, say cats,
changing into another species, say birds. The idea behind it is that natural selection
causes a species to slowly change in order to adapt to changing circumstances in their
109
 110
environment. Finally a point is reached where they are sufficiently different to the
“parent species” that they can no longer interbreed. Although this is a valid explanation
of how different species arise, it is generally held that this explanation cannot account
for how a particular class of organisms change into another class of organisms – say
cats changing into birds. The simple explanation here is that each individual in a
given species can interbreed with its parents. If this is traced back along the line of
descent of the Tree of Life, then it can be clearly seen that the ancestors of a species
today could – and indeed would have – interbred with earlier life forms along the way.

Today the taxonomic system used in science to classify all organisms consists of eight
major levels of classification. In descending order they are – Domain (3 domains),
Kingdom (6 kingdoms), Phylum (at least 53), Class (not specified – but quite a
number), Order (lots), Family (dozens), Genus (hundreds at least and possibly
thousands) and Species (millions). Starting at the top level with Domain, the other
descending levels are all sub-categories within each higher level of classification.

In the end you have huge numbers of different distinct sets of organisms that cannot
breed with other or even closely related groups. Taken to its logical conclusion then all,
or at least most of these sets of organisms must have arisen by an act of special creation
if the concept of baramin is correct. More to the point, these special acts of creation
must have been occurring throughout history – right up until today. It should be noted
that there are no peer reviewed scientific articles confirming the existence of baramin.
There is also no evidence that God is still continuing special acts of new creation today.
In light of these facts, then how could God create the stupendous array of life forms
that exist today (just on the earth alone) by starting with just one, or more likely, a
“few” basic designs?

God’s mechanism for creating huge diversity from a common ancestor

God said that he does nothing without telling His people (Amos3:7) and He also said
that mankind can see some of His ways in the world around us. (Romans 1:19-20).
True to His word, mankind is now beginning to see how He accomplished the creation.
God is subtle beyond our understanding and it has taken mankind a long time to begin
to understand some of how God has worked in the creation of the unbelievable
complexity and ever changing spectacular kaleidoscopic diversity of the universe.
Nonetheless, science has begun to unravel the basic outline of creation.

We will look at some of the evidence of how it appears that God has created such
amazing variety from such “simple” beginnings in the next chapter. But before we look
at that we need to look at the field of science that has revealed the apparent underlying
mechanism of producing incredible variety and complexity from simple beginnings.
This branch of science is known as “Chaos theory”. A good account of the underlying
ideas can be found at the website shown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory.

I need to state at the outset that we will only be looking at simple pictures in this
chapter that illustrate the concepts that we need to understand Chaos theory. We will
not be getting involved with the mathematics that underlies the theory. Fortunately it is
a subject that is easy to put in plain words by the use of simple graphic images that
explain the underlying ideas in the theory. There are three simple ideas that we have to
become familiar with. These are the concepts of “deterministic chaos”, the continual
iteration (repeating) of a process and the idea of a “fractal” We briefly look at look each
one of these ideas below.

110
 111
The concept of Chaos

First we need a quick explanation of the term “chaos” as used in the theory. In most
non-technical people’s mind the word “chaos” conjures up images where completely
random and totally disorganised behaviour of whatever you are looking at reigns. The
common idea of chaos is that there is no pattern to what you see and that it is
impossible to predict what will happen.

In Chaos theory we deal with the idea of

“deterministic chaos”. This is quite
different to the common idea of chaos. The
underlying idea is shown in the picture on
the right. Here I show a billiard table with a
cylindrical object (grey) on it with the tracks
of two different billiard balls (red & blue).
The picture was produced on a precision
Computer Aided Drawing system so that
dimensions and angles are accurate to 12
decimal places. Most people know that when
something reflects (or bounces) off a surface
it obeys certain rules. Namely, that the angle
of incidence that the incoming object makes with the surface that it reflects from is
equal to the angle of refection of the object. These two angles are measured from a line
that is at exactly 90 degrees to the surface at the point of contact. In the case of a
cylindrical object, the line is the one drawn from the point of contact to the exact center
of the cylinder. This automatically bisects the incoming and outgoing angles. The
angles of the coloured traces shown are all drawn strictly to 12 decimal places
accuracy.

The picture above shows what is known as a non-linear system that has feedback
applied to it. The idea of feedback is a critical concept in the development of all life
forms and indeed just about every other sort of control mechanism that you can think
of. Everybody is familiar with the humble thermostat on an air heating or a cooling
system such as we have in our houses. The thermostat is the feedback element. It feeds
back the actual temperature of the air in the room to the heating or cooling controller.
In a heating system it measures the air temperature in the room and says. “We are
coming up to temperature – so turn off the heating element”. As the air temperature in
the room drops, it says to the controller, “We are dropping below the preset temperature
– so turn on the heating element”. In the billiard table and ball example the feedback on
each bounce of the ball from the curved cylinder on the table is the incoming angle of
incidence that the ball makes with the curved cylinder on the table.

If we make some idealistic assumptions about the billiard table example above such as
perfectly elastic collisions, no friction, a flat and level table, perfectly round balls and
cylinder and no other outside influences, then what you see in the picture is what would
happen in the real world. The two traces start out with exactly 2.8000 degrees
difference in the starting trajectory of the red and blue balls. After only three bounces
off the central cylinder the balls end up on opposite sides of the grey cylinder and
travelling in opposite directions. As can be seen, at first the paths don’t vary by much
from each other. This is particularly the case when the balls reflect off the straight
(linear) surface at the bottom of the table. However a very different picture emerges
when the balls reflect off the curved surface (non-linear) of the cylinder. This causes

111
 112
an amplification of the differences in the trajectories. As the pictures shows the
trajectories of the two balls become very different very quickly. You can image what
would happen if the table was bigger and there were more curved obstacles on the
table. The further the balls travelled and the more curved objects that they bounced off,
the more “chaotic” the course of each ball would appear to be.

Irrespective of how “chaotic” the paths of the two balls appear to be – provided you
fired each new ball at exactly the same initial angle – then the ball would follow the
exact same apparently “chaotic” path as the earlier balls. This behaviour is what is
termed “deterministic chaos”. By this is meant that the path is determined by the
starting condition. However it must be noted that this is true only if nothing else alters
along the path and providing that the initial conditions are the same. Of course if
something alters along the path of the ball, then the trajectory will change. But this
change is determined exactly by the initial contact conditions at the point of the
change. It is still a totally deterministic (predictable) course that the ball follows –
even if it appears to be “chaotic”

One point should be noted here. Deterministic chaos only occurs in systems that are
described by a non-linear equation. A non-linear equation has one or more terms in it
that have a variable of degree 2 or higher e.g. 4X2 + 9 = 127. This could be seen easily
in the picture of the billiard table where the “chaotic” behaviour occurred only when
the ball bounced off the curved non-linear surface of the grey cylinder. The actual
path of the reflected ball is determined by the angle of incidence of the incoming ball –
and this varies in a very complex, but still predictable way that varies each time the ball
bounces off the curved surface.

What happens when we repeatedly carry out a given procedure?

Everyone is familiar with the idea of the word “reiteration” which means to go over the
same thing again and again, usually with respect to saying or writing something. In
mathematics and computing the word “iteration” means much the same except that it
generally refers to repeating a process or a piece of computer program code repeatedly.
The intention of doing this is to obtain a new calculated result at each iteration of the
process because of “feedback” that has been built into the iteration loop.

Many people will ask why this is important in a discussion of how God has very
probably worked in order to bring out huge variety and complexity of life from very
simple beginnings. The answer to this lies in two different ideas.

First is the fact that life has replicated itself countless billions of times since life first
appeared on the earth. Each new cycle of life can be looked at as being one iteration in
an endlessly repeating cycle. Each new generation of an individual life form (say, a
rabbit) has a genetic makeup that has been influenced by its immediate predecessor.
For instance, black rabbits won’t survive long in a yellow sandy environment as they
would stand out against the yellow sandy background and hence would be easily seen
by a predator such as a fox or a dingo. The rabbits whose fur colour most closely
matched the background would be more likely to survive and breed and so pass on their
genes to their young. In this scenario we have feedback from the environment (by
natural selection) that is influencing the local species of rabbits. It should be noted that
we can – and do – have other sorts of feedback into the genome that can produce
radical changes in the rabbit. This would include any viral infections that happened to
affect the sperm or egg cells of the rabbit. These changes, whether “good”, “bad” or

112
 113
“neutral” will then form part of the genetic makeup of any future offspring. Using the
billiard table example we can easily see that if a system with a non-linear element in it
is being iterated with feedback applied to it – then such a system can very rapidly
change into something quite different to that from which it started. We will look at
much more amazing examples of this sort of process in the next chapter.

The second idea involves the concept of having a non-linear set of terms in the
equation, or process that is being iterated. In a system that involved life forms this
would involve a non-linear response from the genome of the organism to any changes
that were introduced from feedback from the environment. Consider the following two
examples of non-linear genetic responses.

Factory farming of chickens requires that the birds achieve maximum body weight in
the minimum time. In order to achieve this, the birds need to eat as much as possible
each day. However the ability to eat larger quantities relies on the birds being able to
reject the extra heat generated from eating more food. The ability to radiate heat is
directly affected by the rate at which the birds grow feathers. More feathers means less
radiation of heat. There is great variability in the growth rate of feathers on different
chickens because of genetic variability. When food intake is graphed against the
number of days of feeding, some birds show a straight line (linear) response, e.g. they
eat equal amounts each day (corrected for the weight of bird). Other birds show a
curved (non-linear) response where the food consumption per day begins to drop due to
faster feather growth which reduces their ability to radiate the extra heat from digesting
the food. In this example the feedback parameter is the temperature of each chicken in
relation to the environment.

We all know that most plants need light to grow and survive. A plant perceives light
through a number of different types of photoreceptor cells in the plant. These
photoreceptor cells are sensitive to the intensity of the light, its wavelength (colour) as
well as the direction the light is coming from. In any given plant, each different type of
photoreceptor cell will respond differently to each of the variables of intensity,
wavelength and direction. This is a result of the genetic makeup of each individual
plant. As a result some plants will show a straight line (linear) response in its growth
rate for equal increments of white light (which is a mixture of all colours) intensity
increase. Other plants of the same species, under the exact same conditions, will show a
curved (non-linear) growth rate for equal increments of white light intensity increase.
The growth rates may in fact either increase or decrease depending on the actual light
levels concerned and the plants involved. In this example the feedback parameter is the
level of each of the many different “growth chemicals” that result from the response of
each of the photoreceptor cells in the plant as they measure the characteristics of the
light in the surrounding environment.

We now have two examples, one from the animal world and one from the plant world,
that show how the genome of organisms demonstrate that they frequently contain non-
linear elements. In both these cases, and countless others, natural selection will select
the organisms best suited to each environment. But an important point needs to be
noted here – and it is this. Whatever the actual type of feedback (temperature, chemical,
viral infection etc.) involved in the natural selection process, the response by the
organism to the feedback is more often than not, non-linear. As we have already
pictorially seen in the billiard table example, any system that has feedback into a
system that has a non-linear (curved) element in it, produces very “strange” results. In
the next chapter we will look at pictures that show far more, interesting, amazing and

113
 114
strange results than the billiard table example. That was just an easy and simple
introduction to the subject. If by some chance the feedback influences the germ cells of
the organism, then these changes are passed on permanently to future offspring. You
can very rapidly get huge differences appearing in systems such as these.

A picture of an iterated system – and what do we mean by a “strange attractor”?

This is as close to mathematics as we will get, but don’t turn off just yet – it is just a
simple description of the concept and some pictures. So far we have talked about
“initial conditions” and non-linear responses. Now we have just one final concept about
iterated systems to cover and that is the subject of attraction points in an iterated
system.

In any dynamic (moving) system that evolves from one form to another over many
cycles of the system we find that the system is “attracted” to certain numbers or states.
The actual point of attraction is very dependent on both the form of the system (e.g. its
describing equation) and the initial values used at the start of the process. To
demonstrate the concept we will look at a very simple example to see exactly what
happens. Then we will look at a couple of pictures that graphically shows the idea. We
begin with the very simple equation that was originally used to investigate how
populations of insects and animals grow and shrink over time. It is a non-linear
function as it has the variable “X” in it which is multiplied by itself each time the
equation is evaluated. It also has feedback in it because the ending value of the variable
“X” in each cycle of the evaluation becomes the new value for “X” in the next cycle of
the evaluation. The simple equation is shown below.

Let “X” = a constant value (A) * “X” * (1 – “X”)

Now to see what happens we will run a very simple computer program that cycles
through 15 iterations (cycles) of the equation. The simplified program looks like this

Start
Initialise the value for the variable “A” to some desired value
Initialise the value for the variable “X” to some desired value
Loop fifteen times through the code below
X = A * X * (1-X)
Print the value of “X”
End loop
End program

In order to demonstrate both the existence of “deterministic chaos” in this equation as

well as the existence of “attractor points” I will choose some specific values of both the
constant value “A” as well as the starting value of “X”. For the value of “X” I will use
0.400000. I will vary the value of the constant number “A” using three different values
which will remain the same through all fifteen evaluations. Some surprising things will
happen.

Looking at the table on the next page we see in the left hand column that we started
with the constant value of A = 2.0000. After two iterations the final value of “X” is
attracted to the value of 0.50000 and it stays at that value from then on.

114
 115
In the middle column we start the process off with the value of A= 3.236067. We find
that the value of “X” jumps around “randomly” until the ninth cycle when it enters into
a stable two-valued attractor “orbit” that repeatably oscillates between the values of
0.80902 and 0.50000

Finally in the column on the right hand side

where we started with a value for “A” of N The value of the constant
4.00000 we find that the value of “X” just “X” “A”
jumps around in an apparently “random” 2.00000 3.236067 4.00000
manner. 0 0.40000 0.40000 0.40000
1 0.48000 0.77666 0.96000
In reality of course these “random” values of 2 0.49920 0.56133 0.15360
“X” in both the middle column up to row nine 3 0.50000 0.79684 0.52003
and all of the right hand column are far from 4 0.50000 0.52387 0.99840
being random. They are examples of 5 0.50000 0.80717 0.00641
deterministic chaos. They look to be random, 6 0.50000 0.50368 0.02547
but in fact they follow a strictly deterministic 7 0.50000 0.80897 0.9928
course that is set (determined) entirely by the 8 0.50000 0.50009 0.35768
initial values of the constant number “A” and 9 0.50000 0.80902 0.91898
the variable “X” in the equation. Anyone who 10 0.50000 0.50000 0.29782
sets up the calculation program on their 11 0.50000 0.80902 0.83650
computer (a spreadsheet is the easiest way) and 12 0.50000 0.50000 0.54707
experiments with changing the starting values 13 0.50000 0.80902 0.99114
of both “X” and “A” will very quickly 14 0.50000 0.50000 0.03514
discover that minute changes (as low as
15 0.50000 0.80902 0.13561
0.000001) can produce dramatically different
successive values of “X”

In the above simple example we have now shown how the initial values of the variables
in a very simple non-linear equation that is iterated with feedback into the equation can
produce very strange results with the output values. The demonstration also showed
how certain values of the output can act as “attractor points” that the calculations
will converge to as the process is repeated over many cycles. It was also shown that the
number of “attractor values” is not limited to just one value. A given equation can
have many such attractor values which it will cycle “randomly” between.

Below is shown a picture of what is known as the Lorentz Attractor after Edward
Lorentz who discovered it in 1963 when he was working on an investigation of the
behaviour of chaotic flows in fluids. It is sometimes known as the Butterfly Attractor
because of its characteristic shape that looks like a butterfly.

If you look at the picture on the right you will see

that there are two ends to the partial blue trace of
the Lorentz Attractor. This is because when I
made the trace using a freely available program
called “ChaosPro” I only completed a few
“orbits” so that the development of the path can
be clearly seen. The actual path is formed by
joining up the huge number of individual points
which are calculated from each cycle of the
original Lorentz equation in the same way that we
calculated the “X” value on each row of the table

115
 116
above. As the trace shows, there are two attractor points that the path continually circles
around as the system continues to evolve over time. I have marked these two
“attractors” with red crosses. In fact these two attractor points are what are known as
“strange attractors” as opposed to the “simple” “point-like” attractors that we found in
the table of values for our experimental program on the previous page. “Strange
attractors” are much more interesting and relevant to our discussion of how God
“probably” made such an amazing variety of life forms that we know today from very
simple initial beginnings – maybe even a single common ancestor.

The simplest explanation of a “strange attractor” is that it is a point of attraction for the
calculated values in a system that is evolving over time in a “deterministically
chaotic” manner. Another characteristic that can be used to describe a “strange
attractor” is that the attractor is a “fractal”. A brief idea and description of a fractal is
looked at in the next section

The last point to note in the idea of a deterministically chaotic system is that the strange
attractors are not usually found in equations that only use the simple “real” number
system. Real numbers are the set of numbers that can be used to count and “measure”
things. They include all the numbers that can be expressed as a decimal quantity, such
as 1324.823122147

There are however other types of numbers. The first type of interest to us are the
“complex numbers” which are two dimensional numbers that are used to describe
points and lines on a plane (e.g. a flat surface). The other type of numbers of interest to
us are the “quaternion” numbers. These are four dimensional numbers that are used to
describe points and lines in a three dimensional space. It is in these two systems of
numbers (and other higher order systems) that “strange attractors” are normally found.
We will look at some fractal images in the next chapter that have strange attractors and
see the incredible beauty, complexity and remarkable similarity to natural life forms
around us that these systems can and do exhibit..

What does it mean to say that something is a fractal?

The last topic in this introduction to the real world around us and the subject of creation
is to explain the concept of the word “fractal” and to see how it relates to the everyday
world that we see around us.

The general idea of a fractal is at one level very simple to describe and understand. At a
more general mathematical level it is very difficult to describe. We are only concerned
with the simple description of fractals. The term was first introduced in 1975 by the
French mathematician Benoît Mandelbrot. He proposed the idea of a “fractional
dimension” as a way of describing and coping with the problems of measuring and
describing actual real world things. The word was then simply shortened to “fractal”

What led to the idea was the problem that he was studying on how to measure objects
at different scales in the real world. He posed the question of “How long is the
coastline of Britain?” Now everyone who has ever been to the beach knows that a
coastline is a very irregularly shaped thing – and this leads to a very curious result. The
length that you measure depends only on how long your “measuring stick” is

If you look at an aerial map of a coastline it shows many indentations and curves along
its length. If it was a big map, and you simply took a ruler and measured around the

116
 117
outline by laying the ruler end-to-end around
the map then you would get some sort of
estimate of the total length of the coastline.
Now we will go into the real world and try
this. The first thing that we discover is that the
length of the “measuring stick” has an
important bearing on the actual measurement
that you would get. This is shown in the
picture on the right hand side. The shorter you
make the measuring stick the more closely you can follow the small scale variations
in the actual profile. Clearly the shorter your measuring stick is, the closer to the actual
measurement of the true length of the perimeter of the coast, or any other “fractal”
object becomes. If you multiply the ruler length value (R) in the picture above by the
number of “ruler lengths” (L) around the profile then you will find that the total length
of the profile becomes longer as the length of the ruler gets shorter. E.g. R3.0*L2 = 6,
R2.5*L3 = 7.5, R1.5*L7 = 10.5, R1.0*L17 =17.0

We return now to the problem of measuring how long the coastline of a small island in
a lake is. We will use a lake so that we don’t have the complication of the tide rising
and falling and so affecting the length of circumference. Imagine that to start with you
used a one meter long stick and laying it end-to-end around the waterline, you
measured the length of the coast along the actual water line as being 1000 meters.

Now take a measuring stick that is only one tenth of a meter long (0.100 meter) and use
this to follow along all the small ripples and in-and-out curves along the water line.
You would probably find that the total length of the coastline has now doubled to say
2000 meters as you can now measure the shorter deviations in the profile.

Now imagine that you get a smaller measuring stick of say one millimetre long and use
this to follow around every small pebble and grain of sand. The length will now greatly
increase to many thousands of metres. As you use a smaller and smaller ruler, the
length of the coastline will increase towards infinity. This then leads us into the idea of
what is meant by the term “fractional dimension”

We usually represent a point as a dot. However we understand that the dot is only a
representation of a point – and that a point itself is only a mathematical concept that has
no dimensions associated with it – no length, no width and no height. Therefore a 0-D
object such as a point has a dimension of 0.0

A line has one dimension only – its length. It has no width and no height, but infinite
length. Therefore a 1-D object such as a line has a dimension of 1.0

A plane such as a flat tabletop has two dimensions – an infinite length and width, with
no depth. Therefore a 2-D object such as a plane has a dimension of 2.0

If we next consider a cube, then this has three dimensions, length, width, and depth.
Clearly then a 3-D object such as a cube has a dimension of 3.0

Fractals can have fractional (or fractal) dimension such as a dimension of 1.6 or 2.4.
How can we image a fractional dimension? Well if we take a 2-D object such as a sheet
of paper we start off with a plane with a dimension of 2.0. Now we screw the sheet of
paper up into a ball. It clearly is no longer a plane surface with a dimension of 2.0 – but

117
 118
neither is it a solid cube that has a dimension of 3.0. What we have is a very crumpled
object that is somewhere between a 2-D plane and a 3-D cube – hence it has a
fractional dimension that lies somewhere between 2.0 and 3.0. The exact value doesn’t
matter for this discussion and in fact is very difficult to measure or calculate.

Now we can give an intuitive description of what a fractal is. A fractal is an irregular
or fragmented geometric shape which can be divided into smaller parts and where
each of these smaller parts looks approximately similar to the whole object. This self-
similarity is completely independent of the scale that you are examining. In other
words, they look similar, no matter how close you zoom in. Fractals often have all of
the following features

• It has a well defined geometric structure at all scales (magnification)

• It appears to be approximately self-similar no matter at what scale you view it at.
• Its shape is too irregular to be easily described in traditional Euclidean geometric
language such as a line, circle, square, cone etc
• It has a simple and recursive definition – where recursive means a series of repeated
applications of the same (or similar) objects or images.

Because fractals appear similar at all levels of magnification, they are often considered
to be infinitely complex. Many aspects of the natural world show that they are very
close approximations to fractals. This includes clouds, snowflakes, mountain ranges,
lightning bolts, coastlines and many plants such as Pine trees, various ferns and
cauliflowers and broccoli – plus just about every other example from nature that you
can name.

Generating a fractal

There are two parts to a computer generated fractal. First, you have the equation or
“database” that the fractal generation process uses to generate the fractal image itself.
The exact form that is used depends on the fractal generation process that is used. It
also has non-linear elements in it. It should be clearly understood that the equation or
the database does not contain detailed instructions on what should be generated. It is
simply a set of information that will be used by the second part of the process, the
generator, to create the fractal shape.

The actual generator that uses the equation or database can be one of a number of
different general types. The point to note here is that the generator does not contain a
specific set of instructions such as “draw this line here” and “draw that circle there”.
Rather the code in the generator is more general and uses a set of parameters that makes
a decision on the actual shapes and colours of each point based on how the calculated
value of each point in the image is behaving. There is a lot information available on
the internet for anyone interested in how fractal images are formed, so we won’t be
dealing with that it in this book.

The important point in the above description is quite simple. You have a “creative
process” that is very complex, and this creative process uses a database, or “genome” to
determine exactly what type of “organism” will result from the “creative process”.
Because we are dealing with a system that goes through huge numbers of cycles and
because it is a deterministically chaotic system that is critically dependent on the
initial values, then the system evolves over time as it goes through each cycle. Very
small changes – even minute changes – in the initial values of the system can very

118
 119
rapidly lead to very different shapes as we saw with the billiard table example. We will
look at far more dramatic examples in the next chapter “Observations of the Natural
World”

This is exactly what we see in the natural world. We see very simple organisms in ages
past that have changed into much more advanced organisms today. And they appear to
have done this by the same process as fractals are generated (e.g. iteration of a non-
linear system). At this stage we don’t know exactly how the creative process works that
forms the shape of a tomato plant different from an oak tree, or a mouse different from
a human being. What we do know is that it is a two part process – the actual
mechanism that “reads” the genome and then builds the organism (e.g. the fractal
generator mechanism) – then there is the genome itself that contains the
instructions for the generator to use (e.g. the fractal equation or database)

The fractal iteration formula as the “genome” of an organism

As an example of how very small changes in the

database (genome) can lead to different “species”
fairly quickly, look at the two fractal images of
the ferns on the right hand side. We can easily see
that we have two quite different “species” of
ferns. However, in the chart directly below the
picture, I show the database (e.g. the “genome”)
that was used to generate the two different
species of ferns. As the table shows the
differences in the fractal genome of the two
different species is very small yet we have two
distinctly different species. Other small changes
in the fractal genome will produce significantly
different species of fractal ferns again.

Parameters for broad frond fern Parameters for thin frond fern
0 0 0 0.25 0 -0.14 0.02 0 0 0 0.25 0 -0.4 0.02
0.85 0.02 -0.02 0.83 0 1 0.84 0.95 0.005 -0.005 0.93 -0.002 0.5 0.84
0.09 -0.28 0.30 0.11 0 0.6 0.07 0.035 -0.2 0.16 0.04 -0.09 -0.02 0.07
-0.09 0.28 0.3 0.09 0 0.7 0.07 -0.04 0.2 0.16 0.04 0.083 0.12 0.07

The picture on the right shows a 3-D fractal

broccoli that was generated using quaternion (4-
D) numbers, and also using a different form of
fractal generator to that used for the fractal ferns
above. The important point here is that using
quaternion numbers and a suitable fractal
generator we produce 3-D forms that look
remarkably similar to objects that we find in the
natural world.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

119
 120

Observations of the Natural World

Or
Is it just coincidence that science has now discovered fractal mathematics and that the
shape of most things in the world are fractal in their form and properties

Animals that undergo radical changes to their bodies during their lifetime

As we look around at the unbelievable tapestry of different life forms in the natural
world, we wonder how they were formed. We then look at the large and small scale
details of the earth itself and then on out to the structure of the physical universe as a
whole and we see a unifying similarity between the many different physical forms of
life around us, the earth itself and universe at large. The one thing that virtually
everything in creation shares is that its geometric shape is best described as being a
fractal. Very little in the natural world can be described in terms of Euclidean geometry
such as lines, circles, cubes or cones. Just about everything has an irregular and
roughened shape associated with it that can’t be described by Euclidian geometric
concepts. As we saw in the last chapter, these “natural” geometric forms are described
by the new branch of mathematics known as fractal geometry. Just some examples are
clouds, cauliflowers, the bark on trees, the trees themselves, coastlines, the body shapes
of most animals and insects, the shape of galaxies and the distribution of galaxies
throughout the universe. The list could go on, but you get the picture.

Many people have difficulty believing that the complex animals that we see today
could have arisen from much simpler ancestors. The commonly held view of many
people who do not accept evolution is that while natural selection can make minor
changes to the physical characteristics of say, to the beaks of Darwin’s finches that he
studied on the Galapagos Islands, they will still be birds, and not dogs. They don’t
believe that the “body plan” of the animals can change to make them a different type of
animal. In other words they don’t believe that evolution can cause a change of
taxonomic class from say a bird (Class = Aves) to that of a dog (Class = Mammalia). I
have shown the taxonomic classification from the last chapter again for easy reference
Taxonomy classifications in descending order are – Domain (top level), Kingdom,
Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species.

However to hold this belief is to ignore common evidences in the natural world around
us. We will look at two common examples of radical changes in life forms. The first
case looks at the radical changes that occur in both the body shapes and functions and
the critical life sustaining requirements during the life cycle of the frog.

A frog goes through five stages of

development that “appear” to be five
different animals. These are:-
Embryo: tadpole still in the egg.
Front legs break through: beginning of
the development of the rear limbs.
Tadpole: Lives entirely in water
Start of pulmonary respiration: the
beginning of respiration with the lungs
Tadpole frog: Lives in water – but can
breathe air.
Adult frog: Breaths air. Illustration from Wikimedia

120
 121
The second example of
a life form that
undergoes a radical
change in body shape,
appearance and
function is that of a
butterfly as it goes
through its life cycle. It
starts off as a
caterpillar that eats vegetation. It then forms a chrysalis around itself and the caterpillar
inside undergoes a complete metamorphosis into a beautiful butterfly. This is shown by
the picture of the caterpillar form (LHS) of the Monarch butterfly on the RHS. It is
worth looking at the “Lorentz Attractor” again that we covered near the beginning of
the last chapter (Did God need a special act of creation for each different living
organism?). You will immediately understand why it is sometimes called the Butterfly
Attractor.

Anybody who came across fossils of any of the five different stages in the life cycle of
the frog would think that they were looking at five different creatures as the body
shapes are quite different. The habitats can also be quite different when you consider
that some frogs live in trees and cane toads live on land. To all intents and purposes the
Laval stages (tadpoles) and the adult frogs are two entirely different animals. The frogs
have evolved through intermediate forms from a tadpole to a frog – and this all takes
place during a single life-time. The same thing occurs with the caterpillar that evolves
into a butterfly during the course of just one life-time.

In both cases of frogs and butterflies, the final creature is more advanced than the
earlier form. There are many other creatures that undergo such transformations during
their life-cycle. But these two well known cases alone are more than sufficient to firmly
establish that simple life forms evolve into more complex forms within a single life
cycle. They are able to do this because these major “evolutionary” changes in their
bodies are pre-programmed into them from the start of the existence of each
individual in the species.

Have you ever wondered how the shape of all living things comes about?

We have seen that caterpillars and tadpoles have programmed into their genome the
instructions that cause them to “evolve” into butterflies and frogs. But have you ever
wondered how the shape of each animal is created and controlled? Why for instance are
all humans the same basic shape and all chimpanzees have their own characteristic
shape? This is all the more strange when analysis of human DNA shows that it is not
much different to that of a chimpanzees, in fact about 98% - 99% the same. Even more
startling is the fact that the DNA of a mouse is about 97.5% the same as humans – yet
they are radically different in shape to us. Also have you ever wondered how the shape
of say, your leg, is controlled? Specifically, if you had an accident that tore a small
lump of flesh out of your leg, then the natural healing process of the body will grow
scar tissue to fill up the void left in your leg. But how does the body know when to stop
growing more scar tissue as the level reaches the original surface of your leg before
the accident?

Clearly the shape of a body is controlled by the genetic structure of the type of body in
question. Yet, given the remarkable DNA similarities between say a mouse and a

121
 122
human (about 2.5% difference only) it is clear that the mechanism that codes for the
body shape must be “relatively” simple. The question is – how can simple coding
control complex shapes? More to the point, how could this “simple code” bring about
changes over time that produce increasingly complex shapes that are so remarkably
stable over huge periods of time?

Fractal mathematics as the mechanism that controls shapes in the natural world

In the earlier chapter on “Did God need a special act of creation for each different
living organism?” – section on “The concept of Chaos” we looked at the concept of
“randomness” and saw that it really does not exist. Everything unfolds along a
predetermined path – and the actual path it follows is determined precisely by the exact
initial conditions that existed at the instant that the process started.

Now I don’t pretend to know exactly how it started – or the underlying mathematics
that have guided the evolution of the universe since the first instant of the “Big Bang”
of creation. However, the shape of virtually everything in the natural world around us is
clearly fractal. By this is meant that it is not made up of straight lines, circles, cubes or
cones – but rather “rough” shapes that have “fractional dimensions”. We know that
fractals have two parts to their creation – first there is an equation of some sort that
describes the “mathematical space” that the fractals exist in – then there is the
“mechanism” that actually generates the fractal forms.

In this section we are only interested in showing how very simple mathematical
equations lead to extremely complex and beautiful forms that change slowly over many
iterations of the process – and then stabilize into particular “species” of forms in
particular regions of the mathematical space in which they are generated.

Similarity with the natural world and the fractal images of the Mandelbrot Set

The Mandelbrot Set is named after Benoît Mandelbrot and it is a set of points in the
complex number plane (X&Y). It is a very simple equation defined as Z = Z2+ C. In
the equation, “Z” is a complex number with a “real” and an “imaginary” component.
Complex numbers are usually written in the form of A(real) + B(imaginary). The letter C
represents a constant number that does not change during the repeated iteration process.

Z starts out set to a particular number e.g. the initial conditions for the process. Each
iteration of the equation creates a new value of Z that is equal to the old Z squared plus
the constant C. This new value of Z is plotted onto the complex number plane
according to a procedure that does not concern us here. Anyone who is interested can
look up the details on the internet. Below are two pictures of the Mandelbrot set that
resulted using the starting value of Z shown for each of the two pictures.

Z = (1.71111 + 0.0)

122
 123
As the two pictures of the Mandelbrot Set (one on the
previous page – and the one of the RHS) shows, we
get very different shapes simply by changing one of
the initial numbers (the “real” value) in the complex
number Z. This shows how complexity can be built
up in a form using very simple – and quite
insignificant – changes in value. However, there is
something much more interesting in the figures
shown in the Mandelbrot Set. The shapes produced by
the Set “evolve” as the Set changes over time and as
you zoom down deeper into the detail of the fractal
edges of the Set.
Z= (0.0 + 0.0)

It is a remarkable fact that even using such a simple equation as Z = Z2+ C the
resulting images show shapes that “resemble” real life forms and other natural features
of the world around us. Now nobody seriously suggests that God used the Mandelbrot
equation to generate the world around us. However one thing is clear, and that is that
the shape of everything in the natural world is best described by fractal geometry. This
includes the large scale structure of galaxies and their distribution throughout space.

The rest of this chapter has a number of pictures that shows a real world scene and
alongside it is shown a fractal image of a “similar” object. All of the fractal images
have been taken from the Mandelbrot Set only. If you used other equations and fractal
generation processes you can get many more matches with the real natural world. The
intention is simply to show that you can get unbelievable beauty and complexity of
shape from very simple equations – and that these shapes – as crude as they are – have
an uncanny resemblance to the natural world around us. And just as importantly, this
beauty and the shapes “evolved” naturally out of the equation as it went through many
iterations.

This is almost certainly the same way life evolved from a simple “equation” that God
set in motion at the creation of the universe – and everything has “run on rails” since
then. Of course the generating equation that God used is more subtle and complex than
mankind currently understands. But I believe that the evidence is now beginning to
show that God is indeed the Master Mathematician of Creation.

A cutaway section through a

Nautilus shell compared to one of
the Archimedean spirals that are
found in the Mandelbrot Set

123
 124

Bug found in the Mandelbrot Set Cyclops (zooplankton)

Below are ten separate pictures of the Mandelbrot Set that are the result of different
numbers of iteration of the equation. As will be clearly seen, the shape starts out as a
simple circle with no fractal edges to it. Each successive iteration of the function
produces a more complex basic shape. As the number of iterations increase the fractal
edges begin to appear. The deeper that you zoom into the fractal edges the more
complex the embedded shapes become as the number of iterations increases. This is the
exact analogue of what happens in evolution in the natural world. As the number of
generations increases (e.g. the number of iterations of the basic function increases) so
we see progressively more complex shapes and life forms appearing.

These shapes were hidden in the original equation and only become apparent as the
number of iterations increase. However they do tend to stabilise after a given
number of iterations. This is exactly what we see happen in the natural world where
once a basic life form appears (e.g. monkeys) then we see various species of monkey
emerge, but the basic type (monkey) still persists in a recognizable form.

124
 125

On the next two pages we actually zoom down in the fractal details in the Mandelbrot
Set and look at fractal images that appear to bear a striking resemblance to actual life
forms and features of the natural world.

Leafy Sea Dragon Fractal version of a Leafy Sea Dragon

(Mandelbrot Set)

Aerial view of Fjords in Norway

3D Fractal image from Mandelbrot Set

showing remarkable similarity to actual
fjords

125
 126

Elephant Fractal version of an

Elephant trunk
(Mandelbrot Set)

Fractal Lightning
(Mandelbrot Set)

Real Lightning

Fractal Galaxy The Grand Spiral Galaxy

(Mandelbrot Set) (NASA)

126
 127

Max Planck
Institute for
Astrophysics

A partial 3-D
map of the fractal
distribution of
galaxies in space.
The lines show
where the galaxies
are located. Some
very large and
bright galaxies
can be seen
embedded in the
various lines

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

127
 128

Bringing it all together

Or
A summary of the Biblical view of who mankind is and the role of Christians in the
world today

The creation and the emergence of life

This book has covered some of the story of the intellectual journey that I have taken
over the last fourteen years or so that led me to change my viewpoint from that of a
literal six day creation, to the scientific view of a very long period of creation.

One chapter was devoted to a discussion of the science of the age of the universe. There
are many different methods of measuring ages of objects. The different methods all
have limitations on the range of ages that they are suitable for and the types of samples
that they can be used with. It was shown in that chapter that the estimated age of the
universe and our solar system is determined not by just one method of measurement,
but rather a range of different appropriate types of measurements are used. All these
different methods are in agreement that our solar system and earth are about four and a
half billion years old.

A number of chapters in this book have shown how God has used the natural laws that
he created at the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang) to progressively shape life
and the world into what we see around us today. These laws have the ability to create
progressively more complex shapes and organisms built into the laws themselves.
Good examples of this inbuilt ability of the natural laws to build self-organized and
self-assembled structures were seen in the complex and beautiful shapes of snowflakes
as well as in the ability of different types of crystals to self-assemble into their own
characteristic shapes. We have also looked at how the shapes of virtually everything in
the natural world are described by the ideas of fractal geometry and not Euclidean
geometry (e.g. lines, circles etc.). We have also looked at how using just the fairly
simple equation of the Mandelbrot Set we were able to produce some remarkable
similarities in shapes to many aspects of the natural world and different life forms. We
also saw that these complex shapes increased in complexity as the system evolved over
time.

The example of the snowflakes and the order that appears in a deterministically chaotic
system (e.g. fractals) as it evolves over time shows that increasing order in natural
systems is an established fact. The idea that the “information content” in the genome of
plants and animals is necessarily degraded by mutations or other changes in the genome
has been conclusively shown to be not consistent with what is seen in the natural world.
Changing a section of the genetic code by some means does not degrade the
“information content” of the genome. It simply changes it to something else! Whether
the particular change is beneficial, neutral or harmful to the organism depends on what
happens in the long run. The only one of the three possibilities that will adversely affect
the organism is if the change is harmful to it. Even this is not necessarily bad for the
group of organisms in question in the long run. It may be that the “harmful” mutation
does not kill the carriers of the “harmful’ change, but simply disadvantages them in the
current circumstances. However, circumstances around the species may change and the
“harmful” mutation may then turn out to be beneficial in the changed environment.

128
 129
Any mutations or other changes to the genome that occurs by gene splicing caused by
viral infections sets the scene for later changes that may come about from more
mutations or gene splicing events. The later changes may then actually be beneficial to
the organism. These sorts of events can also be viewed as changing the “initial
conditions” of the “fractal equation of life”. As was graphically shown in the last
section of the last chapter (Similarity to the natural world from the fractal images of
the Mandelbrot Set) simply making very small changes in the starting values (e.g. the
initial conditions) of the parameter Z in the Mandelbrot equation radically changed the
shape of ensuring figures.

Changing the body plan or shape of an animal is the equivalent to changing the
Phylum in the taxonomic classification system of living organisms. Far from being a
destructive event in evolution, a mutation or other change in the genome of an
organism may be the change in the “initial conditions” of the “fractal equation of life”
that changes one type of animal into another over many successive generations
(iterations).

We also very briefly explored the underlying idea of randomness. At its most basic and
truly fundamental level, there is no such thing (as far as can be determined) as a truly
random event, even in the rather strange sub-atomic world of quantum physics. The
entire universe can be viewed as a deterministic chaotic system whose initial conditions
were set at the instant of the Big Bang. From that instant onwards the whole system has
unfolded along a strictly predetermined path of the “fractal equation of life” that
God designed and set in motion at the beginning of the universe.

The weather is a deterministically chaotic system. The fact that using today’s
supercomputers we can’t even reliably predict the weather in a week’s time is simply a
demonstration that it is not possible (certainly at this time) for mankind to know the
exact values of all the parameters that influence how the weather will evolve over a
number of days. Tiny changes in a city today may lead to a hurricane on the other side
of the world next week or a fortnight from today – this is the so-called “butterfly effect”
where a butterfly flaps it wings here and sets in motion a train of events that produces a
hurricane on the other side of the world a few days later. It operates by the same
mechanism that produced very large changes in the final direction of the billiard ball
from very small changes in the initial angle of the ball as it bounced off the circular
(non-linear) object in the chapter on “Did God need a special act of creation for each
different living organism?”

Given that mankind knows a lot about how the weather systems work, but yet we still
cannot reliably predict the weather even a few days out, then it is plain to see that it is
impossible for mankind to predict how the universe would unfold. This is especially
true because mankind does not as yet have any idea of how the “fractal equation of
life” that God designed is structured or how He set it in motion. However, simply
because we don’t know the form of this “equation” or how it operates does not mean
that we cannot see the evidence all around us for the existence of this “equation”.

We have also looked at how the Biblical account of creation in Genesis chapters one
and two correspond exactly with the science account of the creation.

The fact that many in the science community (the non-Christian section) do not see this
one-to-one correspondence between the Bible and their work simply shows that they
don’t bother to read the Bible before criticizing it. It doesn’t reflect well on their

129
 130
professional curiosity that should lead them to investigate any area before they criticize
it. The bigger problem in the science community is that many (not all) scientists have
an almost childlike (some would say infantile) faith in the ability of blind natural
selection to bring about the unbelievably beautiful and diverse world that we see
around us.

This is despite the fact that it is the world of science and mathematics that have
discovered and investigated the subjects of self-organization and self-assembly as well
as fractal geometry and dynamic systems such as deterministic chaos. There are an
increasing number of scientific papers on these subjects, but we still have a few
scientists who make a religion out of atheism as it applies to science. However, they are
increasingly being seen as “yesterday’s people” fighting yesterday’s battles. From my
observations most of “yesterday’s people” are biologists, who don’t wish to come to
grips with the newer ideas from physics and mathematics. I suppose my greatest
amazement with regard to this group is that they seem unwilling to grapple with the
question of where the laws come from that govern the creation and unfolding of the
universe – or indeed just the question of “what is a law anyhow- and by what
mechanism does it control the world around us”. They appear to be unable to grasp the
fact that self-organization and self-assembly and the notion of “random” events that
underlie the emergence of life are dependent on the original appearance of the laws
of natural science – and that the natural emergence and unfolding of life is built
into these very laws.

Creationists and the Church

Many who believe in a literal six day creation about six thousand years ago also don’t
appear to have read and closely examined Genesis chapter one and then compared it to
the science account of the history of the universe. If they had, then they would also
have realized that the two accounts are telling the same story. From my own experience
and also talking to other Christians over the years, the reasons that Christians don’t see
that the Bible and science agree appears to be the result of three separate issues.

The first of these issues is quite straight forward. Unfortunately many Christians read
books about the Bible – but they don’t actually read and study the Bible itself. The
result of this is that their opinions are shaped by the viewpoints put forward by the
writers of the various books they read. This can lead to the holding of ideas that are
simply not found in the Bible itself. Any viewpoint in any book – including this one –
should always be subjected to the Biblical test of “Does this viewpoint accurately
reflect what is written in the Bible”. When checking the truth or accuracy of any
statement, you have to take all of the circumstances and references into account in
order to determine the true meaning of any particular text. We covered the ideas on this
in the chapter entitled “Our individual Big Picture View of the World” and more
particularly in the chapter “Interpretation and Mental Templates” and the section
called “Interpretation of the evidence” where the method of assessing evidence called
COMB was discussed.

The second big reason that many Christians are not comfortable with the observed
facts of the emergence of life is equally straight forward. Non-Christian scientists have
said that mankind is simply just another – albeit very smart – animal. The implied
argument is that there is no essential difference between mankind and the apes. The
basis for this assertion by science is that by tracing out the evolutionary Tree of Life –

130
 131
combined with DNA studies – has shown that the body of mankind has followed the
same evolutionary path as that of other hominid apes.

The problem in this argument is that mankind as a whole demonstrates a very different
order of intelligence and abilities that no animal has ever demonstrated. It is certainly
true that a growing number of animal studies are showing traits in animals that were
formerly thought to only be exhibited by humans. This includes simple toolmaking by
both birds and monkeys, such as making shaped sticks for probing for insects in holes
and logs and the use of “hammers” by monkeys to crack hard-shelled nuts. It also
includes problem solving by all sorts of animals such as birds, fish and mammals. In
these studies researchers put food just out of reach and with obstacles in the animal’s
way. The animals planning abilities are then assessed to see if they can reach the food.
Many animals do quite well at this sort of task. Monkeys have also been observed to
gather stones in a zoo and store them in a strategic place so that they can later (some
hours later) throw them through the bars at the visitors that annoy them. This
demonstrates that these animals are thinking about the future. Some monkeys have
also been taught to make up simple sentences using a keyboard in such a way that they
demonstrate that they can make up simple but intelligent sentences in answer to real
questions that are put to them. In the future they may even evolve to be able to speak.
After all, parrots can make sounds like human words. Whether they understand what
they are “saying” is a different matter.

Of course what separates mankind from the animals is the intellect of mankind that
enables us to engage in the higher activities such as scientific research, writing and
playing music, writing books of various types, carrying out complex mathematical
reasoning and all the other things that set us apart from the animal world. We can also
have a concept of, and acknowledge God. This ability to worship a higher being does
appear, at least at this time, to be unique to mankind.

All these attributes of mankind are a direct result of the fusing of the spirit of mankind
into the natural body of mankind that God had prepared using His natural laws back
in the Genesis account of creation. In so doing He created an intellectual human being
that bears the image of God. It is this intellectual aspect of our nature that sets us
apart and that makes us in His image. This is the Doctrine of Man that we covered in
the earlier chapter on “The Genesis account of creation”.

The simple fact is that DNA studies have now proved that the body of man is directly
related to the genetic line of earlier hominid apes. But this does not make us a “human
animal” We are made in the image of God as intellectual, creative beings. The Bible
account placed the creation of the intellectual being – mankind – at about six
thousand to maybe ten thousand years ago. This is corroborated by the facts of history.
Although the “human animal” species certainly existed long before that, they did not
engage in the sort of explosion of activities that we recognize as “modern” civilization.
This includes the making of “reasonably” sophisticated stone tools, then later metal
(bronze) tools and the emergence of more sophisticated architecture and record keeping
and all the other activities that characterize human civilization. These types of activities
have only occurred in the last few thousand years or so – exactly as the Bible states.

Up until that time the “humanoid animals” that existed certainly had developed a
primitive agriculture and building technology. But we see that today even with insects
such as termites that build “air-conditioned” mounds” to live in. We see ants that travel
up plants to “milk” aphids for the honeydew that they produce. They are also known to

131
 132
protect the aphids from their natural predators such as ladybirds. Leaf-cutter ants and
similar species are also observed to grow fungus gardens for food. However, these sorts
of primitive and low level activities don’t qualify these insects as intelligent. The sort
of activities of pre-humans (e.g. human animals) all lies well within the sorts of
activities that we see in the animal world today. It would naturally be the case that these
pre-humans would have been somewhat smarter than animals today simply because
they had already developed the same sized and structured brain that we have. This gave
them a lot of extra “processing power” over monkeys today. However they were still
just a “biological computer” like any other animal until the spirit-being of mankind
entered the natural body as the Genesis account tells. Until then, it was simply a case of
the “lights are on – but nobody is at home”. We examined this in some detail in the
chapter called, “The Genesis account of creation” in the section on “The Doctrine of
Man and the question of Cain’s wife”

The third and final issue in why Christians don’t see that the Bible and science agree
is probably best summed up in the answer to the question that many in the Church
today ask. It is, “Why is evangelism not as successful as many would like” The basic
idea here is that the main purpose of the Church is to “get people saved” and that
“atheistic science” is defeating the church in the battle for the hearts and minds of the
people. The fundamental idea here appears to be based on the commands in the Bible
where it is said:

Matthew 28:19-20 (NIV)

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey
everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very
end of the age."

1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NIV)

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all men to be saved and to
come to a knowledge of the truth.

Many people believe that these two scriptures in particular are commanding the Church
to engage in full time evangelism – where the goal of that evangelism is to “get people
saved”. They see “atheistic science” as their main competitors for the hearts and minds
of the people that they are preaching to. They believe that if only they can get rid of the
atheists that they can win a lot more people for Christ. The fundamental idea is that
everyone can be saved “if only we can get through to them”

There are two major problems with this sort of thinking.

First and foremost, it is saying that God is not omnipotent. It says that God is
completely reliant on the will of man. Even worse, it is clearly saying that a puny,
insignificant atheist has the power to tell God that, “Sorry God – I have this person’s
soul and you are powerless to stop me.” It is implicitly saying that “You may be able to
create the universe and all therein – but little old insignificant atheist me will tell you
who you can save, and who you can’t save”

People who believe that humans can interfere with and thwart the Will of God are
forgetting the many examples in the Bible where God chooses people, even before we
were born to do the tasks that He had in store for them. As just one example, consider
Jonah and how he rebelled against God’s command to go to Nineveh and preach. How

132
 133
successful was Jonah in defying God? Well of course Jonah learnt the hard way that
when God wants something from you – then you are going to do it whether you want to
or not. In Jonah’s case he was obviously not the fastest learner around and so he found
out the hard way that God chooses – not man! The lesson is simple – no atheist or
atheist message will stop God effectively calling those whom He chooses

We later see that Saul in the New Testament had absorbed and learnt the lesson of
Jonah when God struck him down as he travelled on the road to Damascus where he
was going to persecute the Christians. He heard the voice that said, "Saul, Saul, why do
you persecute me?" (Acts 9:4) The Bible shows that Saul was smart enough to
understand that God was calling him and he changed his ways and became the great
evangelist of the N.T. known as Paul. It is worth noting here that Saul didn’t decide to
follow Christ of his own choice. He was a real zealot in persecuting the Christians. He
only changed his ways after God confronted him. Yet again we see that people don’t
“choose God” – God chooses the people that He wants to serve Him. This is entirely
consistent with everything in the Bible. Not everyone can accept Christ – only those
who God chooses are able to do so.

Second, it is completely ignoring the realities around us. Many Christians seem to
believe that people decide themselves whether to accept Christ. Because a particular
person does not do so, the saying is often heard, “That person has willfully rejected
God”. At this point we have to revisit the methods used for interpretation of any text or
action. In that method you have to take all the relevant cases and then find the single
interpretation that fits all the cases.

A good example of the various cases that many Christians ignore are people who have
been brought up in Christian families, sometimes even with fathers who are ministers
in the Church. It is not uncommon for children brought up in this environment to reject
the Bible and God. Two well known examples are Bob Hawke and Philip Adams. Both
of these people are on the public record as saying, “I really would like to believe – but I
just cannot” Although they are self professed atheists, it was – according to their public
statements – not a choice of their own. It was not a case of “I choose not to believe” –
but rather, “I just could not believe.” This is entirely consistent with the Bible where
God reveals Himself to those whom He chooses. There is not one single case in the
Bible where any person ever chose God – in every case God choose those whom He
has predestined to serve Him in the coming Kingdom of God. This matter is dealt with
in the expanded version of this book called, “From Creationism to the Creation”
which is available free on SCRIBD at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17052583/From-
Creationism-to-the-Creation in the chapters entitled, “Choosing to be a Christian” and
“The critical issue of who has the right to be a Priest”

The subject of this book, namely the creation of the world and the emergence of life has
caused deep divisions between the Christian church and the wider society. Because of
the deeply unscientific and unsupportable views that at least some churches hold on this
matter, then they bring automatic rejection from the general public. In fact, the view
held by the general public on the stand taken by some churches about the beginning of
life is, “less than complimentary”. The end result of this attitude of the public towards
the Church as a whole on this matter means that they automatically reject anything
that the Church says as, “Just another load of “nonsense” coming from that lot of
“flat earth” believers”. (The polite version) This attitude of the general public towards
the church means that the church has close to zero ability to influence society in any
of the major social debates that go on.

133
 134

Given that the Church as a whole is supposed to be “a light unto the nations” and also
to be the “salt of the earth” – then how Biblical is it to deliberately throw away the
ability to engage with the world? This is all the more the case because the attitudes of
the church are just not supported by either the Bible or science in this matter. It is hard
enough when the church has to (or at least should) take a public moral stand on many
issues, let alone compounding the difficulty by holding views that simply cannot be
supported and which bring the Church into disrepute. In a case like this it can be argued
that the Church is aiding Satan by willfully invalidating its voice in the world and
hence failing in its charter of being “a light unto the nations” and the “salt of the earth”

There you have it! Many people who read this book will not agree with much of it –
and in some cases, none of the ideas in it. As I said in the Introduction, if nothing else
comes from this book, hopefully it will at least encourage discussions on the matters
that it raises. I am more than happy to discuss and debate any of the many points and
ideas presented in this book.

END
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

134