1

Grand Apologetic

Compiled by Bruce Wood, BA, BS, MA – Theological Studies

Table of Contents

(Clicking on the hyperlinked headings below will take you directly to that subject)

Page

Preface...... 2

What is Science?......

Definitions (according to Webster's New World Dictionary):

Models

The Scientific Method (and major potential problems with it):

The Inefficiency of Evolution

Ten Questions to Ask YourBiology Teacher about Design…………………….………...11

Persecution and Bias

Past and Present Creation Scientists

Creation Education

Benefits

Morality

Theological Viewpoints...... 17

Concluding Remarks

Preface

On a personal note, I was raised by parents who held positions in science – Sr. electronic engineering development and management (father) and laboratory research in pathology (mother); both were evolutionists. I was "brainwashed" with the religion of evolution in the Los Angeles public school system, being taught that creation was a myth, at best.

I remained a diehard evolutionist for twenty-six years. However, a serious study of creation and evolution convinced me that evolution had no scientific support. Coming to this conclusion was the result of using correct scientific procedures and critical thinking to challenge evolution, an option not allowed by secular/evolution indoctrination.

I served in three capacities while a staff memberat the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) for nine and a half years: Field Administrators – traveling nationwide to over 100 ICR-participating venues; giving tours in the ICR creation museum in San Diego; responder to incoming questions about creation science, evolution, and theology.

I was trained by the very best creation scientists for four years while at Christian Heritage College (CHC), now San Diego Christian College. The CHC campus was also home to ICR. I developed my science apologetic education while under the tutelage of ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris, his two sons, ICR VP (and creation “Bulldog”) VP, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Gary Parker, Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. Richard Bliss, Dr. Ken Cummings, and other leading scientists.

I was also given an excellent theological education under noted theologians at both CHC and Northwest Baptist Seminary (Tacoma, WA). Practical application of both scientific and theological evidences came by way of participation in numerous evangelistic campaigns and visitations, teaching theological and scientific apologetics at two colleges, pastoring in two churches, and engaging in thousands of conversations with those in my personal and professional endeavors. Overall, I have accumulated over 40 years of researched knowledge, and consider myself qualified to deliver an adequate apologetic in the defense of a literal, six-day creation, according to the first book of Genesis.

As mentioned above, I gave(about 3,000) tours over sixteen (16) years at ICR’s Creation & Earth History Museum (8 as a volunteer before becoming an ICR employee). In them, I discussed our creation views with literally thousands of evolutionists, including “crevolutionists” (Christians who believe God used some form of evolution). I was able to answer the majority of scientific questions, not being a scientist – or having a science degree for that matter.

I once had a running debate with Dr. William Thwaits (who twice-debated Sr. VP Duane Gish, PhD. [biochemistry, UC Berkeley]). He occasionally brought groups of SDSU students to our museum to show what he considered flaws with our position. Our debate lasted 3 ¼ hours, and during our discussion through the museum, I heard NO evidence for evolution – not ONE!

In truth, you do not need a research scientist to answer most creation and origin questions. What you need is a basic knowledge of evolution and creation science.Good science should be able to verify either creation science or evolution. Both are faith-based theories and seek to interpret history, and neither can repeat the origins of either creation or evolution cosmologies. Both sides look at the same evidences, but interpret them from biased viewpoints (e.g. God or no God).

Both cosmologies can be divided into two primary camps: pure evolution (absolutely no God or deity in the construct of our universe) or a literal, six-day Genesis creation, without ANY evolutionary process. Whether the Biblical God could have used any form of evolution (e. g., Theistic, Day-Age, Progressive evolution, Gap Theory, etc.) will be examined below.

Evolutionists who reject any notion of creation science would find out that – with an objective attitude – good science would reject evolution outright. They would realize all too soon that trying to produce a working mechanism for evolution would be as successful as trying to nail a fresh pan of Jell-O to the wall.

Students intuitively know that a kissed frog turning into a prince is called a fairy tale. However, when millions ofyears are added to a frog to produce a prince, well, this is called science, according to the evolution theory! Following are the facts:

What is Science?

Let science be good science, free from all things non-science,free from bias, free from philosophical views, free from religion, and free from pride. Students of any religious or non-religious institution must KNOW good science if they are to launch rockets, cure diseases, validate a correct cosmology, or improve junk food.

However, both creation scientists and evolutionists are biased. Both have views about the existence or non-existence of God. But in truth, creation scientists are more objective than evolutionists; they include the possibility of God, whereas atheist-evolutionists outright reject the possibility of God. Having taken God out of a scientific equation blinds them to objectivity and truth.

Those (including long-age/old earth Christians) who accept macro-evolution (e.g. kind to higher kind) regard young earth creationists as anti-intellectual, narrow-minded religious fanatics. Such views sometimes include charges (and fears) that conservative Christians want to teach the Bible in public schools. These accusations are unfounded, based on the fact that the legal barriers are impenetrable. (It should be noted that the American education system was originally founded by Christians to teach literacy, for the primary purpose for all to read and understand the Bible and apply its truths to daily living.)

Creation science education advocates a desire that good science be taught in public and other evolution-centered schools. Too, cosmologies are faith-based theories, interpreting theories of origins that cannot be repeated. Both sides look at the same evidences, but interpret them from biased views (e.g. God or no God). Objectively taught scienceis required.Ultimately, good science will ultimately verify either creation science or evolution. Secular teachers who believe in evolution cannot be trusted to discuss Bible theology accurately. Accurately portraying the Creator’s science in what, when, and why He created all things would be prone to have many inaccuracies.

Creation science rejects evolution because of the abundant scientific evidence that refutes it, as will be discussed below. Science will show that evolution is a religion. In an ICR article (December 2001) ICR President, Dr. John Morris quotes Richard Lewontin, leading evolutionist from Harvard, who said,

We are forced by our a priori adherence to material (i.e., natural, ed.) causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, in New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.)

Dr. Morris goes on to quote Will Provine's (Cornell University) admission that:

[The] belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." (Will Provine, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999, p. 123.)

Objective scientific studies have brought many evolutionists to conclude that there is a Creator God who made the universe and everything in it in six literal days, according to Exodus 20:11. A good example is ICR staff scientist, Dr. GaryParker, who used to teach evolution at the college level. His testimony of how he became a creation scientist can be read in From Evolutionto Creation: A Personal Testimony.

Definitions (according to Webster's New World Dictionary):

Webster's New World Dictionary (1998) defines “science” as a "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." This is exactly what ICR scientists have done. A good overview of ICR’s definitionsand modelscan be found in the article entitled The Principles of Creationism.

The Webster Dictionary includes the following definitions:

  • Adaptation: "A change in structure, function, or form that improves the chance of survival for an animal or plant within a given environment."
  • Biblical creation*: "The doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to an act of creation by God, specifically to God's creation of the world as described in the Bible."
  • Big Bang theory: "A theory of cosmology holding that the expansion of the universe began with a gigantic explosion (big bang) between 12 and 20 billion years ago."
  • Evolution: "The development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny."
  • Macroevolution: "Large-scale and long-range evolution involving the appearance of new genera, families, etc. of organisms."
  • Microevolution: "Small-scale hereditary changes in organisms through mutations and recombinations, resulting in the formation of slightly differing new varieties."
  • Scientific Biblical Creation: "teaching and research based upon the belief that the biblical account of the creation of the world is scientific fact.”
  • Uniformitarianism: "The doctrine that all geologic changes may be explained by existing physical and chemical processes, as erosion, deposition, volcanic action, etc., that have operated in essentially the same way throughout geologic time."

Regarding Biblical origins, there are 3 kinds of creation: 1) scientific - no mention of Bible;2) Biblical - no mention of science; and 3) Scientific Biblical - mentioning both science and Bible. Evolutionists, on the other side, believe that life started with a single cell. That cell developed in a vertical and successive line of life forms into higher kinds (macroevolution*). Science and the Genesis creation week narrative agree that the Creator made all living things by their “kinds” with no biological abilities for any kind to evolve into another higher kind.

*“Macro-evolution,” according to J.S. Levinton (2001), is "the sum of the processes that explain the character-state transition that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank." For layman, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) – which mentions nothing about the origin of life – means that the human race (that evolved from primates) came by way of goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo.

"Micro-evolution" is simply minor variation of plants and animals (horizontal changes) - not the changing of one kind into a higher (vertical) kind. There are natural limits to biological change. We do get DDT-resistant insects, but they are still insects. We also get antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but they are still bacteria. Minor genetic variation (microevolution*) is no problem with the creation scientist.

Creationists say, "Genetic variation (microevolution*): YES; macroevolution: NO."*For the record, the term, evolution—in any form (microevolution or macroevolution) is based on chance and random mutations. As referenced in this paragraph, these terms are to be understood as change over time. Thus, Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, whereas Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type.

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). However, all observed changes have been "horizontal" and not "vertical,” producing changes due to "natural selection," also known as variation, or adaptation. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of a kind (e.g. dog) speciate into various species, but dogs will always be dogs.

Trillions of mutations are needed in order to evolve one major kind of animal into another. Then again, no known biological program can enable the transition from one kind into another kind. Regardless, 4.6 billion years are woefully inadequate. Trillions of years would not be enough time. And why would evolution produce the complex systems in our bodies that search for and eliminate . . . mutations?

Biogenesis says that life comes ONLY from life. It is a mathematical impossibility that even one strand of highly complex DNA could arise from random, non-living chemicals (abiogenesis). Structurally, DNA is a double helix, comprised of thousands of amino acids arranged to form hundreds of polypeptide chains. Arranging the hundreds of bases, amino acids, and polypeptide chains sequentially to form even one strand of DNA, without mistakes, is beyond random chance probability. There was nothing from which “natural selection” could select when only non-living chemicals existed.

Chirality (e.g. handedness) in human biology requires only left-handed amino acids. Even if there were substantial amounts of non-living amino acids, how would random processes, void of any intelligence or planor additional information, combine only left-handed amino acids? Too, it takes proteins to manufacture DNA, but it takes DNA to help manufacture proteins. One needs the other and thus both had to form at the same time, according to evolution. Evolution insists that this came about by undirected chance.

Evolutionary mechanisms had to exist in the first life forms to produce incredibly complex chemical reactions in time for healing processes before traumatic injuries occurred (in order to stop bleeding, infection, disease, etc.). Another example is photosynthesis: a mechanism had to exist in plants in order to convert raw sunlight into chemical energy. Which came first, the chicken (plant) or the egg (mechanism)?

Information is required for one kind to become another kind. Whatever is needed to function had better happen FAST before the life form dies. Mechanisms are required to digest and convert raw materials into energy. Systems must also exist for breathing, blood circulation, nervous connections to transfer information, waste elimination, and, in general, every other life-supporting system!

Vast gaps between kinds of animals are documented in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate links to bridge such (amoeba-to-man) transitions. Furthermore, evolutionists are at a loss to satisfactorily explain the "Cambrian explosion." Single cell life is seen in the Precambrian stratum. But in the next higher Cambrian stratum is filled with highly complex life forms, with no transitional fossils between the two strata. Of the multi-billion ocean-dwelling fossils, not one invertebrate (e.g. clam) is seen transforming into a vertebrate (e.g. fish).

The 2nd law of thermodynamicsbasically saysthat order goes to disorder as useful energy dissipates (increasing entropy). Yet the Big Bang cosmology says just the opposite: disorder becomes orderly. Evolutionists disregard the fact that it would have been impossible for life to have arisen from non-living chemicals (abiogenesis) according to both the 2nd law, as well as the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). Accordingly, our complex brains came from an invisible, odorless, tasteless, gas, which originated from . . . nothing!

“Creation science”, then, is a valid term, because ICR scientists use research procedures to evaluate evidences they find in their various disciplines. The word “creation” in creation science is used to denote a valid alternative cosmology to that of evolution. ICR uses a model, from which to make predictions about the causes and construct of our universe and earth. Similarly, evolution has a model from which it makes its predictions.

ICR scientists have observed that evolutionary processes (uniformitarianism) do not coincide with what science actually says. In short, the present processes do not accurately tell us if such processes were the same in the past. A major problem in evolution thinking is that the Genesis flood never happened exactly as described in Genesis (Chps. 6-9). Evolution assumes that present geological processes are constant. Contrarily, ICR scientists have revealed a number of scientific evidences that indicate a young earth.

Evolutionists who reject any notion of creation science would find out that good science – with an objective attitude – would reject evolution outright (as seen in Icons ofEvolution - Dismantling the Myths). They would realize all too soon that trying to produce a working mechanism for evolution would be as successful as trying to nail a fresh pan of Jell-O to the wall. Students intuitively know that a kissed frog turning into a prince is called a fairy tale. However, when millions of years are added to a frog to produce a prince, well, this is called science, according to the evolution theory!