Vol: 170 Issue: 13 Friday, November 13, 2015
A while back, I ran into an old friend I hadn’t seen since I was a teenager. It was kind of fun to run into him and catch up on all that had transpired in each other’s lives over the past forty years.
Soon the conversation turned to the hot topics of the day; global warming, evolution, peace in the Middle East, etc. It didn’t take long for me to see he was an evolutionist and environmental activist — it took him even less time to label me as a religious nut — and he said as much to my face, albeit with a smile.
Later, I thought about the ‘religious nut’ statement and wondered if my friend realized that, of the two of us, he was lots more religious than I am.
As to the ‘nuts’ part — logic demands I plead guilty. Logically, if I were nuts, I wouldn’t know it, so it makes little sense to deny it. Besides, its subjective. He thinks I’m nuts because I believe in God. I think he’s nuts because he believes in evolution.
It never ceases to amaze me how those who believe in evolution do so because they think they are too smart to believe in God. It is a willful ignorance. Any close examination of the evidence for evolution proves the truth of Romans 1:20:
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
Let’s apply some understanding to what is clearly seen, and see where we end up.
Currently, the world’s population doubles every forty years. This is the result of two mathematical principles; exponential growth and doubling time. This presents a major problem for evolutionary theory. Evolutionists find themselves in a dilemma when they try to reconcile the population growth curve with their imaginary history of human life.
Like, if man has been living on the Earth for a million years or more, then why are there only 7.2 billion people here now? When any given quantity’s rate of increase is proportional to its current value, it is said to grow exponentially. Stated more simply, the larger the quantity, the faster it grows.
‘Doubling’ is the length of time it takes for a quantity, growing at a measurable and sustained rate, to double itself. For example, $100 invested at 7% compound interest will take ten years to double itself to $200, another ten to double to $400, and so on.
So we have two different factors at play here; exponential growth and doubling.
At the time of Christ, the world’s population was only about 300 million people. It took until 1800 for the world population to reach one billion people. But it only took until 1930 for the population to double to two billion.
Thanks to the principle of exponential growth, by 1960 there were three billion, by 1974, four billion, 1985, five billion, 1999, six billion. In 2012, the global population reached the seven billion mark.
If one applies the principles of doubling and exponential growth to the human population, one gets a whole different picture than the one presented by evolutionary “science.”
The population of the earth has been growing throughout history at a more-or-less constant 1.9%, which means it doubles roughly every forty years. But let’s build in a fudge factor for earthquakes, famines, wars and epidemics and allow 150 years between population doublings.
Assuming a startup population of two people, how long would it take to reach the present population of roughly 7.2 billion?
That’s the thing about doublings and exponentials. With the population doubling every 150 years and factoring in exponentials, it would take only thirty-two doublings over about 4,800 years for the population of Planet Earth to go from two to the present 7.2 billion.
Now think it through. How could the population stay below 300 million for a million years and then jump from 300 million to nearly seven billion in just two thousand years?
I may be a nut, but it is the evolutionist who is ‘religious’.
Christianity is a peculiar sort of religion, since it’s basic premise is that a religion is not necessary for one’s salvation.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast,” Paul writes in Ephesians 2:8-9.
But “religion” demands more than that — it must be organized, and that is where it begins to break down.
To be a religion, it must be organized by flawed humans. It doesn’t take long before any organized religion breaks down into competing denominations.
Religious evolutionism has at least four major denominations; Classical Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism; and the spiritual; “Hopeful Monster” and Punctuated Equilibrium.
Classical Darwinism proposes that evolution is the result of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest has some social problems. Why shouldn’t we eliminate weaker classes of humans which are competing for what we feel we need?
Evolution taken to its logical conclusion would eventually lead to a savage world where the strong determine what is right.
So a new explanation became necessary. Neo-Darwinism adds mutation to Darwin’s survival of the fittest. The problem is that mutations do not produce something new, they merely scramble what is already there.
The Hopeful Monster Theory is advanced as an explanation for why there are no transitionalfossils; that is to say, there are no fossils of anything in the process becoming something else. The Hopeful Monster sees evolution taking place in a single jump; a dinosaur lays an egg that hatches a robin.
Punctuated Equilibrium also attempts to explain away the lack of evidence like transitional fossils by saying all the changes took place over short periods of time. It relies on the absence of evidence to prove itself — ‘since there’s no evidence of transitional life forms, this is proof that evolution must have happened quickly.’
These are not scientific positions — they are religious ones. Let’s tell the story of evolution the way the kids learn it in school.
Billions of years ago, there was nothing. Then suddenly, nothing exploded into something. Everybody agrees on that. It’s called the “Big Bang Theory.”
This ‘something’ produced hydrogen which, when cooled down enough, magically turned into solid rock.
Other hydrogen combined with oxygen which caused it to rain on the rock until it broke down into minerals which washed down into a pool.
Once in this pool, all these minerals combined into a primordial ooze that eventually grew up into plants and animals and mosquitos and bacteria and platypuses (platypii? – help me out here, Alf).
Eventually, some the primordial ooze that didn’t become single-celled amoeba or African lowland gorillas became evolutionary scientists.
The very word ‘theory’ means “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture” but it is illegal in the United States to teach any other explanation dealing with the origins of life.
Even the ‘abrupt appearance’ theory, without the mention of God is forbidden, despite the fact the abrupt appearance theory has far fewer flaws than does evolution.
We’ve already seen that belief in ‘scientific evolution’ requires a suspension of the provable, immutable mathematics. It also requires the suspension of the laws of physics.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics incorporates the law of ‘entropy’ — the measurable, systematic breakdown of all things into their component elements.
In other words, the fact everything ages, and everything breaks down with age.
Entropy is a natural law that can be observed, without scientific instruments or double-talk. A beautifully landscaped park, left untended, becomes an overgrowth of weeds. A new car left parked and untended gets rusty and falls apart. A baby becomes an old person and dies.
Everything decays, eventually. Even earth’s orbit around the sun has a measurable decay factor — yet evolution teaches that — with the addition of a billion or so years, the exact opposite happens!
Evolution is a made-up explanation, constantly under revision, to explain the unexplainable — apart from the existence of God.
But my friend was probably right about me being a wee bit nuts. Although I prefer the term ‘eccentric.’
Originally Published: May 15, 2009
Featured Commentary: Shopping for Spirituality ~ Alf Cengia