I received the following letter some time ago. I enjoyed it so much I thought it was worth posting. I also took the time to respond to it and have placed my comments throughout the letter as opposed to a seperate letter, due to its length and complexity.

Creation vs. Evolution
Christian Opinions Put to Rest

by Bill Morgan (e-mail: BillyJack321@hotmail.com)
with comments (in bold) by Mark Liberator (e-mail: editor@liberator.net)

What is the Better Explanation? Hi. My name is Bill Morgan. I am a Registered Mechanical Engineer and I love science and learning about science. I have been studying the Creation vs. Evolution for several years and have made this text file to present a clear, easy to understand case for Creation. This case for Creation will be built using science. Whether you are a Christian, an agnostic, or a convinced atheist, I feel you should check out the enclosed information on this very important topic. I feel every one has a right to believe whatever they want. However, I think it is a shame that many people dismiss belief in God as "unscientific," or "superstitious" without ever hearing its case.

It could have something to do with the unscientific nature of the Bible.

I have taught several classes on this topic and a common response is: "Why haven't I ever heard this information before?" Many people will say you never heard this information before because it is unscientific and has no place in science education. Some people will say you never heard this before because the schools and media are biased against the conclusions that are drawn by presenting Creation Science. My advice is for you to decide for yourself! When I get a chance to teach at a college, I start off my presentation with the following: "Do not believe a word I am about to tell you, but listen to what I tell you, think about it, test it and then decide for yourself if you believe it or not. If you ever believe something simply because someone told you to believe it, you have not been educated, you have been indoctrinated. But if a case is presented to you, and then you test it and find it to be valid, and then believe it, you have been educated. I was never encouraged to test the Theory of Evolution and dig into its details. But I encourage you to test the Creation model I am about to present. Test it against what the Theory of Evolution has to offer, and then you decide what to believe.

This is the first time that I have heard indoctrination being used on any side other than the religious side. In fact in the past, indoctrination was used quite well by religious zealots. They were excellent practitioners! I have two examples to share.

Hypatia was a professional thinker and lived c. 400 A.D. She worked on mathematics and philosophy which might have had something to do with her not being a Christian. But not being a Christian around that time, near Alexandria, was an unhealthy outlook. She was seized by a mob of Christians and Nitrian monks, dragged from her chariot and beaten to death. As if that were not enough, they scraped her bones with oyster shells and burned the remains all on the steps of a Christian church, the Ceasarium.

Galileo was another interesting character. He provided the people of his time with information about our solar system. He found that the sun was the center of the solar system, not the Earth, by observing retrograde motion among the planets. {Retrograde motion entails two opposite changes in motion.} He was able to prove this, despite how the religious center felt which was a Earth-centered solar system. The church showed him torture devices which caused Galileo to be quiet for some time. Soon after that, in the spirit of being a provider of knowledge, he was back telling people how things really were. The church did not torture him or even kill him, but they did put him under house arrest until his natural death.

I have never learned of scientists going to such efforts to stifle religious study.

I am confident that the scientific data convincingly supports Creation. Unfortunately too many people have made their conclusion on this subject based on emotion or peer pressure, and not the scientific data." I would also like to provide to you with some free books. The books I will send to you are what I consider to be the best books regarding this subject. Naturally I need some kind of address. I promise I will not put you on any mailing list, or show up at your door. It will be the only time I mail anything to that address unless you request more mail. If you do not want to give me your address please e mail me or call me [714.898.8331] and somehow we can get those books to you some other way. Perhaps through a school or work address.

I strongly suggest that people draw their conclusions from many sources of knowledge which includes people, books, and other resource materials. It would be unfortunate for someone to base their whole world view on one book, which includes the Bible. Many people often cling to one book for their sole resource!

DEFINITIONS

Creation Model: What we observe today is the result of intelligent design, intelligent planning and purpose. A designer and planner used means beyond the natural laws of science (supernatural). Matter, energy and life originated at a point in time and originated from a supernatural source. Plants and animals are offspring of parents of the same kind, they do not have a common ancestor. Plants and animals were created instantly. Humans were created instantly as humans as male and female, humans are not related to apes.

Evolution Model: What we observe today is the result of chance events and long periods of time. There is no design and thus no designer behind anything in the Universe. Everything originated by way of natural processes subject to the natural laws of science over billions of years. The idea of supernatural intervention is rejected. Plants and animals are offspring from a common ancestor. (Note: a few evolutionists say God used Evolution. When I say "evolutionist" in this paper, I imply people who deny God's existence. However for Theistic evolutionists, this paper intends to demonstrate that if God did use evolution to create, there is no scientific evidence that He did).

I agree with you. There is no scientific evidence that He actually did anything.

Given the freedom to speculate, couldnít God have created the Universe in such a way that it does appear to be of an evolutionary manner? Also, is it possible that God created gremlins to keep our Universe in motion even though no evidence of those little buggers exists? Click HERE to learn more about this Gremlin Theory. My point is that we can speculate all we want but theories need to be supplimented with facts else these theories are baseless and quite possibly meaningless.

1) Design. In my opinion, the Universe is clearly the result of intelligent design, plan and purpose. The Universe is incredibly orderly and complex. This is not the result of chance natural events, it is the result of an intelligent designer. Consider the microscopic world of the atom with the precise mass ratio of the electron to the proton, ...

Taking significant digits into consideration, the ratio is not very precise to the ten-thousandths place.

...or consider the large domain of our solar system with the precise masses and orbits of the planets.

Just because planets that are further away from the sun revolve around the sun slower does not prove the existence of a creator. A correlation of events shows a relationship, nothing more. By the way, the masses and orbit radii have no special ratio! There is a strong relationship between a planetís orbit radius and its speed of revolution.

Donít trust me; see Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics by Raymond A. Serway (or any other comprehensive physics work) for the data.

Consider photosynthesis, human reproduction, hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, eyes etc. The conclusion that these complex systems are result of an intelligent designer requires much less faith than the idea it arose by time and chance. I have read a lot of evolutionist literature, and I have never seen an explanation of how complex organs & systems evolved. THINK! How could something like human reproduction have evolved? How did half the population evolve male systems, and the other half evolve female systems that work together so precisely and in such incredible complexity to produce a baby?

An excellent question. One could claim God created our complex biology but thatís not science since there is no proof of a grand planner. Science is only useful when it is firmly based on observation or testable theories or theories based on principles that are testable.

Mt. Rushmore, as you probably know, consists of the facial images of four ex Presidents on the side of a mountain. Suppose a tour guide told his tour group that those faces are "the result of billions of years of nature, such as glaciers, lighting and erosion." How long would the tour guide keep his job? What would the tour group think? He'd be fired by lunch time and his tour group would think he was insane! Those images obviously required planning, design and an artist. Suppose an anatomy teacher at your school taught that human faces are "the result of billions of years of nature, such as mutations, natural selection etc." How long would this anatomy professor keep his job? He would feel very secure in his job and might make Dean! The anatomy professor who taught that the human body appears to be the result of an intelligent design, is the one that potentially would be fired.

I hate to break it to you but the guy would be fired for misinforming people. There is evidence that humans carved the rock there. It took a lot less than a million years too.

Look at your computer. Suppose I tried to convince you that a glass factory, a plastic factory, a metal factory, a paint factory, and a silicon factory all exploded, started on fired and mixed together. The result of this explosion, chemical reaction and time was your computer. You would never believe it. Your intellect and logic would cause you to passionately deny an explanation that an explosion and mixing of chemicals and time could ever produce something as functional and orderly like a computer. Don't let anyone convince you that your body is the end product of an explosion, the mixing of chemicals and time. Your body is infinitely more complex than your computer, that is because it was made by a smarter designer!

Materials do change over time; that much is observable. Most things decay over time, like automobiles and paint. However, organic matter works differently because of cells. That's why babies develop and teenagers get bigger. Simple knowledge of biology is useful here.

Probability is a funny thing, and yes I believe in "miracles"--possible, yet improbable events. I base this on observation of course. But donít claim to me that a burning bush talked to you one day because my skepticism will kick in as a necessary defense. Itís either that, or believe every person who claims to tell me the "truth."

2) The First Law of Thermodynamics

QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET HERE?

Ask an atheist to explain how they think the Universe originated. Did all the energy and matter in the Universe create itself by natural processes? The First Law states energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. Atheist beliefs contradict this basic law of science. Creationists argue that energy and matter had a supernatural origin. This position does require faith, but it is in conjunction with the First Law and thus requires less faith than the atheist's position that it created itself from nothing.

I am becoming slightly confused. Billy seems to think that the terms atheist and scientist are synonymous. I do not believe he is making a correct assumption here. There are many scientists that are religious. Some scientists do happen to be Christian..

Scientists, the way Iíve heard it, do not claim they know exactly what happened on or before the Big Bang event. Most scientists would agree the event is explained based on the scientific principles that are understood up to this point in time. In fact, the event is so outside our normal experience that it may even be described as a super-natural event.

Imagine that I could create a very special box. This box is sealed so that nothing can enter it from the outside, and there is nothing inside the box to begin with. If we came back to that box in 20 billion years, would there be anything inside of it? The First Law of Thermo says there will be nothing inside of that box. Matter and energy do not appear from nothing. An atheist may say that since this entire Universe came from self created matter and self created energy, it is possible an entire Universe may exist in that box.

The principles of thermodynamics, which are based on observable and reproducable experiments, dictate that nothing would be created in the box, ever! However, scientists have to be careful when they study systems. They understand systems are never really closed like Billy's closed box analogy. Scientists have no idea real idea how or why the Big Bang happened. There is an eastern philosophy that suggests that the Universe undergoes an infinite cycle of Big Bang's and Big Crunch's.

3) The Second Law of Thermodynamics

QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET SO ORDERLY? HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET SO MUCH USEFUL ENERGY?

Question for atheists...did all the energy and matter in the Universe increase in complexity and order on its own? The Second Law states that in a closed system (like the Universe, the earth is not a closed system) over time, energy will become less available, systems will become more disordered and entropy will increase. This Law explains that the Universe is running out of available energy (energy that can do work, like gasoline, the heat produced by gasoline's use is energy...but it can't do any work). To believe the Universe originated as a compact bundle of matter that expanded (Big Bang), and created an orderly, energy filled Universe violates the Second Law.

Not true at all, if you truly understand the principles of thermodynamics. The law states that the total system becomes energy drained over time. Our Universe may very well be sticking to that theory and our Earth can be increasing in order despite it! (Let me remind the reader that order is really a philosophical issue.) It is possible to have islands of increasing order within a Universe of decaying energy. Thermodynamics says nothing about the distribution of energy across a system. As long as there is net decay, the principle holds true.

Creationists believe a supernatural entity, working outside the natural laws of science gave order and available energy to the Creation. This requires faith, but much less faith than the belief that order and available energy appeared by chance.

Believing in a creator requires less faith than the scientific version? Scientists could use the faith system every time they discover something unusual which falls outside the body of scientific knowledge. But that wouldnít satisfy those people who have a true thirst for understanding the unknown.

The early thinkers described their experience of fact gathering as a religious experience. Some thinkers believed that studying the Universe using scientific reasoning was like having a direct relationship with "the creator," because the rules for the Universe give us insight about the infinite unknown which was/is considered to be God.

IMPORTANT POINT:

There are really only four explanations for the Origin of the Universe:

1) It had a "naturalistic" beginning. If an atheist believes this he/she must believe the 1st Law of Thermo was violated to make the Matter and Energy.

Using classical mechanics, this may be true. However, every law, theory and hypothesis has limitations. Newtons laws of motion work extremely well for small velocities. As a particles magnitude increases, the Newton's laws start to fall apart. Einstein's took care of that problem with special relativity. Neverhteless, the Law of Thermodynamics is limited (has parameters) like everything else in science and cannot be used under such an extreme situation that a big bang would demand. Einstein searched for such a thing, but died before being able to find it. He was trying to find a theory that tied together all known branches of science into one neat theory, a unification theory.

2) It did not have a beginning, it is eternal. If anyone believes this they violate the 2nd Law of Thermo since entropy tells us our Universe is losing available energy and becoming disordered over time, it could not be independent of time (eternal). If something is wearing out due to time it can not be eternal.

Because entropy is tied to time, some scientists believe if there is enough matter in the universe to allow gravity to snap the initial explosion back into a singularity, time would have to run backwards at the point of snapback. It's a strange theory that may be unsettling to hear.

3) The Universe is not real, it is just an illusion. Not too many people believe this but some do. People who believe this still look both ways before crossing the street, because the pain of getting hit by a car is real to them.

Is it real pain, or illusory pain?

4) It had a beginning from a Supernatural entity who is outside the natural laws of science. Yes this requires some faith, but less faith than reasons 1 through 3.

All sorts of interesting questions arise as one starts to delve into religious study and philosophy. It is all speculation and doesnít put food on the table, doesnít help people with medical afflictions, doesnít create shelter for the homeless, doesnít help us understand the microchip, ... They are fascinating questions and I do spend a lot of time thinking about them--someone has to.

4) Biogenesis

QUESTION: HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE?

Remember some of your Biology classes? Early in the semester the teacher taught you that spontaneous generation was impossible (Spontaneous generation was a belief that life originated from nonliving things). People used to believe that bacteria could originate from broth, that rats could originate from garbage and maggots could originate from rotting meat. Over 130 years ago, Louis Pasteur conducted experiments that demonstrated the folly of spontaneous generation. Later in the semester your teacher taught you evolution. Allow me to quote from a current Biology text book: "Life cannot arise by spontaneous generation from inanimate material today, so far as we know, but conditions were very different when Earth was only a billions years old. In that ancient environment, the origin of life was evidently possible and it is likely that at least the early stages of biological inception were inevitable."Campbell, Neil; "Biology," 1987, page 504. Do you see what this author did? He admitted spontaneous generation is impossible today, but he puts his faith in the belief that the early earth had different conditions in order for life to originate from inanimate material Statements similar to the one in Neil Campbell's text are very intellectually dishonest. Any person seeking scientific explanations to difficult questions should not accept an explanation that clearly violates a law of science in order to uphold a person's bias. Mr. Campbell knows Biogenesis presents a very significant stumbling block to his pro-evolution faith, since scientific (observed) knowledge tells us that life does not arise from dead matter. When his text brings him to explaining life's origin what does he tell the students? He starts by telling them the truth that life does not arise from dead things today, but billions of years ago life arise from dead things was "evidently possible and "inevitable." Decide for yourself, but I feel Neil Campbell when confronted with a scientific law that contradicts his world view (perhaps atheistic), would rather violate the scientific law than acknowledge that supernatural intervention is a possible explanation for the origin of life. What Mr. Campbell wrote is not education, it is not science, it is Neil Campbell's biased unscientific opinion. I encourage you, though, to decide for yourself. The origin of life question is covered in detail in Dr. Mark Eastman's book "The Creator Beyond Time and Space," which I will mail to you if I get an address from you.

Billy may be purposefully confusing scientific principles here. Scientists believe, as a rule, life does not spontaneously spring up as a common occurrence. So single-cell organisms, however simple they might be compared to our complex biology, donít just come into being on a regular basis. An evolution must occur slowly to make these necessary changes. Allow me to explain.

How do these changes begin? Itís an important question!

Consider cosmic rays. For instance, the few high energy particles that punch through our ozone layer have a tremendous affect on us. Most of the damage they do to us is easily handled by our bodies. Sometimes they kill cells, which are just replaced. Other times they change the genetic information that is carried in our DNA and that potentially causes dramatic differences, called mutations. Cancer is one such mutation and is probably the most common type of mutation.

However, it is possible to achieve useful mutations that cause necessary changes needed for a developmental process. The likelihood that such an event will happen is statistically low but that shouldnít bother those who are religious. Remember, low probability events, or miracles, are possible no matter how unlikely they are. Itís just a good thing that they donít happen very often. Improbable events would probably scare children.

[grin]

Many people think life was once created in a test tube from chemicals and energy in the 1950's. This is known as the Miller-Urey experiment (which is covered in detail in Eastman's book). Here is what occurred. They sparked ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water, condensed it, and ran it through a trap (do you think the early earth had traps and condensers? The samples had to be isolated from the spark because a second spark would have destroyed any molecules that were formed). The results of these experiments were mostly tar and carboxylic acid, but a few amino acids were formed. Amino acids may be called the building blocks of life. But it is either gross ignorance or a lie to say they created life in this experiment. Life requires many things. Long amino acids chains make proteins...chains in the proper order and shape. Miller's experiment did NOT produce any chains. Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. Never have chains of DNA or RNA been produced. A cell membrane has never been produced. The faith that even one protein arose by chance is tremendous. Lets look at statistics. Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids, just like a train is made up of box cars. A chain of box cars makes up a train. A chain of amino acids makes up a protein. Humans have 20 different types of amino acids that make up our proteins, and the average human protein is 400 amino acids long. Remember, the arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk.

Pay attention now. I really enjoyed the analogy that follows.

Imagine many box cars at a train station, and these box cars are made up of twenty different colors. The owner of the station tells you he wants a train to be 400 box cars long, and you are to pick the combination of colored box cars, but if it is not the order he has in mind (and he didn't tell you it) he will fire you. What are the odds you will get the box cars in the right order? They are the same odds the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one protein in you. The odds are 20 to the 400th power! This is the same as 10 to the 520th power, that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros!

One reason why I like that analogy is because of the length of time necessary to move around so many boxcars. It would take an eternity, compared to the lifespan of a human. Billy has successfully demonstrated the necessity of time! This is exactly the kind of thinking that leads scientists to believe time is so important within the process of evolution. Once again, since religious people believe in miracles, improbable events should not bother them.

Maybe religious people have a problem with relatively small improbabilities, "tiny miracles," because they feel that "tiny miracles" destroy their concept of a supernatural entity. But scientists prefer the "tiny miracle" theory over the "giant miracle"--all at once--theory because there is no evidence to support the latter.

My personal slant on this aspect of the topic is that "tiny miracles" are just as impressive as the "giant miracle." I am still in awe of the Universe. I still respect it. I still love it. Maybe the miracles are not as random as we may think. Maybe the little events are a result of a Universal Consciousness. Who knows? I am merely speculating and thatís all it is without proof: speculation.

You have better odds of winning California Super Lotto every week for 11 years than the odds of one protein in your body having the amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are really much worse because the amino acids must be left handed, they must form a chain "in series," no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you need an oxygen free environment, etc etc. And remember, this is for just one protein. Your body has countless trillions of proteins. The model that a brilliant designer made proteins requires much less faith than to trust random chance and natural processes.

Probability 099--A hands-on, thinkers course. I hate the extremely low probability of winning the lotto. The odds suck, quite frankly. Thatís why normally donít play. Yet people win. I donít worry about being struck by lightning, but I still donít stand under trees during storms. Yet people who practice these slight measures still get struck by lightning. Are these signs of a supernatural entity? I strongly doubt it.

What about the person who gets mugged and claims that the Devil caused the incident. Then this person claims that God helps him cope with the process of mental recovery. I ask, why did God have enough freetime to help this person recover but not enough time to prevent the incident from happening in the first place? Logic and observation are the only tools that help us cope with and understand the Universe.

5) Living Animals

QUESTION: IS CREATION OR EVOLUTION SUPPORTED BY WHAT IS OBSERVED IN LIVING ANIMALS?

The Creation Model predicts animals will reproduce after their own kind. The Evolution Model predicts that all plants and animals came from a common ancestor. What is observed every day with living animals? Your parents were human, your grandparents were human.....etc, etc etc..that is what is observed and recorded. Dogs make dogs, hogs make hogs, frogs make frogs, cats make cats, rats make rats (especially in New York) bats make bats. Every birth since recorded time has supported the creation model. The foundation for science is observation. What is observed? The Creation model is what is observed, animals producing their own kind.

If an organic lifeform, like a human, suffers from a mutation, this human will have damaged DNA. If the DNA is damaged in just the right spot, the same mutated DNA will transfer to his/her offspring during reproduction.

6) Dead Animals (Fossils)

QUESTION: DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

Creation Model Prediction: The fossils will be as easy to classify as living forms of plants and animals. There will be variation within forms, but no transitional evidence of invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal. The characteristics of the fossils will be stasis (stay the same) and sudden appearance (no transitional forms). Evolution Model Prediction: The fossils will show the stages through which one type of animal or plant changed into a different type. Fossils should show the in between characteristics of presumed common ancestors (a leg becoming a wing, a scale becoming a feather). A series of links would be expected to be seen in fossils.

Truth has it that the fossil record is not as large as scientists would like it to be. Another fact is that fossils of complicated life-forms are difficult to find. Fossils are preserved only under special circumstances. Leaving bones to rot just about anywhere will not preserve them. They need to rest within protective environments so that animals and erosion donít destroy them. Itís not a likely event that an animal will die in a place that is conducive to fossil preservation.

However, the approximately 300,000 species of fossils that have been found have sculpted our modern science. Fossils of now extinct animals have been found; 99% of all the species that ever lived are extinct. Even fossils of humanoids have been found. These fossils are not exactly humans as we know them today nor are they primates. Australopithecus and Cro-Magnon are two such fossil types and more exist. See Life, The Science of Biology by Purves, Orians, and Heller (or any other comprehensive book on biology) for more information.

Some quotes for you: "No real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution over creation." {Quote by Mark Ridley, zoologist, New Science magazine, June 1981 page 831.} "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, June-July 1977, page 22. "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History Magazine, May 1977, page 14. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts, Evolution Magazine, September 1974, page 467. "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution..." Steven Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, page 39. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." E.J. Corner, Botany Professor, in "Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, "1961 page 97. "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes." J.R. Norman, "A History of Fishes," 1975, page 343. "The origin of rodents is obscure...no transitional forms are known." A.S. Romer, "Vertebrate Paleontology," 1966, page 303. "The [evolutionary] transition to the first mammal ...is still an enigma." Roger Lewin, Science Magazine, 26 June 1981, page 1492. "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin." Dr. Lyall Watson, Science Digest, May 1982, page 44. The above quotes are all from evolutionists! There is a book entitled "The Revised Quote Book," which has over one hundred referenced quotes from evolutionists falsifying their own theory. This book and many other books and videos on this subject, applicable for all ages and can be procured by calling the Institute for Creation Research (619) 448-0900. (I don't work for them, I just am happy to provide you with a resource for more information).

I would like to see copies of these quotes in their full context. Anyone can parse text to get the sentence one desires.

CHALLENGE:

The next time you see a case made for a human ancestor, determine what the actual fossil evidence is, and then decide for yourself if the conclusions fit the data. Recently from a piece of one shin bone, the "scientists" told us what this "ancestor" looked like, how he lived, where he lived and how long ago he lived. Decide for yourself if you think that a piece of one shin bon can objectively tell you that much information, or is it someone's imagination that takes a little data (one shin bone) and turns it into a human ancestor or a "missing link." (Remember, there is a great variety within a species. A pro football player has bigger thicker shin bones than a child, but they are both human).

I wonder if prehistoric creatures were able to specialize their lifestyles within a species like we do today? I doubt they would have differences in their physiology like the football player and the average male have today.

Nevertheless, paleontology is the study of fossils. Itís a tricky business. They just donít go off with half-baked ideas. Paleontologists use environment, the fossil record, logic, and some creativity to come up with the look and life of an animal given a bone or full skeleton.

Once an artifact is found, these scientists try to match the artifact to the existing record. If an exact match is not found, a match of closest fit is sought. Then they match known animal characteristics with that of unknown animals. Sometimes there is an amount of guesswork but it is done based on biological and environmental guidelines.

7) THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION KEEPS EVOLVING

QUESTION: IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, WHICH THEORY DO YOU BELIEVE IN?

It is true that there a couple of different Creation theories circulating today. Some people think God used evolution to create. Some believe in two creations, (the Gap Theory). Both of these ideas are new, unbiblical and unscientific (they do not comply with observable evidence). The literal account of Genesis (what I believe) is thousands of years old and has not changed for thousands of years. It is also true that just because many theories may exist to explain something, does not mean that every explanation is false. The general point of the Theory of Evolution is that life originated as single celled organisms and over time became all the living things we see today. All evolutionists seem to agree with that. The science end of that conclusion is the mechanism. It is with the science end that the evolutionists disagree vehemently with each other. My teachers never told me that the "scientists" disagreed on the mechanism of evolution, I had always been lead to feel comfortable that the "scientists" agreed on how evolution occurred. However the students and public are never told about these conflicts. It is similar to a family fight being kept private. However I feel the ramifications are so important, that all students should be told about it.

With the biology text I used as a resource above, there were many theories that were clearly listed and explained. They were hardly hidden.

Students should ask their instructor: "Which Theory of Evolution are you teaching us?" Remember, the science of Evolution is the mechanism. Mechanism #1 was Darwin's, also know as Darwinian Evolution or Gradualism, or think of "slow" evolution. Darwin proposed animals evolved into other animals by small, gradual steps. There are two problems with this, no living evidence and no fossil evidence (as previously discussed). Many evolutionists recognize this problem. One evolutionist who recognizes this very problem is Stephen Jay Gould, a Professor of Geology at Harvard, and perhaps the most prominent evolutionist in the United States. Dr. Gould and others had one of three choices to make regarding the empirical evidence: 1) Hold onto Gradualism despite the lack of evidence to support it. 2) Accept the Genesis account that an intelligent designer instantly created plants and animals and these plants and animals would reproduce after their own kind. 3) Reject Gradualism and come up with a new theory. What do you think they chose? If you guess #3 you are correct. A new Theory arose. This Theory is called "Punctual Equilibrium," a big long scary word that means the changes happened too fast to be observed. If you inquire into this, be ready to be "comforted" by the response: "you must understand...fast in Evolutionary terms can be millions of years." But don't lose focus! Whether these "fast" changes occurred over one million or four billion years, they were still unobserved. The foundation of science is observation. The punctuated equilibria camp admit there is no observational evidence to support their belief. Their presupposed conclusion drives them to gloss over observational evidence. They will not allow anything, including evidence, to falsify their belief that the Theory of Evolution is truth.

Actually, organisms maintain gradual evolution over part of their 'lives' and punctual evolution over other parts of their 'lives.' All it really means is that evolution does not occur in a smooth fashion over time. Sometimes it does so slowly, sometimes quickly. The two theories can exist together; one does not attack the legitimacy of the other.

A third Theory of Evolution is that God used Evolution to create. These people have the same science problems the atheists have...no observational evidence. They have even more problems (if their God is the God of the Bible). There are no verses to support their belief. They typically will say Genesis is not literal, and explain the original Hebrew supports this. Unfortunately for them, the original Hebrews took it literally and so did hundreds of generations of Hebrew scholars after them. These people should not be so quick to twist a clear message by interpreting what it says in the Hebrew, when the Hebrew experts would disagree with them. My opinion is that peer pressure resulted in these people's conclusions more than an in depth study of the Hebrew language.

One underlying principle that Billy keeps referring to is observation. He is right; science is based on observation. Iím not quite sure if Billy remembers his science classes in high school and college but we quickly find that our observation of events have to be indirect at times. This is true for many sciences.

Astronomy has many challenges. Being able to see far is one of them. And distance is itís own problem. The light we use to see with takes time to reflect back to us. So as we look across the Universe, we are actually looking back through time. We canít see things as they are but as they were. Thatís why we must use models to explain the present, based on past observable events.

Subatomic physics has the opposite problem. When observing the sub-microscopic, the observer actually becomes part of the experiment. Once again, light reveals the mystery. Light particles used to see cause the things we are looking at to move and/or change their energy states. Itís not easy developing models for these events because of the inherent problems of smallness.

Like astronomy, evolutionists have to battle time. Time is the justifying force that explains the ability to see what goes on during evolution. We only live 78 years or so and the whole written comprehensive history is only about 10,000 years old if one is generous with the term comprehensive.

As science gets older and richer, it finds new obstacles. The fundamental rules of the Universe (scale, like the astronomically big and the sub-atomically small, along with time) make scientific discovery bery challenging.

8) CAUSE AND EFFECT

QUESTION: IS THERE ANY CAUSE FOR THE UNIVERSE, OR FOR YOU?

Cause and effect is the most basic scientific principle. It is fundamental to all branches of science as well as philosophy. Cause and effect is the principle that an event which is observed, can be traced to an event that preceded it. For example, an observed event (an effect) could be a house, the cause is a place to live. An observed event could be a painting, the cause is beauty or expression. Creationists trace the entire Universe to a "First Cause," God. Atheists say there was not a "First Cause," for the Universe. Isn't it curious that Evolutionary Scientists accept the principle of cause and effect EXCEPT when it comes to origins? An Evolutionary Scientist would argue that there was a cause for a chair, but not for a human being.

I disagree. Any scientist worthy of his/her diploma(s) should admit that before the first few nanoseconds, it is a real mystery. No one knows what happened before that time exactly. But be comforted in that; yes, scientists do disagree on issues. If everyone agreed on everything, it would worry me. If you canít understand this, look to religion and find out how much the "experts" disagree. It is normal and healthy to debate issues. Just donít go into a Christian chat room and debate. Youíll be banned in no time flat! Christian is an oxymoron. What does that tell you?

9) Extinction, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

QUESTION: EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ARE FACTS, DO THESE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

Extinction does NOT support the Theory of Evolution. It is the opposite path for evolution. It is the path creation would predict. The Theory of Evolution model would have validity by showing natural process producing new animals, not eliminating existing animals. The Creation model would have validity if natural processes do not produce new kinds of animals. Extinction does not falsify the Creation model. What do we observe? Many animal kinds going extinct, no new animal kinds emerging. Lets look at the two models again and their beliefs. Evolutionists believe life started as one animal (like an amoebae) and favorable environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species! Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments has reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events. Natural Selection is a true concept. Natural selection makes good traits dominant but does not produce new animal kinds. Natural selection does not produce new species, families, orders, or classes of plants and animals. Imagine someone having 10 children in smoggy Los Angeles. Suppose eight of the kids have lungs that can't filter the smog effectively, and they do not reach an age where they can reproduce, but two kids do have stronger lungs that allows them to reach reproducing ages. Their genes will be exhibited in future generations. But that gene pool is still in human beings. Natural selection does emphasize the better genetic characteristics in a population, but it does not produce new animal kinds. Survival of the fittest is a simplistic term that everyone should admit is correct. The term is simply an equation or a definition. For example, it is equal to my saying "bachelors are single men." If you are a single man, you are a bachelor...if you are a bachelor you are a single man. Regarding "survival of the fittest," if an animal is surviving, that means it is fit for its environment, if an animal is fit for its environment that means it will survive. If a plane load of circus animals is forced to land in Alaska in the winter, the lions, elephants, zebras and giraffes will soon be history. But the penguins and polar bears live, no problem. That is an example of survival of the fittest. However, for validity to be given to the Theory of Evolution, the lions would not die, but begin producing new kinds of animals, that can live there. The problem is, if you are unfit you die, and you can't evolve when you are dead.

Thatís why the necessity of time is so important, as is gradual change in most cases. Billyís analogy is, once again, a poor one. If I were to cut my dogs heart out with a spoon, would we claim that the reason my dog died is because he was unhealthy? I hope not. (I would never hurt an animal for the heck of it, by the way.)

My point is that lions do not normally get displaced in nature so radically. If over time, temperature were to lower slowly, lions that developed thicker coats might be more apt to survive and therefore procreate and continue the successful gene-pool. That is what I would call adaptation.

Please excuse the authors intent to dismiss longstanding biological truths. Either Billy is ignorant or, worse, skillfully deceptive. Letís hope and gamble for the former.

10). The requirements for life

QUESTION: DO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?

I love Billyís analogies. They are the source of good satire and ridicule. Here comes another one so pinch yourself to stay awake.

Lets compare life to a computer. Computers must have proper hardware (monitors, disk drives, keyboards) and proper software (information) in order to operate. Likewise life at the cellular level requires "hardware" (amino acids and nucleic acids) and "software" (amino acids in the proper sequence to make proteins, and nucleic acids in the right sequence to make DNA). Much could be written about the incredible complexity of proteins and DNA and how unsatisfactory "chance and time" are in explaining its origin. THINK! For the computer example, even if you had the proper hardware and the proper software, would you have a functional computer? No, because you need a source of power for the system to operate. Now lets look at life. Suppose there was a dead dog lying next to a living dog. How would someone who believed only in the material world (denying the existence of anything metaphysical they are called "materialists) explain what the difference is between the dead dog and the living dog?" The unfortunate dead dog has all the proper materials. It has the proper hardware (DNA, proteins, organs, bones etc), and it has the proper software (its DNA and amino acids are properly sequenced). But the dog is dead. Why? Creationists maintain there is more to life than chemicals, energy and biology. There is a metaphysical or spiritual side to life similar to the power source of computers.

Neat example. Allow me to drive a truck full of knowledge through the crack of error he has left for us. Billy really doesnít understand biology--or heís being deceptive again. Letís assume for the better, ignorance. (Iím an optimist.)

Life is immortal, but to our perception it appears linear and has a beginning, middle, and end because we look at it in a piecemeal fashion. All things are born, live and die. We will find that life has a birth period, growth period, stasis period, decline period and death period. Trees become logs. Why? Well, we have to look to nature for assistance.

Life seems to duplicate itself over and over like little copy machines. The manufacturing process is not a perfect one, and slight errors of information happen over time. Many are harmful due to the delicate nature of this information. Thatís why critical elements of every living system eventually fail and death occurs.

The error in copying is also another source for mutation from one generation to the next. The information that is needed to generate offspring is usually kept pure enough to successfully reproduce and is hardly tampered with. But on occasion, the mutations produce beneficial changes, like color and beak shape, which may help a life form like a bird adapt more successfully.

TWO "TRICKS" EVOLUTIONISTS USE TO MAKE THEIR THEORY APPEAR TO BE SOUND

Again, let me remind you to decide for yourself when you read what I say. However, I feel if you look for these two "tricks," the Theory of Evolution will lose a lot of its validity.

TRICK #1 Be on the alert for the incredible faith the evolutionist has in time. Time is vital to their theory. Ask an evolutionist how did reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took "millions of years," how did fish become amphibians, "it took millions of years." Whenever you probe an evolutionist with questions, they will quickly rely on time. Do not expect fossil evidence, biological answers, just a hand wave and a tremendous faith in time. But is their "time" explanation satisfactory? No, it is a confession the processes they profess to believe in did occur, but they are not observed. The evidence was lost in those eons of time. There are two explanations why there is no evidence for fish evolving into reptiles: either it never happened and thus there is no evidence (Creation); or it did happen but the evidence is missing due to time (Evolution). Does time lead to increased complexity in chemical reactions or systems? No (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics). For a system to increase in complexity it does not just need energy, it needs the proper type and quantity of energy. If you put a leaf on a driveway and expose it to the sun, it will dry up and whither, not become more complex. When I was four, my mom tucked me into bed and told me that a long time ago, in a place far away there was a frog. A princess kissed this frog, and it instantly turned into a prince. She told me a fairy tale. In Biology, they told me that a long time ago, in an unknown place there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the amphibian became a mammal. The first story is a fairy tale because a kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as science because "millions of years" turned the amphibian into a mammal. Supposedly believing that time (and not a kiss) can turn an amphibian into a mammal makes it "science."

When I WAS a little budding Catholic, I was told a bunch of fairy tales that are obviously not true. It stills brings back a bad "taste" to think about those days of forced ignorance. Iíll provide two tales that you will see are undeniable lies, or at least stories that are not based on fact (called allegories).

Adam and Eve
Point 1: Did Adam and Eve and their offspring incestuously populate the planet to its current number? Does God allow for incest but not allow one to covet thy neighborís wife? Thatís strange unless Godís motto is "Keep it in the family."

Point 2: Have you ever seen two Hebrews have a Chinese baby? Why are there different races of man if Adam and Eve are our collective ancestors? (Maybe God wanted people to have family problems. Imagine life during the holidays if a Hebrew family brought their African baby over to meet everyone.) The literalism of the Adam and Eve interpretation is obviously incorrect.

Noahís Ark
Point 1: How could it be possible for one family to capture the number of species of animals that must have existed at the time, all over the planet? Remember, they needed one male and one female of every species.

Point 2: How was it possible to make a watercraft big enough for those animals, and their supplies, to live for forty days back then?

Point 3: They had to worry about the effects of animal transport and how to release the animals. Did Noah and the people of that time have that knowledge? A thinking person would consider it to be impossible.

TRICK #2 If someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I do not answer yes, and I do not answer no, I ask them "What do you mean when you say evolution?" Become aware of how the use of the word "evolution" is used. What does the word "evolution" mean? It simply means change. Does change happen? Absolutely. If you changed your sox within the past month you could say you evolved. But does that degree of change support the Theory of Evolution? Lets explore that thought. In item #9 of the list, we showed that natural selection and survival of the fittest are true phenomena. Change happens within species all the time. But for the Theory of Evolution to have merit there must be evidence for new species, families, orders, classes and phyla. For example, teachers will often say that evidence for evolution is the fact that people are taller today than they were 500 years ago. Is that "evolution?" Well it is change, but does it support the Theory of Evolution? No, because they were people then and they are people now, no species change. Or a teacher will say England had many light colored moths and few dark moths when England was unpolluted (due to camouflage advantages). After England became polluted, the population of the dark moths increased and the light moths decreased. Is that "evolution?" Well, it is a change in the population density, but it does not support the Theory of Evolution because there was no species change. You started with light moths and dark moths, and you ended up with light and dark moths. and few dark moths. If you mention this to an evolutionist they will go to trick #1 and say "well taken over millions of years the new kinds of animals will emerge. Creationists often say they believe in "microevolution (change within a species) but not macroevolution (one species becoming a new species). Or Creationists may say they believe in horizontal evolution (change within a species) but not vertical evolution (new species emerging and old ones going extinct).

Well, you heard a lot about science and very little about religion in this letter. Let me tell you about your options at this point. You can either view every idea you encounter with necessary skepticism (as is suggested by Billy) or you can just accept it on faith. Science provides a way to think which is better at revealing Universal truths. Most religions are not designed to reveal truths of any kind. They are there to make us feel good and/or help us cope with life. Most thinking people fail to understand how forcing others to believe mistruths can be helpful, but to each his/her own I guess.

Keep that in mind because almost all religions base their whole thought systems on a single text. In the West, itís the Bible. But when you ask someone, "Hey, why do you have faith in the Bible?" The response is usually that the Bible is said to be the word of God. When you probe one level further and ask, "How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?" The response is always "Because it is written in the Bible."

Billy, for a guy who claims to be able to spot errors in reasoning, can you find the error in reasoning above? I know that the reader sees the obvious error. In case you donít, send me some e-mail by CLICKING HERE. I welcome the e-mail for any reason.

Also, I must say that I am a very optimistic person. Billy, despite his religious leanings is very pessimistic. Why else would he think that scientists are playing tricks on him? My own view of religion is quite different. Iím optimistic and must then claim that religious people are just ignorant. Remember, ignorance is not an insult. Iím ignorant of many cultures, all foreign languages, musical insight, ... Donít take offense from the word ignorant because we all lack knowledge of something!

WHY IS THIS GUY E MAILING PEOPLE AND OFFERING FREE BOOKS ON CREATION VS EVOLUTION?

Good question! First off, let me share my history with you (don't worry, it will be brief). I was raised in Buffalo, New York, and was fortunate to have great parents They took my sister and I to church every Sunday, we attended Sunday school and church camps in the summer. I believed in God, and never gave the issue much thought. In sixth grade, I remember seeing a big colorful book produced by Time-Life. It caught my eye, and I opened it up and was pleased to see big colorful drawings. One set of drawings really caught my eye. There was a series of animated drawings that went across two pages. On the far left was a very ape-like character walking on all fours and covered with hair. The character to his right was a little more upright, he had shorter arms, was starting to walk on two legs and had less hair. This progression continued for a few more drawings until at the far right side of the page there was this handsome fellow, a human being! This is called the ascent of man chart that nearly everyone is familiar with. In sixth grade, I looked at that chart for a while, smirked, thought it was ridiculous, and went outside and played softball. Eventually I made it to ninth grade. While in a Biology class, the teacher was teaching us about evolution and placed the same chart up on the wall. I still remember it. I sat there and studied that chart for a long time. It was on that very day that I recognized a major conflict existed between what this teacher was saying and what the Bible taught. Should I believe my science teacher, who is teaching man has ascended from ape-like animals, or do I believe mommy, daddy, and that book (the Bible) that says God made man instantly from the dust of the ground?" I reasoned that this teacher is a scientist after all, so this must be valid information. I had a choice to make that millions of people world wide are faced with. Do I believe the Bible or what is taught as science (please note I did not call it science). In ninth grade I chose to go with the science teacher, and considered myself to be an atheist for about 14 years. I took many more science classes in high school and in college (I am a Mechanical Engineer), and none of these classes changed my beliefs, if anything they reinforced my atheist beliefs. I assume the majority of you are in college now. Do you understand my story? I am pretty certain you have had several hours of your education dedicated to the teaching of the Theory of Evolution. I would love to hear how this affected you. Has it done anything to your faith? It obliterated mine! Question! Why in 6th grade did I think the drawings were ridiculous, but in 9th grade I believed them? Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word...hormones. In 6th grade I did not have much temptation in my life. Perhaps my biggest sins were a lie here and there, throwing snowballs at the school bus and riding my minibike where I shouldn't. But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong, but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of man. I felt excited.....and decided the Theory of Evolution was for me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first page!! I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no problem, I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning a system of beliefs built on faith) that allowed me to sin without guilt. It was not the data that made me an atheist, it was the conclusion, a belief that made me the judge of right and wrong. Those cartoon drawings of ape men did look sharp, but I wanted to believe them emotionally, more than I really believed them intellectually. But I made a crucial mistake in 9th grade, a mistake millions are making everywhere....I did not inquire! Whether you are Christian or atheist, or something else let me encourage you to inquire! I should have asked the teacher: "How did they come up with those cartoon drawings of ape-man becoming human...what fossils were actually dug up out of the ground?" Teachers rarely, if ever show (or truly know) what fossils were excavated to make up the ascent of man drawings. (The first thing that shook my faith in evolution was learning how data poor the evidence was, and how imagination rich the "scientists" were in making the ape-man to man drawings). In ninth grade I thought that my science teacher would not present these drawings unless there were many complete fossils that supported the validity of these drawings. But the fossils that produced those drawings are fragmentary! (bits and pieces of fossils) and those fragments can easily be explained as belonging to apes, or in other cases human.

Is it possible that Billyís character was weak? I was an atheist for many years through high school and college but it didnít make me any less "moral." I have always been filled with integrity and honesty, even to this day. I guess some people need to have a security blanket their whole lives. What other conclusion is there?

SUMMARY

I am a Christian and if you are not, I hope some day you will become one, and I hope that the path you take is one of testing and examining with an open mind. I am not shocked or stunned that many people are atheists because I was one for many years. What got me out of my atheist beliefs was not fear from preachers on TV, or a need to put on the appearance of being pious, it was the evidence of Creation versus Evolution. I wanted the truth. I feel the case for Creation is truth, based upon the Laws of Science and observable evidence. I say this lovingly, if you believe the Theory of Evolution is superior to Creation after examining the facts of science and nature, you should ask yourself if something other than the facts are influencing your decision. Some people tell me they are atheists because how could a loving God allow so much suffering in this world? That is a very fair question. But the question addresses the nature of God, not the existence of God. There is grief in everybody's life, Christian and non-Christian. Why? The best answer I have is I don't know. I don't know why loved ones have suffered painful diseases and deaths. I don't know God's plans and God's nature. But I do not have to guess whether God exists or not, it is evident in the Creation. But after determining that there was a Creator, the most important question arises of who was the Creator. I believe it was the God of the Bible primarily because of the validity of the Bible. The following paragraph is just one marvelous aspect of the Bible.

SOME BRIEFS NOTES ON GENESIS CHAPTER 1

The Bible was written in its original text a very long time ago. Many ancient writings of the Bible exist today. Neither Christian, Jew or atheist disputes that. These ancient writings in Genesis chapter one makes three statements about science, that the authors back then would never had made if they followed the conventional wisdom of the world back then. But time has shown their statements to correct, and the popular ideas of men wrong back then. Those three statements are:

1) The Universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1)

2) Continental Drift, all the dry land was gathered in one place (Genesis 1:10)

3) Animals and plants will produce offspring after their own kind (Genesis 1:12, 1:25) Please get back with me with questions, comments and your address if you want the free books. Remember you can call me at my home [714.898.8331], or e-mail using the address above. I am just a Mechanical Engineer who would like nonbelievers to test the case for Evolution against the case for Creation. I had held fast to evolution for years until I had the opportunity to hear the Creation side. I want you to hear it too. For you Christians out there, I also would like to share the Creation case to strengthen your belief and strengthen your witness for when people ask you "why do you believe and why should I?" I teach free classes on this subject and would be happy to give one to any group of Christians or skeptics. Call me and lets set it up. I eagerly look forward to hearing from you!

I hope you have enjoyed my slightly different thoughts on this subject and were not too upset by the vague Biblical references Billy used in his conclusion. I am drawing from roughly three decades of personal experience, a strong background in mathematics, a modest background in physics, years of teaching and a mind that challenges itself and others. As with Billyís last comment, I too would enjoy discussing this subject and any other subject with you. Send e-mail to me by CLICKING HERE.

Be warned: if you contact me and you are a Christian bubblehead that like to live in the land of the make-believe who likes to share fantastical, baseless stories, get ready to have your bubble popped as I did for Billy.

Click here to return to our Articles: liberator.net.