Information for atheists andthose whom the church has abandoned
  Free Beginning (home)  |   about us  |    doctrine   |   privacy  |  site map   |   supporting us

Creation Seminar In Russia

Emails and letters
We Answer
Your Letters

Web Log:
Commentary Blog


Intelligent Design
return to letter

"There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." - microbiologist Dr. James Shapiro, University of Chicago

First we need to to establish a common terminology for discussing this subject, because there are two ways that science is defined in our culture.

Science - Definition One: The systematic knowledge or study of the material world. Science uses experiments and observations and follows the resulting evidence wherever it leads. We do experiments and calculations others can repeat. We start with a hypothosis and empirically determine whether that hypotheses is true or false.

The problem with this is that, since 1859 when Darwin's Theory was put forth, all of our scientific research has not produced one bit of evidence that life formed spontaneously. On the other hand:

"It's really interesting to notice that the more we know about life and the more we know about biology, the more problems Darwinism has and the more design becomes apparent." - Dr. Michael J. Behe, biochemist.

As a result our culture started accepting a second, different definition of science.

Science - Definition Two: This second definition of science is described by Dr. Phillip Johnson:

"Science is applied materialistic philosophy. The scientific enterprise says that our job is to explain the whole world and the cosmos and all the creatures in it without any reference to God as the creator, without any supernatural acts, and on the basis of invariable natural laws that were the same from the beginning--all so that the creating was done by nature itself without God participating. And if you don't do that, it's not science, it's religion."

Now when we raise the question, "Is it possible for nonliving chemicals to combine and become a living organism?" The answer we are given is: yes, of course it is. The proof is that living organisms exist, so it must be possible. (Circular reasoning.)

The problem is that we think we are doing science based on the first definition, but in reality we are doing science based on the second definition of science. Thus the answers we get are based on the unproved, underlying assumption that creation is not possible. If we are to correctly do science based on the second definition (as we now do), we must first address the question, does God exist? We can anser this question using science as described in the first definition and looking at the question of creation.

Here is what Darwin said: "Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations. She can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow, steps."

We find that in over 150 years of effort, there has been no scientific proof that chemicals can combine and become life. We have found no process of short, slow, successive steps that results in life being created. There is no scientific evidence that shows Darwin was right.

On the other hand Darwin gives us the criteria that would prove his therory to be wrong. Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

In Darwin's day the best technology could only allow him to see a living cell as a moving blog of protoplasm. Today, we have the technology that allows us to look inside the cell where we see extremely complex components that look like "machines" and which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications. They had to have been formed complete, with all their parts fully functional. We see this same irreducible complexity in things such as our eyes and blood clotting. If you have a scientic background and would like to get into the science of this, I suggest reading about the work of Dr. Michael Behe. It is available on the Access Research Network.

The criteria set by Darwin himself, using the first definition of science above, have been met. Darwin was wrong. All of the scientific evidence points to there being a God who created life. You can either accept the results of science, or continue to believe the unscientific myth of creationism.