My Grandpa Wasn’t an Ape! (Part 3)

(cc) Miss Moon - Vector Free

(cc) Miss Moon – Vector Free

“Give me five good reasons why I shouldn’t believe the Theory of Evolution!”

Reason 2: Because it’s against the law.

In science, there are hypotheses, there are theories, and there are laws.

A scientific theory “is a broadly-based, widely-accepted hypothesis supported by at least some experimental evidence. It is considered an acceptable answer to explain something unusual.” [1]

“A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.” [2]

Stephen Hawking, one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists, said this about scientific theories in his book A Brief History of Time.

“A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.” [3]

He goes on to state,

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.” [4]

A scientific law is viewed as “reflecting actual regularities in nature”. [5] It is a basic, unchanging principle of the natural physical world. It is always right. “There are no known exceptions to scientific laws; else they would not be laws.” [6]

Now, let’s take a brief look at a couple of scientific laws that fly in the face of the Theory of Evolution.

The Law of Biogenesis …

“The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders). That is, life does not arise from non-living material.” [7]

In other words, living things can only come from other living things. A rock cannot produce a kitty cat. And, living things can only produce other living things like themselves.

  • A spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders.
  • Mama cows don’t give birth to baby horses.
  • Mama chimpanzees don’t give birth to baby humans.
  • Apple trees don’t grow oranges.

“Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mold appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed.” [8]

In 1668, Italian physician and naturalist Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation for large organisms. Louis Pasteur ended the debate over spontaneous generation in 1859 with his famous swan-neck flask experiments. [9]

And yet, according to Nobel laureate and Harvard Biology Professor George Wald, when it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possible explanations: spontaneous generation or supernatural creation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” [10]

The Theory of Evolution rests squarely on the false concept of spontaneous generation (non-living material that exploded in the Big Bang somehow gave rise to living creatures that evolved into other living creatures). Without spontaneous generation, you don’t have the Theory of Evolution.

Therefore, the Theory of Evolution goes completely against the well-established scientific Law of Biogenesis, and is built on the foundation of the scientifically disproved false notion of spontaneous generation.

… and the Bible

Now, just for fun, let’s see how the Bible’s account of creation agrees with the scientific Law of Biogenesis.

Think about this for a moment: the Law of Biogenesis actually requires that there was a supernatural origin to physical life on earth as we know it. Why? Because all physical matter is bound by scientific law.

  • Original physical life cannot have come from non-living material, because that non-living material is bound by scientific law which says that life comes only from life.
  • Original physical life cannot have come from previously-existing living material, because then it would not be original. It would be secondary to whatever the previously-existing living material was. At some point you have to have a starting point.
  • Therefore, original physical life has to have been generated by SOME FORCE that exists OUTSIDE the boundaries of scientific law, something supernatural.

The Bible tells us that God, a supernatural being who exists outside of and therefore is not bound by scientific law, created life on earth.

That actually agrees with the Law of Biogenesis. Life comes from life, and original physical life was created by a supernatural force.

In Genesis 1, the phrase “according to its kind” is used ten times to explain the laws of reproduction that God put into place as He created all forms of life.

  • Fruit seeds would grow fruit trees that would produce the same kind of fruit as that from which the seed came.
  • Fish would reproduce fish.
  • Birds would reproduce birds.
  • Mama cows would have baby cows.
  • Mama snakes would have baby snakes.

Every form of life that God created was created to reproduce “according to its kind”. This agrees perfectly with the Law of Biogenesis.

So, the scientific Law of Biogenesis agrees completely with the Bible’s account of creation, and disagrees completely with the Theory of Evolution.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

“Thermodynamics is a science and, more importantly, an engineering tool used to describe processes that involve changes in temperature, transformation of energy, and the relationships between heat and work.” [11]

The Scientific American states:

“The science of thermodynamics, of which the second law is only one part, dates to an era of technological optimism, the mid-19th century, when steam engines were transforming the world and physicists such as Rudolf Clausius, Nicolas Sadi Carnot, James Joule and Lord Kelvin developed a theory of energy and heat to understand how they work and what limited their efficiency. From these nitty-gritty beginnings, thermodynamics has become one of the most important branches of physics and engineering. It is a general theory of the collective properties of complex systems, not just steam engines but also bacterial colonies, computer memory, even black holes in the cosmos. In deep ways, all these systems behave the same. All are running down, in accordance with the second law.” [12]

One way of stating the Second Law of Thermodynamics is this:

“In a closed or open system, spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order. Energy moves to a lower potential, becoming less available to do work. Things move in a direction from order to chaos.” [13]

In other words, things fall apart. They break down. They decompose. They go from more complex to more simple. They devolve.

Isaac Asimov, a world-famous scientist and evolutionist, explained the Second Law of Thermodynamics like this.

“Another way of stating the second law then is, ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order : how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.” [14]

And so, in relation to this scientifically-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, Andy Carmichael makes this observation.

“This law of science means that if the universe (a closed system) were infinitely old (i.e. without beginning), the universe would now be in a state of complete disorder and would have died the heat death that astronomers predict. Since the universe is not currently in a state of complete disorder, the universe must have had a beginning a finite time ago – and this beginning cannot have been very long ago as everything we see in the universe is still in a state of high order and available energy.” [13]

So the Theory of Evolution, which tells the story of a universe that is billions of years old, does not agree with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Bible, which tells the story of a young earth and young universe, agrees perfectly with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

One other thing: the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that natural processes move things from a state of order to a state of chaos, from complex to simple.

The Theory of Evolution says that living organisms have evolved from single-celled, simple organisms, into infinitely more complex and varied life forms.

That doesn’t fit with the scientifically-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics, either.

The Law of Biogenesis and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Just two of the scientific laws that prove the Theory of Evolution to be false.

Paul O'Rear Signature

 

Image Credit:

  1. Evolution Revolution, by Miss Moon (Vector Free), Creative Commons License.

Sources:

  1. Bert Thompson, and Wayne Jackson, A Study Course in Christian Evidences, (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1992), 42.
  2. Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D. About.com (Part of The New York Times Company), “Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions: Learn the Language of Science.” Accessed September 1, 2012. http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm.
  3. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 9.
  4. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), 10.
  5. David Hull, Philosophy of Biological Science, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1974), 3.
  6. Bert Thompson, and Wayne Jackson, A Study Course in Christian Evidences, (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1992), 42.
  7. Wikipedia contributors, “Biogenesis,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biogenesis&oldid=509839655 (accessed September 2, 2012).
  8. Wikipedia contributors, “Biogenesis,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biogenesis&oldid=250829790 (accessed September 2, 2012).
  9. Timothy Paustian. “The Microbial World: A look at all things small.” Accessed September 2, 2012. http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27.
  10. George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.
  11. Z. S. Spakovszky. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Introduction to Thermodynamics: What it’s All About.” Last modified 2008. Accessed September 2, 2012. http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node10.html.
  12. J. Miguel Rubí. Scientific American, “Does Nature Break the Second Law of Thermodynamics?.” Last modified 2008. Accessed September 2, 2012. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law.
  13. Andy Carmichael. SloppyNoodle, “Why I am Not an Evolutionist … The Science Lecture Class Handout.” Last modified 2003. Accessed September 2, 2012. http://sloppynoodle.com/csotalk2-13.shtml.
  14. Isaac Asimov. “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even.” Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, 6.

Please be respectful of others when posting a comment, even if you disagree with me or with another commenter. I reserve the right to delete any comment that is snarky, offensive, off-topic, or contains profanity. By posting a comment on this blog, you agree to abide by my Comment Policy .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 thoughts on “My Grandpa Wasn’t an Ape! (Part 3)

  1. Excellent article. It is very obvious that you spent much time researching and studying this controversial topic. After examining the research, I just cannot understand why so many people still believe in evolution. Evolutionists constantly claim they have “evidence” which proves their theory however, we (creationists) have the same evidence. I guess some see what they want to believe instead of what God is revealing to mankind. Thank you for all you do!

    • Thanks, Kevin! We live in a world (and even in a country) that is becoming more and more openly hostile toward Judeo-Christian values and principles. Though Evolution is still just a theory – and one with mounting credible evidence against it – somehow the evolutionists get away with teaching Evolution as a proven fact to our impressionable children in schools that are funded by our tax dollars. They arrogantly snub believers, characterizing us as backwards, blind fools. There is bountiful evidence to support the biblical account of Creation and bolster our faith in a loving God. Our kids need to be reminded of this, and shown the evidence, on a regular basis. We all need to be reminded from time to time that IT MAKES SENSE to believe in God!