Darwin And Dogmatism -- Did Evolution Really Occur?

If you are married, and have children, think back to the birth of your first baby. Remember that crying, squalling little bundle of flesh? Remember the delight you felt as you watched that little bundle of joy first smile, and crawl, learn to take his or her first few faltering steps? Remember your joy when your child first broke into an infectious grin, smiling at you with pure joy?

But consider for a moment: Was that little bundle of flesh an accident of evolution?

But let's go back in time. What about the first human baby ever born? Was it the product of something not quite human?

Can all life on earth -- all the estimated three million species of plants and animals, ranging from insects to elephants and from fungi to the giant California redwoods -- be traced back to two amoeba or some such creature that itself evolved from a few scattered chemicals and a dose of sunlight or radiation?

Let's notice what evolutionary scientists postulate as to the origin of life. What tangible evidence exists that life evolved from non-living matter eons ago?

What does science know for certain about the origin of life? Has science demonstrated that life arose from non-living matter through evolutionary processes?

Writes John Pfeiffer: "The origin of life, like the origin of the earth, is a mystery. Man's approach to this mystery has been a mixture of thoughtful conjecture and continuing awe.''

Says this same writer, "...the essential scientific question of how life began remains unsolved. Cell research on the molecular level has revealed many of the processes by which living matter reproduces itself, develops in complexity...But the great gulf between life and non-life remains an enigma. Science can only conjecture about the basic steps of the process."

Does that sound like evolution is amply demonstrated, that it is now impossible for an intelligent, thinking man to believe in a God? Is there now no longer any need or room for the supernatural? Is belief in a God really as unscientific as belief that the earth is flat?

In 1952 an American graduate student in Chemistry, Stanley L. Miller, made an apparatus including glass tubing and a globe-like flask and circulated through it a mixture of water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia and methane. Miller created a 60,000-volt spark inside his apparatus, simulating lightning.

After letting the mixture circulate about a week, Miller studied the resultant solution at the bottom of the flask. He found that several simple carbon compounds had been formed, including amino acids which are the building blocks of proteins. Miller had synthesized four different types of amino acids, besides another half dozen compounds.

Other investigators performed experiments similar to Miller's and found that not only electricity but also ultraviolet light would produce amino acids and other compounds.

What was the real significance of these experiments? Many evolutionists have believed that long, long ago the earth had an atmosphere filled with ammonia, methane, water vapor and hydrogen. Since these experiments revealed that ultraviolet light and electricity can produce amino acids and similar compounds, evolutionists concluded that this is how life probably evolved on earth. Ultraviolet light from the sun and lightning, they concluded, synthesized amino acids and these gradually combined into proteins, enzymes, and evolved eventually into living cells!

Picture the vast primordial ocean. In it simple compounds are converted into more complicated compounds. The lash of ultraviolet light and of lightning causes amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, pentoses and many other types of compounds to be formed. As time crawls on, they gradually thicken the ocean into a soup. More and more compounds are formed, they collide with one another more frequently, and frequently stick together.

Purine and pyrimidine compounds combine with pentoses and phosphates and form "nucleotides." Then two of these combine to form double molecules. One of these may collide and combine with another nucleotide or amino acid to form a triple molecule -- and so forth.

As this process goes on, great numbers of compounds are formed. The multiple amino acids evolve into protein and the multiple nucleotides becomes nucleic acid. Finally, the historic day comes when a nucleic acid molecule and a protein molecule collide, stick together, and form a nucleoprotein -- a nucleoprotein sufficiently complex and properly constructed to be able to self-reproduce.

Life has thus evolved from the not-living!

This is a fascinating, spellbinding melodrama.

But now let's see just how probable, or improbable it is.

Evolutionists themselves sometimes have difficulty believing this incredible theory of the chemical origin of life. One such evolutionist is George Wald, Harvard University, Professor of Biology, writing in the Scientific American.

In an article entitled "The Origin of Life," Wald admits that Louis Pasteur firmly proved that today it is impossible for life to arise from non-living matter. This was the common belief among the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and among most scientists during the Middle Ages. Pasteur, however, performed rigorous experiments which thoroughly demolished this theory. In 1860 Louis Pasteur used a flask containing boiled broth and exposed it to free air from which all microorganisms had been removed. The broth remained clear and sterile indefinitely.

Pasteur's experiments, rigorously performed, demolished the belief in spontaneous generation of life. He proved conclusively that life does not arise from inanimate matter -- life comes only from life!

But if life can come only from the living, where does this leave evolution? It is a difficult problem. In fact, writes Wald: "Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing."

What a remarkable statement! Wald admitted that most biologists are unwilling to accept the belief in special creation -- belief in a Creator God. Yet, unless they can somehow rescue the spontaneous generation hypothesis, they are left with nothing to account for life's existence.

So what is the solution? Says Wald: "I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." Thus, despite the impressive evidence offered by Pasteur, most biologists today conclude life must have arisen by spontaneous generation!

Clearly, evolutionists are men of great faith.

Wald admits, "The most complex machine man has devised -- say an electronic brain -- is child's play compared with the simplest of living organisms." He confesses: "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."

Obviously, here is an example of great faith -- faith in the theory of evolution!

But how can intelligent men "believe" a theory which they admit is proven "impossible"?

Says Wald: "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years.... Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.''

But is this necessarily true? Can time alone work miracles? Can time create life out of the non-living? Can you derive a mathematical formula that will explain the origin of life by the use of time?

Just what is this thing we call "life," anyway? It is very difficult to define life, scientifically. However, we all know that to live an organism must be able to eat, respire, grow, move, reproduce, and expel wastes. We also know that every living creature on earth contains protein.

But what is protein?

Protein molecules always contain atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen, and usually contain sulfur, and perhaps other elements. Protein molecules are very large and complex.

A protein that occurs in milk contains 5,941 atoms and has a molecular weight of 42,020 -- it is 120 times as large as a molecule of table sugar! But even this is a small molecule. Writes Isaac Asimov: "The average protein has a molecular weight of 60,000. Many go much higher. Some of the proteins in clam blood, for instance, have a molecular weight of 4,000,000. And some of the viruses consist of protein molecules with molecular weights in the tens of millions and even the hundreds of millions."

Let's examine a particular protein molecule -- the hemoglobin protein, which is common to many life forms.

Hemoglobin is the chief protein of the red blood cells. It captures oxygen in the lungs and carries it to all the cells of the body where it releases the oxygen and returns to the lungs.

Hemoglobin is a protein of only average size -- comprised of 539 amino acids of twenty different kinds. Scientists have identified the particular amino acids in hemoglobin and the number of each. What are the "chances" that the hemoglobin molecule just accidentally evolved?

Let's assume that we are Las Vegas gamblers. We have a "good hand" -- a group of 539 amino acids -- just the right ones to make hemoglobin. But to win the game each one of these 539 cards must turn up in precisely the right order!

In order for the hemoglobin protein to be formed, these 539 amino acids must go together in just the right sequence, with no mistakes. What are the chances of that happening?

If we had one each of two kinds of amino acids, they could be arranged in only 4 different ways -- aa, ab, bb, and ba. If we had a molecule consisting of three amino acids, any one of the three could be in the first position, the second position, and the third position. Thus the total number of possible combinations would be 3x3x3 or 27.

How many possible combinations would there be to a hemoglobin molecule containing 539 amino acids with 20 possible amino acids at each position? The correct answer is obtained by multiplying 20 by itself 539 times. The total number of combinations possible would be 20539.

The answer is a fantastic, totally incomprehensible number which far exceeds all the estimated stars in the universe (which has been estimated at 1022 or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars)! The total number of possibilities turns out to be 1.8 x 10701. In other words, that's 18 followed by 700 zeroes. Here's what that number would look like:

The human mind cannot possibly comprehend the size of such a number, but let's try to put it into perspective. Scientists estimate the age of the universe as about six billion years -or 6 x 109 years. The human population of the earth, today, is 3.5 billion -- or 3.5 x 109.

If we had a universe containing a trillion (1012) galaxies, each galaxy composed of a trillion stars like our sun, and each sun orbited by 10 planets like our earth (obviously preposterous), and if on each of these planets you had ten billion inhabitants, and if each of these inhabitants had the same amount of blood as the average human being (and so the total amount of red blood cells on just one planet would be 2 x 1023), and if each blood cell contained 3 x 108 hemoglobin molecules -- then the total number of hemoglobin molecules in the whole universe would be 6 x 1056. Compared to the possible combinations of the 539 amino acids in hemoglobin (1.8 x 10701), this number is infinitesimally small -- virtually zero !

But let's make the game even more interesting. Let's say you have a billion new hemoglobin molecules for each original one every second for the 6 billion years some scientists guess that the universe has been around. During that span of time, almost 2 x 1017 seconds would have elapsed. Therefore, with a billion new hemoglobin molecules replacing each original one every second, the total number you'd have had after 6 billion years would be 1.2 x 1083 hemoglobin molecules -- and this number would still be totally insignificant compared to the total possible combinations of the amino acids in just one hemoglobin molecule!!!

Even given all these things, the chances of evolving just one hemoglobin molecule would be roughly one in 1.5 x 10618 (or one chance in 15 followed by 617 zeroes)!

Are you beginning to get the picture? Are you beginning to see the point?

By indulging in this little mathematical game, we should be able to see with greater clarity than ever why even the evolution of ONE average-size molecule such as hemoglobin -even if we are given the amino acids to work with -- is as IMPOSSIBLE as anything could ever be!

No Las Vegas gambler would ever place a bet on such an occurrence. The chances of winning would be ridiculously minute.

"But," evolutionists might argue, "there is still a chance -- one chance. It could happen."

Technically, they have a point. But that whimsical occurrence-as breathtaking as it might be -- still would only be one tiny hemoglobin molecule!

In his book Human Destiny, Lecompte du Nuoy, a French biochemist, computed the probability that a random sequence of amino acids would duplicate any given protein. If the protein were 100 amino acids long and each amino acid slot may be filled by any one of 20 amino acids, the chances of random assembly of a given protein would be one in 20100, or 10130. This figure is vastly greater than the number of elementary particles in the universe, 1080. Lecompte du Nuoy concluded that life could not have arisen by mere chance!

Incredibly smaller than the chance of assembling even the above protein would be randomly assembling a DNA molecule from nucleotide phosphates. I.S. Shklovskil and Carl Sagan in Intelligent Life in the Universe showed that one could perform the exercise of reassembling the DNA molecules one a second for the lifetime of the Galaxy and not come close to assembling one of his own or anyone else's chromosomes. They suggest, however improbable by chance, such might have come about by natural selection which serves as a sort of probability sieve, extracting those structures and functions which better adapt the organism to its environment.

This suggestion, however, has been refuted by L. E. Orgel. He points out the rather obvious fact that natural selection cannot operate until nucleic acid replication is underway. A self-replicating molecule arising by mere chance would, therefore, still seem to be an awesomely improbable event!

Peter T. Mora put his finger judiciously on the core of the problem. He questions the assumption that "given enough time" anything can happen. Says Mora: "A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero." Zero !

Mora clarifies what he is discussing:

Something is seriously wrong with a theory that forces scientists to resort to such mathematical charades.

Nevertheless, skeptics of creation refuse to face the obvious. It is not very fashionable among active scientists to postulate a divine Creator, in this age of materialism.

Declares J.D. Bernal in The Origin of Life: "It is difficult to imagine a god of any kind occupying himself creating, by some spiritual micro-chemistry, a molecule of deoxyribonucleic acid which enabled the primitive organism to grow and multiply. The whole hypothesis has now come to its natural end in absurdity."

But such imagery and assumptions prove nothing at all about the creation process. Evolutionists are still faced with critical and unsolved problems in the origin of life.

Biologists used to believe that cells were very simple little blobs of protoplasm, or "living stuff." Until a relatively few years ago, man's concept of the cell was greatly limited. Evolution of a cell, evolutionists believed, did not seem to present much of a problem.

But with the invention of the electron microscope about 30 years ago, a whole new microscopic world of startling complexity was revealed! The electron microscope has revealed much more detail of the interior of the cell. Biologists were astonished to discover that the cell, far from being a "simple" little entity, was incredibly complex!

The electron microscope revealed that the interior of cells contain a network of micro-tunnels, known as the endoplasmic reticulum, which extends throughout the cell much like blood vessels. Also, it showed the existence of tiny cellular "factories," called ribosomes, which manufacture the protein compounds that compose a large part of living organisms. A cell may have thousands of such ribosome "factories." Also discovered were mysterious areas called Golgi complexes, named after Camillo Golgi, the Italian physician who discovered them. The Golgi complexes are hollow, saucer-like discs stacked on top of each other. They appear to function as a protein packaging warehouse for the cell.

Another electrifying discovery was objects within the cell which appeared to be cells within the cell. Called mitochondria, they turned out to be the chief power plants of the cell. An estimated 90 percent of the chemical energy required by the cell comes from reactions which occur in the chambers and compartments of the mitochondria. An average cell contains about 1,000 mitochondria. The interior of mitochondria has been described as resembling a cutaway model of an ocean liner. In some cells, the mitochondria move, twist, and slither about, constantly splitting and fusing and forming intricate systems in the cytoplasm.

The membrane which surrounds a cell is not merely a "bag" that holds it together. Rather, it is dynamically active and utilizes complex mechanisms to admit or exclude various molecules. Just how it does this is one of the head-scratching problems facing modern cytologists.

Another sub-cellular mystery involves lysosomes. These objects apparently consist of a single outer membrane which houses a powerful fluid that is rich in destructive hydrolase and acidic phosphatase enzymes. Lysosomes appear to serve as tiny policemen or scavengers in the cell. Their functions may include the self-digestion of dead cells, the consumption of mitochondria which are no longer needed or useful, the liberation of food within a cell, and cell defense -- the destruction of invading bacteria or dangerous foreign proteins that may enter the cell.

Lysosomes have been found in cells of the kidney, spleen, thyroid and in certain protozoa. Their internal enzymes are capable of hastening the breakdown of proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and organic compounds of sulfur and phosphorus.

Biologists are still puzzled about what makes the lysosome membrane able to withstand its vitriolic, destructive contents!

Almost everything the cell does is supervised by the nucleusthe control center or "brains" of the cell. The nucleus carries the hereditary traits of the cell and is responsible for reproduction, as well as supervision of the cell's manifold activities. The nucleus is highly complex -- unbelievably so!

The nucleus of a human cell, for example, contains 46 threadlike chromosomes. These are composed of smaller segments called genes. There may be as many as 1,250 genes on a single human chromosome.

What are genes composed of?

In several important experiments performed between 1941 and 1944, Dr. Oswald T. Avery and two colleagues at the Rockefeller Institute discovered that genes are composed of protein coatings and nucleic acid -- actually, deoxyribonucleic acid, called DNA.

Nucleic acids are composed of building blocks known as nucleotides. A nucleotide is a molecule made up of phosphate groups, five carbon sugars, and nitrogen bases. There are two different series of nucleotides. One is characterized by ribose sugar, and the other deoxyribose sugar. "Deoxy" merely means "minus one oxygen." The only difference between these two types of sugar is one lacks an oxygen atom.

The nucleotides containing deoxyribose sugar are linked together in long chains to form deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). The nucleotides containing ribose sugar make up ribonucleic acid (RNA). The function of RNA is to build the proteins specified by the nucleotide sequences of the DNA molecules.

This discovery was corroborated by succeeding experiments, and scientists now know that DNA contains the basic "code of life." The DNA structure determines the cell's hereditary traits; it is like a master blueprint.

Analysis of the DNA molecule itself showed it is a giant molecule composed of simple sugars known as deoxyribose, phosphates, and four nitrogen compounds. These compounds or bases are called adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine (A, T, C, and G for short).

How are these ingredients put together to form the DNA molecule? In 1953 James D. Watson and Francis H. C. Crick attempted to make a model of DNA. They described it as a twisting ladder, with the sugars and phosphates forming the frame and the bases forming the rungs. According to their theory, each rung is composed of two bases joining at the middle.

How much DNA does a living cell contain? The coiled DNA in a simple virus may be a "ladder" 1/2,000 of an inch long, containing 170,000 "rungs." By comparison, the DNA in a single human cell, if it were unraveled and stretched out, would extend for three feet and contain about six billion "rungs." Thus, the DNA molecule in a human being is incredibly complex -- yet it is all contained in the tiny nucleus of each living cell.

Writes John Pfeiffer: "All the DNA instruction for a human being, if spelled out in English, would require several sets of a 24-volume encyclopedia.'' He adds that if the DNA in every human cell were put end to end, it would stretch for about 10 billion miles!

Scientists believe that heredity is determined by the particular structure and form of the DNA molecule. The structure of the DNA molecule spells out a "sentence" making up a long coded message or blueprint. This message or blueprint can transmit a tremendous amount of genetic data. "Statistically," says John Pfeiffer, "this means that the number of ways to spell the complete message of life is greater than the number of subatomic particles in the solar system."

DNA does more than mastermind reproduction, however. It also directs the manufacture of thousands of proteins by dispatching precise "blueprints" -- in the form of "messenger RNA" molecules-- which direct protein construction in conjunction with the ribosomes and transfer RNA's of the cell.

Does all this sound complex? It is! Micro-chemists are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of DNA and RNA.

But the question facing evolutionary theory is -- how such an intricate, complex, perfectly functioning system "just evolved" at random from atoms and simple molecules found in nature?

Can your mind really accept the theory that all the complex DNA molecules -- the nuclei of living cells, carrying the "code of life" and containing millions of vital "instructions" which dictate heredity and cell metabolism -- slowly, effortlessly, and gradually evolved from random atoms?

Can you believe the seemingly miraculous properties of DNA are merely due to lucky happenstance -- that these incredible molecules somehow were designed and built by an "accident" of nature and that there was no Creator?

The living cell is not a "simple blob of protoplasm." Rather, it has been compared to a bustling metropolis, a complex society comparable to New York City -- but with no pollution problem, no garbage strikes, an efficient police department, an effective fire department, smooth-running (and non-polluting) factories, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes and power plants.

Compared to the smooth-functioning of a living cell, man's huge metropolises such as London, Tokyo, or New York City are monstrous examples of inefficiency, waste, confusion, and chaos!

If a cell were as chaotic and inefficient as a man-made city, it would not survive! Says one college level text:

Truly, the living cell is an awesome thing -- making the greatest works of men look sickly and insignificant in comparison!

Could all cells have accidentally evolved?

When I tour a factory, a steel mill, a nuclear electric generating plant, I know that they had to be designed and built by highly intelligent men. I know without even questioning that such plants or factories were manmade. All the compartments, pipes, valves, redundant safety devices, turbines, wires, dials, control room gadgets, computers, fuel rods, cranes, tanks, etc., that make up the San Onofre nuclear generating facility near San Clemente, California, did not accidentally fall together over a period of time, or evolve mindlessly. That plant was carefully, cautiously designed by human creators.

When I drive through a bustling city such as London, Rome, Zurich, Los Angeles, Boston, or New York, I know those cities were built. Generations of men built the highways, streets, roads, put up the telephone lines, constructed the sewers, erected the factories, markets, houses, offices, government buildings. I know cities did not gradually evolve from the random action of molecules or atoms.

Yet the staggering efficiency and complexity of the cell puts man's cities to shame. Since I know even man's cities reveal that they had to have a designer and maker, I am even more convinced that the construction of a living cell reveals the existence of a Master-Designer, and a Master-Craftsman.

The sheer unbelievable complexity of a living cell attests to the existence of a Divine Designer -- a Supreme Organizer -- YEHOVAH God.

As biochemist Duane T. Gish, who helped elucidate the chemical structure of the protein of tobacco mosaic virus, wrote:

Cytologist and zoologist L.F. Gardiner said:

How could mere atoms organize themselves in such a manner that would perpetuate the resulting organized system? It is inconceivable. Assuming that nucleotide phosphates spontaneously assembled into polynucleotides that were capable of self-replication, eventually all the nucleotides in the ocean would have been tied up in polynucleotides, "and the entire synthetic process would then have ground to a halt." Since polynucleotides have no catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties, both are necessary to make life possible. But how did they come together in partnership eons ago? How did the genetic code originate?

It is a bit puzzling to all scientists.

Absent? But then how was the genetic code developed? How did it first begin operation? And how did these vital substances necessary for life themselves evolve?

How did such an incredible thing as the living cell evolve?

Consider the dilemma of an evolutionist. He is a learned man. He knows that only living cells can create proteins and enzymes.

He knows that living organisms can build up complex compounds and molecules from simple ones. But can natural forces -- the lifeless elements of the world -- build up such incredibly complex molecules? His theory requires it.

Says William Stokes after discussing such problems:

That's quite a question!

"Indeed," the author concludes, " the problem verges on the absurd. How can anything begin that needs for its beginning something that it must create before it can begin?"

That is the mind-paralyzing paradox evolutionists still have not been able to answer. How could they? The whole problem seems illogical -- insane.

However, evolutionists are unwilling to admit defeat. They will never give up. Says this same writer: "...we cannot admit defeat as long as any avenue for research remains unexplored."

Incomprehensible? Indeed yes, for evolutionary theory which seems to stumble endlessly and repeatedly upon its own shoelaces. Life is incomprehensible from an evolutionary point of view. Probability theory digs evolution's grave and then the living cell buries it!

The Creationist, however, can look at the marvels of life, and its complexity, and worship the Creator, the author of life and its mysteries.

Just what do we mean when we talk about "evolution"? Does the Bible tell us that the theory of the evolution of life is wrong? Or could YEHOVAH God have created all things through an evolutionary process?

There are four major beliefs. The materialistic approach states that all things, including life on earth, slowly evolved without divine or outside interference or guidance.

The theistic evolution approach states that YEHOVAH God did create all things, but He did so in an evolutionary manner. Another concept is the "progressive creation" approach. It says that YEHOVAH created all things and every form of life. He did so over millions of years, probably, in a gradual, progressive manner, leading up to man, the crown of His creation.

The fourth concept is the "sudden creation" theory. It states that YEHOVAH created all the universe and all life forms instantaneously, by divine fiat, over a period of six days, approximately 4,000 B.C. Many "creationists" subscribe to the latter theory.

Besides these four main categories of belief, there are no doubt many subcategories, with varying degrees of divergence.

Which of these theories is most logical? Which is right? Is there any way in which we can know?

In order to obtain a better view of the problem, we must clearly define just what we are talking about when we say "evolution."

Automobile manufacturers in Detroit sometimes refer to the "evolution of the automobile." We hear expressions from time to time about the "evolution of the airplane," or the "evolution of the steamboat."

Technically, however, none of these things actually "evolved," in the biological sense of the word. It would be more accurate to speak of the "development" of the automobile, the airplane, or the steamboat.

Nevertheless, if you walk through an automobile museum, and see the early Stanley Steamers, the Model "A" Fords, the early Chevrolets, and progress until you come to the modern automobiles, including the Ford LTD, the Mercedes Benz, the Jaguar XKE, and Toyota Celica, you will no doubt see a "natural progression" or "evolution." The latest models will be much more powerful, sleek, and hopefully efficient than the earlier models.

Thus in the case of the automobile, for example, we see "evolution" -- but of course automobiles all have designers, creators, and thousands of men involved in their assembly. They did not "evolve" by blind chance; they are not the product of accident; the glass, rubber, steel, leather, and other metals did not "put themselves together." The batteries, hydraulic systems, brakes, radios, air conditioning systems, transmissions, gas tanks, trunks, seat cushions, etc., did not design and fashion themselves out of the raw materials in the earth!

Is it any more reasonable, then, to think that the beautifully designed forms of life on earth somehow designed, fashioned and manufactured themselves out of the raw materials available?

There is a General Theory of Evolution, which states that all life forms evolved from simple, remote ancestors. There is also a Specific Theory of Evolution, which attempts to trace evolutionary progress of a specific organism and its variation and mutation down through geologic history.

Julian Huxley, in Issues in Evolution, put the General Theory this way: "Evolution is a one-way process, irreversible in time, producing apparent novelties and greater variety, and leading to higher degrees of organization, more differentiated, more complex, but at the same time more integrated.''

Charles Darwin, the modern father of evolutionary theory, defined evolution as "the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one...pri-mordial form."

How does this evolution ostensibly occur?

Let's take a look at the theories which have been presented, and examine some of the supposed "evidence" to support evolution.

More than one hundred and fifty years ago the French evolutionist Lamarck sought to explain how evolution worked. His theory was that environment caused an animal to acquire certain characteristics, and these were passed on to the offspring. Thus, when drought struck Africa, giraffes had to develop long necks to get to the leaves way up in the trees. Gradually, therefore, the ancient giraffes developed long necks.

Why other animals living in drought-stricken areas did not also grow long necks was never explained. And why the giraffe today lives on the plains and also eats grass was ignored.

Lamarck also had an explanation for the long legs of the flamingo. Supposedly, its ancestors had short legs; but since the flamingo loved to wade out into the water to get its dinner, gradually, over eons of time, its legs grew longer. Strange, that those ancient flamingos did not find some easier way to get their dinner -- such as learn to eat insects instead of fish, or learn to swim like a duck!

Lamarck's theories have been rejected by most evolutionists today. Darwin himself declared, "Heaven defend me from Lamarck's nonsense." Scientists have long since come to see that acquired characteristics are not inherited by offspring.

For instance, if a person cuts off his arm, his children will not be born armless. If he plucks out his eyes, his children will not be born missing their eyes!

It was August Weismann, who dealt the deathblow to Lamarck's theory. He reared twenty-two generations of mice and amputated their tails. Sad for the theory of Lamarck, the mice of the last generation grew tails just as long as those of the first generation. Not a single tailless mouse was born!

Nonetheless, theories of science die hard. Many scientists had firmly believed that Lamarck was right. In the early 1920's an obscure Viennese scientist Paul Kammerer wrote a book purporting to show environment could definitely change heredity. For a time his discoveries and experiments were widely hailed, the British acclaimed him, the Russians rolled out the red carpet when he visited Moscow.

But then others began putting Kammerer's experiments to the acid test. Doubts grew. Finally, an American scientist investigated the circumstances and findings of Kammerer's experiments, and found that someone had perpetrated a hoax. Whether it was Kammerer himself, or whether he had been a tragic victim of the hoax was debatable. But the greatly shaken Kammerer chose to commit suicide after the exposure!

Darwin, of course, is widely regarded as the true father of the theory of evolution. Although his claim to this title is certainly open to question, it cannot be denied that his theory of natural selection created an uproar when first published, and has since been embraced by most of the world, at least in part.

Darwin's theory was based on two primary observations first, the existence of variations among living things; second, the perpetual struggle for existence among living things.

Darwin taught the doctrine of the survival of the fittest. Those animals more fit to cope with their environments were the ones to survive; those not so fortunate, perished in extinction! And in this way, according to Darwin, animals evolved into more fit, higher forms of life.

The world was enthralled. Darwin's name went into the history books. But his theory has run into stormy weather. Whereas American scientists tend to praise Charles Darwin, French scientists have attacked his theories for many years.

A few years ago, in fact, the French magazine Science et Vie ran a two-page title asking seriously, "Should We Burn Darwin?" The author of the article concluded that Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection belonged to the past -- it is obsolete. Today, almost all French specialists have strong reservations as to the validity of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Hugh de Vries many years ago declared: "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest."

Thus Darwin's theory begged the question of the arrival of species, merely giving a partial explanation of how animals and species survive.

Natural selection, or even artificial selection through breeding, has no power in creating anything new. The most fundamental problem with the theory of natural selection is that it cannot originate new characteristics -- it only selects among characteristics already existing.

As early as 1921 the weaknesses in the theory had become obvious. One scientist, in an article appearing in Nature, September 29, 1921, declared: "A new generation has grown up that knows not Darwin"'!

One of the major problems perplexing evolutionists today is that of the existence of "species."

The plant kingdom has about 300,000 species, with 200,000 of them being found among the flowering plants. There are about one million classified animal species, with an estimated two million more yet to be described. Of the million known animal species, there are about 750,000 insects, and of these, about 650,000 are beetles.

But just what is a "species"? There is little agreement. The generally accepted definition of a species limits members of the same species to those which are capable of interbreeding, having offspring fully fertile, and usually separated from other species by differences of structure and appearance.

Historically, some scientists mistakenly equated their ideas of "species" with the kinds of animals mentioned in the book of Genesis. They assumed that what they labeled a "species" always reproduced after its own species, and therefore believed it was identical with the "Genesis kind." Then, when a new variety developed from that particular species, and did not interbreed with the parent stock, scientists assumed that a new "species"-or kind -- of animal had arisen. They erroneously concluded that this discredited the Biblical statement that each kind reproduced after its kind.

The fallacy of such reasoning is obvious. Genesis "kinds" are not necessarily the same as "species." In fact, the evidence shows that in many cases there is a vast difference between what scientists label a "species" and what the Bible calls a "kind."

For example, the Bible speaks of the "owl kind" (Lev. 11:17), but modern taxonomists speak of the owl as a complete "order" in their classification systems.

What are called "species," today, are in many instances mere varieties and not new "kinds" in the Genesis sense of the word. We must not confuse Genesis kinds with what scientists label as "species." That is the common mistake made by many people, today, including most evolutionists.

Although it is true that new "species" arise in nature, this fact does not contradict the fact that Genesis kinds always reproduce after their own kind.

Early in the 15th century, a litter of rabbits was released in Porto Santo island near Madeira. Since there were no other rabbits on the island, and no enemies of the rabbit either, the rabbits multiplied rapidly. By the 19th century they were strikingly different from the ancestral European stock -- only half as large, had a different color pattern, and most important, could no longer breed with members of the European species. Within four hundred years, then, a new species of rabbit had developed. But this fact in no way proved the theory of evolution true.

It is now well established that for a group of animals to become a new species, they must be prevented from breeding with their relatives, and thereby transmitting to them the changes in their genes that may have appeared. The normal way to prevent such interbreeding is by some form of isolation. In nature, this may occur as a result of separation by a physical barrier, such as a mountain range, a desert, a river, glacier, or ocean.

Geographic isolation, however, is seldom permanent. Therefore two isolated groups may eventually come into contact again and interbreed unless genetic isolation or sterility has arisen in the meantime.

These so-called "new species" remain very similar to the original ancestral stock. They are not really totally new kinds of animal at all in the Biblical sense. They constitute a major variation within the original kind of animal. The new "species" of rabbits on Porto Santo island were still rabbits!

Although changes in a particular species have undoubtedly combined to provide a new closely related so-called "species," evolutionists have never demonstrated that such changes ever produce an entirely different kind of animal! Dogs always reproduce dogs. Cows always reproduce cows, and so on.

It is important to realize that such changes or variations within the original Genesis "kinds" are often cited to "prove" the theory of evolution. Such relatively minor changes do constitute "changes" all right, but can be explained as variations within the original Genesis kind. To use such "changes" (within the Genesis "kinds" God created) to substantiate the theory of evolution is like calling apples oranges. It is a complete mislabeling, and leads to erroneous conclusions.

Evolutionists assume that these lesser changes will eventually-- given enough time -- lead to the innovation of entirely new kinds of animals.

But that is pure assumption!

Evolutionists, after years of attempts, have never shown that the basic "kinds" can change into another kind. How then, could they "prove" evolution?

In the search for proof, evolutionists at one time turned to "vestigial organs." These are "useless" organs which supposedly remain from previous evolutionary forms. At one time necessary to the organism, they have long since become useless.

But do such organs really exist, except in the minds of evolutionists?

These "useless organs" have, in the past, been called the "showpieces" of evolution. Some textbooks claim that the human body resembles an "old curiosity shop" -- filled with useless relics! "In the human body there are more than 100 such vestigial organs, including the appendix, the coccyx (the fused tail vertebrae), the wisdom teeth, the nictitating membrane of the eye, the body hair and the muscles that move the ears," says one authority. The tonsils and all the endocrine organs were at one time included in this category.

As long as no function was known for an organ evolutionists freely called it a "vestigial" organ. However, in recent years, due to the findings of modern research, there has been less and less emphasis on this "proof" of evolution. Some current textbooks don't even mention it. As man's knowledge increases more vital functions are being found for these "apparently useless" organs!

For example, one time scientists considered both the tonsils and the appendix to be "vestigial." Actually they are part of the body's defense system. They are composed of lymphoid tissue which manufactures white blood cells and possibly antibodies which contribute to the body's resistance. The appendix may also protect the body against various types of cancer.

The coccyx, which consists of several vertebrae fused together in the sacral region of the spinal column, are said to be part of a "vestigial tail." In reality these bones provide attachment sites for several muscles that support the organs of the pelvic cavity. Pictures that purport to show human beings with a tail, when the source is investigated, begin to look more like a "tall tale" than a real "tail"!

Until recently, the pineal gland, a small pea-sized organ located in the brain, had been regarded by some as "...a vestigial organ homologous to the pineal sense organ of the lower vertebrates." The structure was classified as a rudimentary organ in man due to its small size and because it had no ascertainable function. Once again, assumptions have proven erroneous. Current evidence indicates that this "vestigial" organ "is one of the most biochemically active and complicated organs in the body.''

Supposed "vestigial" organs do not prove evolution. In fact, evolutionists have never demonstrated that such organs really exist. This so-called "proof'" of evolution is proven to be more and more an argument from ignorance as time goes on!

Similarity between developing embryos of animals is also supposed to constitute a formidable proof of evolution. This theory declares that stages of previous evolutionary steps are "recapitulated" in the embryos of supposedly later, more complex evolutionary descendants. According to E. H. Haeckel, an early advocate of this theory, "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny." Simply explained, this means that the evolutionary path of the animal is "recorded" in the embryo of the creature!

Haeckel asserted, "The developmental history of ontogeny of every multicellular organism recapitulates the various stages of its ancestry and thereby every organism resembles roughly at each stage of its development the form of one of its ancestors."

This theory was at one time highly regarded. It was -- and still is -- stressed in biological and zoological texts. Students were taught it, and tested on it.

At first zoologists paid attention only to discoveries which seemed to corroborate the theory, neglecting those which cast unfavorable light on it. The theory was held in the highest repute for years! But research continued, investigation proceeded, and gradually more and more facts came to light which did not agree with the theory.

Fatal to the theory is the fact that plants simply do not develop accordingly. And since plants and animals, came, supposedly, from a common ancestor, this is hard for evolutionists to explain. Also fatal to the theory is the fact that embryos of closely related species pursue very different courses of embryonic development.

So a compromise was made. Scientists claimed that embryonic development does not repeat every stage of the supposed evolutionary ancestry. But as more compromises were required scientists became disenchanted with the theory -- and today Haeckel's ontological theories have been generally abandoned. Nevertheless, evolutionists will still at times cite its teachings in school texts to buttress their arguments for evolution!

Claims Claude Villee, "...studies of anatomy, physiology and biochemistry of modern plants and animals, their embryologic and genetic histories, and the manner in which they are distributed over the earth's surface, would provide overwhelming proof that organic evolution has occurred."

This biologist states that comparisons of the structure of groups of animals and plants show that organ systems have a fundamentally similar pattern. He asserts that the existence of "homologous organs," or organs which are basically similar in structure, embryonic development, and relationships to adjacent structures, "is a strong argument for a common evolutionary origin."

Is that claim true? Could not such organs, as the wing of a bird and forelimb of a horse, be explained just as easily by means of the fact that the same Creator God made them all -- He designed them for similar purposes and functions in all these animals? Similarities in design of organs could be cited as proof that these animals had the same original Designer -- rather than that they evolved from the same ancient ancestor!

The same fact applies equally to similarities in the function of important physiologic processes and similarities in blood chemistry. Even though the process of respiration, digestion, circulation, etc., is the same in certain other animals as it is in humans, this does not prove evolution -- it could equally demonstrate that all these animals were designed along the same lines by their original designer -- YEHOVAH God!

Although thousands of tests reveal different animals have a basic similarity between their blood proteins, and even though man's closest 'blood relations," as determined by such similarities, are the great apes, this fact does not prove evolution. It merely shows the similarity between apes and men insofar as blood chemistry is concerned. But just by looking at the great apes, a person can see plainly that man resembles them more than he does, for instance, a tree squirrel, a little monkey, a rabbit, a fox, a rat, a deer, or a bird or reptile!

According to evolutionists, "The present distribution of organisms is understandable only on the basis of the evolutionary history of each species."

But is this true? To assert that certain animals and plants are present in one region of the world but are not found in another region where they could just as easily survive can only be explained by "their evolutionary history" is very misleading. Evolutionary theory is only one explanation for distribution of animals. The creation theory can also account for it. As the original Genesis kinds diversified and developed into many new varieties, they adapted to various ecological niches.

One who believes in a Creator God can easily account for the geographic distribution of animals. First, YEHOVAH God created various animals to live in particular habitats. He created gorillas, lions, and elephants to live in Central Africa -- not in Brazil. Just as YEHOVAH divided to the children of men their inheritances, so He divided to the animals their particular habitats (see Deuteronomy 32:8). Secondly, animals tend to dwell wherever the climate is suitable for them. This fact, however, in no way supports evolution as against creation.

When one considers the weight of the evidence, thus far observed, one begins to wonder how men who are intelligent and educated can subscribe to evolutionary theory. But they do.

Dr. Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize-holding chemist of the University of California at La Jolla, admitted that "all of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere." And yet, he added, "We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine it did."

Noted evolutionist and paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson in his book This View of Life, admitted in regard to animal behavior:

It is a habit of speech and thought to say that fishes have gills in order to breathe water, that birds have wings in order to fly, and that men have brains in order to think.

A telescope, a telephone, or a typewriter is a complex mechanism serving a particular function. Obviously, its manufacturer had a purpose in mind, and the machine was designed and built in order to serve that purpose. An eye, an ear, or a hand is also a complex mechanism serving a particular function. It, too, looks as if it had been made for a purpose.

Nevertheless, Simpson believes there is a natural, material explanation for all these things. He looks to "creative natural selection" as the answer.

Look at your hand. Manipulate your fingers. Flex the muscles of your arm. Think about the intricacy of the combination of muscles, tendons, bones, cartilage, blood vessels, blood fluid and corpuscles, and the network of nerves.

Think how these parts of your arm, hand, and fingers, all work together harmoniously, as if by design.

Consider, too, the similar interrelationships among all life forms. To produce such adapted types by pure chance re-combinations of genes via mutations and natural selection -- as even Julian Huxley admitted -- "would require a total assemblage of organisms that would more than fill the universe, and overrun astronomical time.''

Yet evolutionists believe it happened. Surely they are men of incredible faith!

Life is full of mystery. Whether you plumb the unfathomable mysteries of outer space and the void of the immense cosmos, or you explore the bizarre realm of the atom and the minute points of energy, creation proves to be dazzling and bewildering, strange and marvelous. And no less awesome is the fascinating realm of life -- all living creatures, from the lowly paramecium and its odd sex habits, to the ocean-cruising deadly man-of- war.

What is behind this incredible unifying thread of universal mystery? Can it all be explained by the evolutionary perspective -- the framework of evolutionary theory? Or is evolutionary belief laughably narrow in its attempt to explain the unexplainable?

Is evolutionary theory a primary concomitant of man's colossal arrogance -- his belief that he is the fortuitous end product of a long chain of evolutionary developments?

Evolutionists often are heard to ridicule any who dispute the general theory of evolution, holding them up as objects of abuse, jokes, remnants of the 18th century, victims of superstition. Under the banner of academic freedom, they attack all who profess belief in a divine creation, whether or not they think such a divine act took place just 6,000 years ago. It seemingly does not matter to them that Darwinism has never been proved either true or useful. They are not overly concerned that part of the theory is based on physical evidence (the age of the earth, the random decay of radioactive elements, the succession of fossils in the geologic strata, minor mutations), and part on pure speculation (all life evolved from a common ancestor, mutations and natural selection cause changes from one species into another ad infinitum, original primordial life arose out of a chance combination of non-living elements, peptide chains and the grouping of amino acids). Regardless of these facts, evolution is generally presented in the form of case-closed fact. When admitted to be a theory, it is always passed off as the "only acceptable theory for educated man."

But is it any wonder that parallel with the rise of Darwinism in the scientific world has been a general casting adrift of the moral anchor of society, and a coinciding lowering of ethics, morals, and respect for tradition, religious faith, and the Judeo-Christian foundation of society?

We live in perilous times. No one fully knows just how much of this modern peril is due, at least in part, to the philosophy enjoined by the teaching of Darwinism, evolution, and anti supernatural rationalism. Undoubtedly, many of the atheistic, godless dialectics owe their origin in no small measure to the influence of Darwinism and evolutionary theory, subverting religious faith and undermining belief in the existence of a super-powerful Creator God and the veracity of His revealed Word to mankind.

Evolution says that the "hypothesis of God" is unnecessary. But with what are the evolutionists going to replace the "hypothesis of God?" Pure randomness? Chance? Coincidence built on top of unbelievable coincidence, in turn built on top of more series of coincidences? On nothing at all?

If there be no God, then where does evolutionary theory lead us? To a blind end? To an unsure, whimsical, capricious faith in "nothing?" To an unreasoning faith in man himself?

When the evolutionist does away with faith in a Creator God, a faith impelled and empowered and attested to by the marvelous mysteries and miracles of Creation all around us, then the evolutionist leaves mankind without hope, without a sure anchor of the soul, without a tangible, purposeful goal in life, without a purpose for his being.

Are we mere accidents in the eons of a cosmic universe, an effervescent, evanescent ripple in the ocean of time? Or were we planned, designed, created for a purpose?

In a recent article in Intellectual Digest entitled "Does Matter Exist?" physicist Allen D. Allen marvels at the problem of finding the basic unit of matter. In fact, he writes: "We have decided that it doesn't exist. After all, every time we think we've found it, it turns out that we haven't."

Allen and his colleagues suggest that perhaps the ultimate reality is not mere objects, particles, or matter, but rather fundamental laws of physics, such as the law of the conservation of momentum and the law of the conservation of energy. So long as we obey these laws, we can create any matter we have the means to produce. Says Allen:

Allen maintains that it is theoretically possible to disprove that a particle is elemental by simply splitting it into smaller particles. But, says he, it is impossible, even in theory, to disprove the assumption that a particle is not elemental -- that it could be split given enough energy and opportunities. All that can be proved is that it cannot be split in such a way that would violate the laws of physics. Thus laws, rather than particles, may be the ultimate reality.

This is a novel hypothesis, and is strikingly reminiscent of certain profound statements in the Bible. Declares Allen:

Thus as research continues, it seems that the age old rift between science and theology is gradually being repaired, healed, narrowed, and abolished. Of course, as long as there are errors in either theological thinking, based on false assumptions or inaccurate interpretations, or as long as errors exist in scientific theories, hypotheses, there will continue to be a rift of greater or lesser proportions. But as we all grow in truth, and a correct evaluation of the data, these differences will continue to lessen, until they finally disappear when the grand, ultimate unifying Reality becomes obvious.

Thus, there is no necessary difference between science and theology when it comes to understanding the origin of the cosmos. But what about the fate of the universe?

Presently, the cosmos appears to be expanding in every direction, even as the Bible itself alludes when Isaiah says that YEHOVAH God "stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22).

The fate of the cosmos may also be alluded to, or vividly described in the Scriptures, when Peter writes:

After describing this fiery holocaust, Peter adds: "But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells."

This strange prediction also squares with the latest thinking of some cosmologists. Although the universe is presently expanding, a number of astronomers theorize that eventually the expansion will run out of steam, and the universe will contract. At first contracting slowly, it will build up momentum as the gravitational pull draws all the elements of the cosmos together faster and faster, until they once again merge into a giant fireball.

If the universe began expanding roughly 10 billion years ago, John Archibald Wheeler, the Joseph Henry Professor of Physics at Princeton, estimates that maturity will not be reached for another 20 billion years. At that time, further expansion will be arrested, celestial forces of gravitation will overpower the forces of expansion, and the great moment of collapse will set in. The remotest galaxies will at first begin reversing direction almost imperceptibly, and gradually pick up speed until they approach the speed of light itself -- or so suggests Wheeler. Fifty billion years from today our universe will "return to the womb."

What would happen then?

That is the enigma of the ages! According to certain assumptions and Einstein's equations, the entire universe could eventually arrive at a condition of infinite compaction in a finite time. But other laws of physics, encompassed in Quantum principles, are thought to forbid the conclusions Einstein's general relativity would demand. Thus theoretical science comes to an ultimate paradox.

The quantum uncertainty principle predicts that you can never foretell with complete precision just how a system will change in the future because you can never know simultaneously what a particle is doing right now and how fast it's changing -- or if you know the location of a particle at a given moment, you cannot know precisely how fast it is moving.

If the entire universe someday contracts back into virtual infinity, we must comprehend and learn more about what happens at subatomic distances. Wheeler postulates there is a "world" of "things" that makes even subatomic particles look massive by comparison -- "things" that are smaller than an electron by 1020 power. These "things" are composed of energetic space, "pure fluctuating space."

Is space itself fluctuating, energetic, active? Says Wheeler:

From an airplane six miles high, the ocean looks smooth. Down at sea level, in a life raft, however, we see that waves are breaking, and the surface is highly irregular; what's more, instead of its being merely irregular, there are droplets breaking loose. Now space, too, looks smooth at the scale of everyday life, smooth at the scale of atomic structure, and smooth at the scale of nuclear structure. But when one gets down to the scale of distances 20 powers of ten smaller than the scale of nuclear structure, then one predicts that space is foam-like.

What would happen to the universe when it is compressed to such tiny dimensions? Where does everything go? All the stars, nebulae, galaxies, atoms, particles, light? This is the crisis of collapse. Nobody knows what would happen.

Do we come to a domain where collapse loses its terror -- where it is taking place all the time, and where it is also constantly being undone, or converted into fluctuations in space itself everywhere and all the time?

Will the whole mass expand once again? Will particles, losing their identity in collapse, be "reborn?"

If all the matter is "squeezed through a knothole in space," forced down to a level where fluctuations in space is everything, will new matter re-emerge according to laws of physics not now understood?

But this brings us to an even greater possibility. Is there a greater level of existence than the universe itself? Is the cosmos merely an island in a greater trackless realm? Wheeler says yes. Logically, there must be something larger, some entity beyond.

The stage on which the space of the universe moves is certainly not space itself. Nobody can be a stage for himself; he has to have a larger arena in which to move. The arena must be a larger object: super-space.

Wheeler and other scientists believe the quantum principle demands the existence of "something out there." The history of our universe is merely a "track in super-space." When the universe collapses, and the classical general theory of relativity offers no further explanation of events, the quantum principle tells us the dynamics should continue. A new cycle should be started. Each new cycle, or new universe, would have its own peculiar selection of laws, constants and properties. It would be a new universe, remade, or the old universe, transformed, metamorphosed, "born anew."

The concept of super-space leads to a far reaching, metaphysical conclusion. It reminds one of the Biblical statement that the things which are seen are made of that which is not seen (Hebrews 11:3). "Super-space" could be viewed as the dimension of the spirit. YEHOVAH God, you should remember, is Spirit (John 4:24). Thus His existence transcends the physical universe. He stands apart, supreme, untouched by changes in the physical cosmos. His spirit, which is everywhere is the underlying basis of the existence of all things -- the ultimate fundamental reality.

General relativity alone might give the impression that the universe is something that is just here by accident. But the idea that the universe makes many cycles, and that each cycle has its own number of particles, mass of particles, size, length of cycle, etc., suggests, says Wheeler:

Such a concept of the universe suggests very strongly the existence of a Creator who designed the harmony between life and its surroundings -- a God who designed the development of stars, planets, atoms and molecules necessary for life as we know it. To believe that such a marvelous blending of complex interdependency, resulted from blind chance in an ancient primordial "explosion" of matter, is a logical absurdity.

The existence of our marvelous universe, and the latest theories as to its origin and fate, all point to the existence of the great Creator, YEHOVAH God, who inhabits a dimension of reality which could be called super-space!

But the God who inhabits super-space, if we call it that, is very concerned about life on earth.

He created the alga Cyanidium caldarium which can grow in concentrated solutions of hot sulfuric acid, and procaryotic bacteria which live in pools at Yellowstone National Park at temperatures above 194 degrees Fahrenheit.

He devised organisms which employ organic or inorganic antifreezes to lower the freezing point of their internal liquids so they can live at temperatures below zero. Don Juan Pond in Antarctica, which has about one molecule of calcium chloride for every two water molecules and does not freeze until-9ø Fahrenheit, contains a microflora that continues to live at temperatures -9ø Fahrenheit.

Though water is important to all organisms, YEHOVAH designed some organisms which obtain no water in the liquid state; they entirely depend on water released from chemical bonds through the metabolism of food. Spanish moss lives in environments where it has no contact with groundwater, obtaining water directly from the air.

Bacteria and fungal spores have been discovered as high as 100,000 feet in altitude, and birds have been observed flying at 27,000 feet. Jumping spiders have been found at 22,000 feet on Mt. Everest.

At the opposite extreme, a variety of fish have been found at ocean depths of thousands of feet, where pressures are hundreds of times that at sea level.

Although some microorganisms can be killed off by just a small amount of solar ultraviolet light, the bacterium Pseudomolas radiodurans thrives in the large neutron flux at the cores of swimming pool reactors, to the annoyance of nuclear physicists.

All these amazing forms of life attest the marvelous mind of YEHOVAH God. And so does man, himself.

Professor Anthony Ostric, of St. Mary's College, told the ninth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, in the spring of 1974, that there is no evidence man has not remained essentially the same since the first evidence of his appearance. He sharply criticized his colleagues for declaring "as a fact" that man descended from ape-like creatures.

"To say there were pre-human ape ancestors transformed into humans is speculative," he asserted. "Man's unique biophysical and socio-cultural nature appears now to represent an unbridgeable abyss separating him from all other animals, even from his closest 'anthropoid relatives.' "

Ostric continued: "It is not possible to see how biological, social or cultural forces or processes could transform any kind of pre-human anthropoid or 'near-man' into homosapiens."

Ostric pointed out that there is no compelling evidence to support the thesis that man became fully dominant about 10,000 years ago as his brain enlarged to about its present size. He pointed out that Neanderthal's brain was as large as that of the most modern races, but Neanderthalensis became extinct. Furthermore, Ostric added, in weight of brain in proportion to body weight, the marmoset -- the dwarf monkey of South America-surpasses man.

In the light of the evidence presented in this article, we must fully agree with Professor Ostric. Man is unique. He is special. That means that you are special.

When all is said and done, we need to realize that there need be no contradiction between true science and theology, between faith and fact. This truth has been acknowledged by many highly principled and recognized authorities in the field of science. Science and religion can be compatible so long as dogmatism and human nature do not prevail.

As if to verify this truth, my family and I were vacationing in Mazatlan, Mexico. We relaxed on the beach at the hotel, the children frolicking in the waves, and playing in the swimming pool. At night, I sat stretched out in a low slung cloth beach chair, and meditated with the sound of the surf in my ears observing an island lit up by lights out in the sea. It was a time of calm, tranquillity, relaxation -- a time to offer prayerful thanks for YEHOVAH's goodness, and to appreciate in a special, intimate way the wonders of His creation.

A beautiful seashore, soft powdery sand, a continuous succession of breaking waves crumbling from left to right, shimmering in the light of the moon, held me spellbound, in rapt awe.

Here was great evidence, in a personal way, of the power and majesty of YEHOVAH God. My mind was in tune with the universe. I felt a distinct oneness with the fathomless mind that fashioned it all, the God of beauty, the God of order, the God who is concerned for each and every man, woman and child -- the God who allowed us to enjoy such a wonderful solitude. I felt almost as if I could catch a few of the resplendent thoughts of YEHOVAH God.

Then, further confirming the truth of YEHOVAH's revelation, at the airport at Mazatlan I engaged in a conversation with a professional geologist from Reno, Nevada. Although he was 68 years old, he didn't look a day over 50. His youthfulness and vitality were well preserved. This geologist had been examining the Sierra Madre Mountains in the hinterland for silver. He told me that a lot of silver still remained in those mountains, but there were very few roads. He was checking out the possibility of mining investments in the region for a client back in Reno.

As we talked, for some reason the subject turned to science and philosophy and the Bible. He told me that he didn't find any conflict between religious faith and science. To him there was no contradiction between the Genesis account of creation and the facts of science. To him, the first chapter of Genesis seemed to speak of "days" which were like a thousand years to YEHOVAH God -- vast eons of time. There was no contradiction at all.

Another man who sees no contradiction between faith and science is Professor Frank C. Hibben, anthropologist at the University of New Mexico. I interviewed Dr. Hibben in his office at the University some years ago. He has excavated remains of early man throughout the Southwestern United States, the remains of ancient animals in the Alaskan mucks, and has also done much investigation in Europe and Africa. Hibben is also a world-renown big game hunter, and his den at home is lined with trophies that he bagged from points around the globe.

Hibben is an interesting, colorful person, and a fascinating lecturer. He told me that he has Mormons, Fundamentalists and others in his classes at the University. He added, "And I simply tell them the facts are that life was created -- that is where a Creator comes in who built into life several characteristics. One is the fact of being alive. Another thing that's built into life is extinction. Certain forms of life reach a dead end and become extinct. Another thing that's built into life is change. So that as life recreates itself, the offspring is never absolutely identical with the parent. And various factors act upon that kind of life to direct its change."

Frank C. Hibben looks upon all life as a "divine plan." And that, I think, sums up the truth best. All life is indeed part of a divine plan. So this noted authority of science says; and so the Biblical record reveals.

The whole cosmos, from beginning to end, is also a part of that supreme divine plan. Your existence is a part of it, too. The divinity that shapes our lives, and molds us, the one who created us, is YEHOVAH God.

In the same light, it is my own hope that this article, setting forth a new case for Creation, and the evidences of science, and theology, will serve a similar purpose, will stimulate discussion, be useful to theologians and scientists alike, provoke further research into many areas, challenge prosaic thinking and be a spur to the development of knowledge.

Some of the facts put forward in this article may seem surprising to many. Life is always surprising. We should learn to expect surprises and to enjoy them, and to rejoice in truth regardless of how shattering it may be, temporarily.

This article challenges deeply held assumptions of both evolutionist and the traditional Creationist. I believe that I have stated the case for the existence of a Creator comprehensively and abundantly. The evidence is overwhelming. But so is the evidence that life on earth and the universe are very old.

What about you? What are you going to do with this awesome and incredible evidence?

The Bible itself says that the testimony of two or three corroborating witnesses is sufficient to prove a case under normal circumstances. But in this article, we have innumerable independent witnesses, all testifying to the antiquity of the earth and the existence of YEHOVAH God.

Also, we have available the evidence of uranium-thorium dating, potassium argon dating, carbon 14, thermoluminescence, recemization, as well as geological evidence, algal reefs, coal deposits, salt domes, cross-bedding and erosion, dendrochronology, the evidence of the rate of expansion of the universe, all indicating an old age for the universe and the earth, and life. What shall we do with this evidence?

The majority of creationists, for reasons of their own, would have us throw it all out because it contradicts their theory and interpretation of the Bible. But does it make sense that we should reject the united witnesses of various scientific disciplines in order to hold on to traditional beliefs? Does it not limit the glory and grandeur of YEHOVAH to try to squeeze all the marvels of the universe into a short 6,000 year span of time? Does not the revelation of the antiquity of the universe add immeasurable glory to the Creator, who designed it eons ago and like a master builder first laid the foundation, then added the superstructure, then built the various rooms or ecological niches, and designed the inhabitants for each?

Which makes more sense? Is YEHOVAH God like a supreme Builder who does all things logically, step by step, in order? A builder first plans his construction, bulldozes the land, then lays the foundations of the buildings, raises the walls, puts down the floor joists, nails down the rafters, adds the roof, puts in the windows, doors, and wiring, plumbing, heating ducts, furnace, and finally, paints the edifice. When YEHOVAH God created the universe "in the beginning," did He merely wave His hand, say the magic words, and presto! the great cosmic Magician caused the earth to appear? Is YEHOVAH a sleight of hand artist? If He is a Creator, then does it not follow that He is continually creating?

Too often I think we try to pigeonhole the work of YEHOVAH God. We say that at one point in the dim past YEHOVAH created; ever since then He has merely been maintaining what He originally created. But that concept limits YEHOVAH; it describes Him as merely a cosmological maintenance man, or a divine janitor. It doesn't make sense. If YEHOVAH God is a Creator, as the Bible describes Him, then it logically follows that creativity is an inherent part of His nature and character and that He is always in the process of creating new wonders.

In essence, therefore, the amazing discoveries of science have pushed back the recesses of time and revealed in greater glory and majesty the eternal glory of the Creator God. We learn from observation of the handiwork of YEHOVAH God that the creation of the universe evidently began some 10-20 billion years ago, and that the earth and elements were created some six to ten billion years in the past, and that the first beginning of the creation of physical life on earth may have occurred roughly one billion years ago, during the Precambrian period, and that at various stages since that time there were periods of vast new creativity, such as at the Cambrian-Precambrian boundary, during the Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Pleistocene.

This sharply focused picture of creation helps us understand what YEHOVAH God, an eternal, everlasting being, has been doing for eons of time. It shows us what YEHOVAH is like. But if YEHOVAH God merely snapped His fingers 6,000 years ago, and the entire full-blown universe appeared and all the intricate life forms, we are left with two problems: first, such a concept hardly does justice to the Biblical revelation of YEHOVAH as a master potter and builder, who designed the earth in His wisdom, as the Psalmist of Israel said (Psalm 104:24). Secondly, such a concept leaves a complete blank for eons of time prior to 6,000 years ago. It leaves us wondering, what did YEHOVAH do before 6,000 years ago when suddenly He created everything at one burst of creative energy? What was YEHOVAH God doing 10,000 years ago? 50,000 years ago? 1,000,000 years ago? One billion years ago? Before that?

If we are willing to admit that the amazing discoveries of science are true, then we can glimpse what YEHOVAH God has been doing for eons of time, and we can appreciate His tremendous interest in the earth and His concern for all its living creatures. Especially Man. Man, with a mind like that of his Creator. Man, fashioned in the image of YEHOVAH God. Man, put here on this earth to experience life, build righteous character, learn lessons of humility, and to become one with His divine Parent and Creator-God.

Can time alone work miracles? Can time create life out of the non-living? Can you derive a mathematical formula that will explain the origin of life by the use of time?

The rather obvious fact is pointed out that natural selection cannot operate until nucleic acid replication is underway. A self-replicating molecule arising by mere chance would, therefore, still seem to be an awesomely improbable event!

Life is incomprehensible from an evolutionary point of view. Probability theory digs evolution's grave and then the living cell buries it!

Evolutionists, after years of attempts, have never shown that the basic "kinds" can change into another kind. How then, could they "prove" evolution?

When one considers the weight of the evidence, thus far observed, one begins to wonder how men who are intelligent and educated can subscribe to evolutionary theory. But they do.

Are we mere accidents in the eons of a cosmic universe, an effervescent, evanescent ripple in the ocean of time? Or were we planned, designed, created for a purpose?

The existence of our marvelous universe, and the latest theories as to its origin and fate, all point to the existence of the great Creator God, who inhabits a dimension of reality which could be called super-space!

When all is said and done, we need to realize that there need be no contradiction between true science and theology, between faith and fact....Science and religion can be compatible so long as dogmatism and human nature do not prevail.