Something from nothing? The
“Big Bang”, the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the
universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic
particles and radiation, which for some reason exploded, forming hydrogen (and
some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it
to assume it came into being from nothing? And if it did come into being, what
would cause it to explode? Explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable
is it to assume a “big bang” explosion produced the opposite effect -
increasing order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and
planets, and eventually people?
Physical laws an accident? We
know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as
electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The
activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program
depends upon the existence of computer hardware with a fixed instruction set.
How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles all
developed by accident?
Order from disorder? The
Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states
that things become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed
to create and maintain order. Evolutionists
say that the opposite has taken place - that order has increased over time, without
any directed energy. How
can this be? To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into
the human brain with its 120 trillion complex neural connections is a clear
violation of the Second Law.
Information from Randomness? Information
theory states that “information” never arises out of randomness or chance
events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the
tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be
accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It
is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or
meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random
typing might produce the letters “d o g”, but it only means something to an
intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters.
The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims
that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being
whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
Life from dead chemicals? It
is a scientific law that life only comes from life (“biogenesis”),
yet Evolutionists blindly claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals).
The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself
from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be
essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized
particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it
reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
Complex DNA and RNA by chance? The
continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the
“plan”) and RNA (the “copy mechanism”), both of which are tremendously
complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities
came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
Life is complex. We
know the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into
landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison
to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to
believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, and no plan, produced a
Where are the transitional fossils? If
evolution has taken place, our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons
of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense
searching, only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of
evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional
forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing
fully formed, with most being nearly identical to current instances of the
Could an intermediate even survive? Evolution
requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don’t
forget that “natural selection” is supposed to retain those individuals that
have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate
between one kind and another even survive, when it would not be well suited to
either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a
possible sequence of small changes that takes a creature from one kind (mouse)
to another (a bird), all the while keeping it not only alive, but also improved?
It’s no good unless it’s complete. We
know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is
complete, whether it is a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural
selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing, etc.,
when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed say, a
million years later?
It should be easy to show evolution. If
evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a
simple gas explosion, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be
possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet
scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with
radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still
have only produced... deformed fruit flies – they never change into
anything else but deformed fruit flies! How reasonable is it to believe that
evolution is a fact when even the most extensive of experiments has not been
able to document it?
Complex things require intelligent design! People
are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which
could cross all types of terrain, dig large holes, carry several times its own
weight, find its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was
only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our
life’s experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by
accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available
lying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of
hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we
might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we
already have such a “robot” - it is called an “ant”, and we squash them
because they are “nothing” compared to people. And if you will accept it,
God made them, and He made us. Can there be any other explanation?