The Fallacy of Ancestry
Glaring out the window she noticed the beautiful trees swaying from left to right. The sweet sunshine hit her face with a radiance of glee and the clouds rolled away to open the view of the sharp blue sky. Abruptly, the bell rang and signaled another day of school. The teacher stepped up to the podium and declared that today they were going to learn about the origins of man. Little Suzy braced herself for a deep discussion of God and His miraculous achievement: creation in seven days! To her shock and surprise; neither God nor creation were mentioned. “Where did we come from?” Suzy silently exclaimed.
According to the current textbooks in circulation, creation seems to be an infallible conclusion. The alternative is a bang; an explosion of forces that spontaneously created everything that is seen and exists. Science is a practice completely dependent on trials, observations and consistency. However, evolution strays from the accepted structure of science and ventures to answer the age-old question, “where did man come from?” The focus of this essay will touch on the existence of life according to the Bible, the fallacy of interpreted dating systems, and the errors found in the widely accepted idea of evolution.
To begin answering how life came to be, one must understand: what is truth and what is conception. According to an article “Creation: ‘Where’s the Proof?’” Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis—U.S., believes the argument of truth is actually a matter of interpretation. He explains that a Creationist defending his case against an Evolutionist is of no avail unless both can agree to disregard their presuppositions. Ham believes that each person has developed a mind set, centered on a particular belief. Therefore, any evidence presented will become biased instantly, due to a preconceived idea of its origins. For example, fossils can either be used to enhance Creationism or debunk it. Ham says, “Creationists and evolutionists…have the same evidence—the same facts,”(Ham). He goes on to say, “The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts… different presuppositions…”(Ham) Therefore in order to accurately define the true idea, one must ask do the facts support this presupposition.
One of the most controversial ideas regarding evolution and creationism is the belief “spontaneous generation.”This idea is a clear example of how to measure the validity of a supposed presupposition. For example, in regards to “spontaneous generation” one must first ask: “Is this logical?” many experiments from the early periods of science would have agreed with this idea. Given the accepted factual support was the evidence that maggots clearly generated from the remains of a dead animal. The next step in understanding the validity of a presupposition is to ask: “Is this scientifically sound/possible?” Every experiment conducted by modern scientists suggested that non-living matter cannot produce or give rise to living matter. According to an article “The Origin of Life,” Dr. David N. Mentom recounts the finds of Francesco Redi, an Italian physician. In 1650, he proved that the maggots supposed to rise from dead meat were actually the offspring of eggs left from flies. Therefore, by examining the theory to the facts, the presupposition of “spontaneous generation” can be proved wrong.
The Bible exclaims that God, the creator, breathed life into existence. Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,”(KJV). Therefore everything seen and experienced is completely derived from this beginning. However, the Bible could be considered just a book, a fictional story of someone’s imagination if it didn’t hold any true evidence of validity. Can the Bible be trusted? The Bible has many strong ideas such as: life after death, resurrections, a triune God, and healing power. One might argue that the Bible is just too good to be true. The skepticism is highly ordinary, life is full of constants, measurements and patterns. Ideas without much concrete (by traditional standards) evidence does cause the need for consternation, however the Bible is full of accurate and correct information.
The Bible is said to be the words of God. The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Basically, God wrote His book through man. Similar, to how men use pens and pencils to write their messages. In essence, man became the medium by which He would convey His heart to His creation. But is it really fact? The Bible is full of “factual” evidences that prove its validity. For instance, all throughout the Old and New Testaments the Bible consistently maintains a correct and definite genealogical record. The Bible also ventures to do the unthinkable: it predicts the future! One must strongly consider: if a book, supposedly written by God himself, can accurately predict the future, then perhaps it also can accurately depict the past.
Are the origins illustrated in Genesis actually worth believing? In order to effectively present this question one must consider the options. If creation doesn’t hold the answer, then what other methods are there to believe? Some of the current theories circulating around the origins of life are: “RNA World,” Clay Theory, Complexity Theory, Bacteria First Theory, Directed panspermia and of course evolution in the typical sense. The “RNA Theory” claims that the first molecule was a RNA molecule. However, according to Dr. Georgia Purdom, in her article “Origins of life: A Simple Approach?” she submits that this is clearly not possible, considering there was no DNA. She says, “…you couldn’t have genetic material that could copy itself unless you had chemists back then doing it for you,”(Purdom). Clearly this assumption is indeed comical; worlds cannot come from genetic strands that aren’t even able to reproduce.
The Clay Theory suggests that complicated organic molecules were formed in clay crystals. The Complexity Theory relies on a “computer model for self-organization of organic molecules,” according to Dr. Purdom. The Bacteria First Theory surmises that certain bacteria can survive in extreme environments like that found on the supposed early earth, and are considered simple organisms. The complexity theory is–”a computer model for self-organization of organic molecules,”(Purdom). The bacteria first theory, explains that bacteria can live in harsh environments. Therefore they could have endured the terrible conditions of early-earth as “’simple’ organisms,”(Purdom). The directed panspermia theory suggests “ first organic molecules or living organisms were brought to earth by aliens from outer space,”(Purdom). Lastly, the theory of evolution describes a random process of survival of the fittest. The process explains that every in life was merely the result of a lengthy process of adaptation to environmental circumstances. It strives to depict the beginnings of life based on a belief that all the diversity of life was spawned from a protozoic goo.
The Bible describes a universe hand crafted by God the creator. This theory has become known as the Creation theory. According to the descriptions in Genesis, the entire world was formed in a total of six days, but more importantly it was indeed created. Many arguments have been posed to refute the claim that God made life. There is a great leap of faith to believe in God, but even a greater leap to try to explain the complexity and diversity of this world without. So, is the Bible worth believing? Consider what is harder to believe: a creator who personally stamped his signature on this world with the presence of life, or a great accident that just so happened to bring all chaos into order of unparallelled structure. The Bible speaks very clearly as to how life came into existence; God spoke and everything came to be.
Intelligent design has actually become a pretty convincing argument as of lately. Mark Cahill in his book One heart Beat Away describes many amazing illustrations to help the average individual grasp the concept of creationism and evolution. One of his arguments consists of a watch in a box. The illustration is meant to explain the absurdity in constructing a clock with the absurdity of everything accidentally falling into place. The demonstration goes as follows: imagine all the pieces to a watch are placed in a box. Now, picture any tool necessary to put the pieces together and include them in the box. Proceed to place the lid on the box and shake thoroughly. Do this for about five minutes then check your progress. Cahill takes the illustration a step further by prompting the reader with a question: “Say you were able to shake it for five billion years; would you then have a functioning watch?”(Cahill) Quite effectively this demonstrates the complexity of completing a simple task by typical measures and a parallels it to the difficulty and absurdity of imaging an entire universe to accidentally surface.
The next widely disputed area of great controversy circulates around scientific dating. The main questions presented are: “Doesn’t carbon dating prove that the earth is older than the Bible describes?” First off, what is carbon dating? In Dan Lietha and Stacia Byers’ article “Answers for Kids” they breakdown the complex process of carbon dating into easy to grasp terms. They explain that carbon dating is a tool used by scientists to approximately determine the age of an object. According to this method scientists are able to measure the concentration of Carbon 12, the naturally occurring Carbon in an organism, and the amount of Carbon 14, “one that forms from processes acting on Nitrogen in the atmosphere,” (Lietha and Byers). Scientist measure the ratio of Carbon 12 which remains in a vessel after death at a constant concentration, whereas Carbon 14 transforms or breaks down back into Nitrogen. Therefore, the scientists are able to see how long the specimen has been dead, based on how much Carbon 12: Carbon 14 is present.
However, as Lietha and Byers clearly describes, there is a major error in this calculation method. For example, the article explains, “there are many factors that affect how much Carbon 14 an animal (or person or plant) has in it when it dies. This changes how long ago the animal “appears”(emphasis added) to have died,” (Lietha and Byers). Notice the article clearly uses the verb “appears,” this implies that the information has been interpreted. Therefore, it contains room for fallacy. The article goes on to say, “plants don’t take in as much Carbon 14 as scientists expect,” (Lietha and Byers). Since, the accepted concentration of Carbon 14 is be higher before the death of a plant, the plant will appear to have lost more Carbon 14 then it actually had, thereby making it upper older.
“Even many archaeologists don’t think ‘carbon dating’ is completely accurate all the time,” (Lietha and Byers).”
Radiometric or Radioisotope dating measures “the amounts of certain radioactive substances,” (Lietha and Byers). Lietha and Byers concisely explain this concept. “When a volcano erupts, hot, molten rock (called ‘lava’) from deep inside the earth is released. This lava is made of various elements. Elements are the ‘building-blocks’ of the universe (for example, water is made from the elements hydrogen and oxygen). Some elements (we’ll call them ‘A’) in the lava are radioactive, which means that they change into other elements(we’ll call these ‘B’),” (Lietha and Byers). The demonstration goes on to explain that the reason there is error in this method is because the scientists cannot decide when the process of ‘A’ turning into ‘B’ began. Therefore the estimated length of time is based on an implication of how the element appeared before it began the process of changing. In essence as the article so delicately points out, “ We don’t know what the rock was like when it formed, or what has happened to it since. We weren’t there,” (Lietha and Byers).
Some of the most widely accepted ideas of evolution carry no real tangible support that it is rather embarrassing to believe that many have fallen prey to its ploys. For example, the idea that there are missing links is completely ridiculous. The evidence that has been presented and made into support have been proved to be false. Mark Cahill also endeavors to set a few more facts straight. He literally tackles almost every supporting element most evolutionists claim to be the gaps or transitional specimens. For instance Nebraska Man “was created from a single tooth discovered in Nebraska,”(Cahill). Piltdown man “has been revealed to be a hoax,”(Cahill). Java Man “was constructed from widely-scattered bones,”(Cahill). Peking man “was based only on monkey-like skulls that were bashed in at the back,”(Cahill). Neanderthal man “was determined to be completely human,”(Cahill). Lucy “could not be a ‘missing link’ because it has been determined that man walked upright before the time of Lucy,”(Cahill).As Mark Cahill so eloquently described above, nearly every evidential fact an evolution has used to support evolution are lies. There are no remaining pieces of data to even surmise a possible “missing link.” Mark Cahill said it best, “’the missing link’ is still missing.”
“’The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.’–Adolph Hitler,”(Cahill)
Life is delicate creation. It was crafted by the hands that knew all secrets, constructed by the mind that understood no confusion, conceived on the heart that flourished with love. God’s very own words formed the fabric and foundation of creation. He breathed his life-giving source into the dust he formed. He gave man a reason, a purpose, a world to enjoy. Creation implies creator. Creator suggests God. God wanted a friend, a child, a companion to intimately love him, not out of nature, but out of desire. God created the universe and longed for its sweet embrace and tender voice of perseverance. Creation was created for God. He delights in his creation.
“’For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people…’–Psalm 149:4”(KJV)