What if I Have Doubts? (continued)

What do people say when faced with a new scientific finding that negates previous discoveries in the manner just described? It is common to hear them state that older levels of scientific expertise were inaccurate because they were from a less-developed body of knowledge. Let me tell you why this is not a good answer.

Today’s scientific expertise is from a less-developed body of knowledge than that which will exist a hundred years from now.

Some of today's best science could easily be considered inadequate and superceded when future standards exist.

Current scientific “facts” are just as susceptible to being replaced in the future as those of the past are now. So today's facts are just as likely to be wrong as those of yesterday.

In 1927 Georges Lemaître postulated that the observable expansion of the universe could be traced back to a single point of origin. Stephen Hawking, one of the 21st century’s most brilliant physicists and cosmologists, was keenly aware of Lemaître’s theory. We now popularly call it “The Big Bang”. By some accounts, the Pope was responsible for stating that this theory was in line with the Bible's view on creation.

In response, Lemaître stated that his theory did not envision God as the power behind our universe's expansion from a single point.

For many years, Hawking was a proponent of the Big Bang theory and wrote many papers on it. Near the end of his life, he developed a different theory.

Although the “Big Bang” could be traced back using scientific theory, Dr. Hawking theorized that tracing it does not necessarily lead to a single point, but more likely to a concave-shaped phenomenon.

He theorized that the lines of expansion originated in a small area of recirculating elements near the beginning in a semi-circle sphere, rather than a point.

In Hawking’s mind a boundary based on string theory and the holographic principle would provide the semi-circle beginning point. We know that this theory is popular but likely to remain untestable. If this could be validated in the future, it would improve on Lemaître's theory.

Upon first reading the article about this, my uneducated impression was that Dr. Hawking was proposing an alternative twist ending to Lemaître’s work.

I don't have the credentials to suggest Dr. Hawking's theory was intended as an alternative to creation.

Even if Dr. Hawking's theory could refute Lemaître's explanation, it would not shatter the possibility that God could be the creator of the process described.

Lemaître's work was incapable of proving or disproving God. But it is possible that his original theory was more correct than Hawking's exercise in quantum mechanics and string theory, which is brilliant yet untestable.

If God is Creator, He could have performed the details of any new theory by having used a divinely intelligent creative process to do so.

When scientists continue expanding the number of billions of years the earth has existed, or the that man has been evolving, it does not make it less possible for God to have created it all.

When we see massive amount of details theorized and explored about evolution, it does not diminish the possibility that God could have created any or all them. On another note, an example of some atheists grasping for straws (or perhaps stars) is the stated existence of many universes to be proof of non-creation. Many universes could exist, but it does not decrease the possibility that God created them all.

Astrophyisicits have not found any evidence of multiple universes. However, misuse of science has broadly planted the idea that they have.

A team of scientists from the UK, Canada, and the US, announced they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background.

They think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes.

Note that they "think" the marks "could be" bruises. This is very far from either evidence or fact. An online scientific journal said: "If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist."

Of course until their theory does "turn out to be correct", there is no fact to be found or implied.

Unfortunately, due to misuse of science the concept has turned into "evidence" in the minds of the scientific community on the basis of what could as easily be mere conjecture.

The headline in an online journal about these circular shapes is misleading. It says "Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist".

I do not doubt the expertise of the team of researchers, only that their discovery was turned into sensationalistic "evidence" by others. It is not evidence of anything currently identifiable.

The other multiple universe theory relates to quantum mechanics. It was formed in 1954 by Hugh Everett as a grad student at Princeton.

The two theories are contradictory to each other. Hugh Everett's theory claims that parallel worlds constantly branch off from each other, moment by moment. The other theory that multiple physical universes exist outside of each other is not based on quantum mechanics.

Neither of these theories is testable, and therefore they cannot be substantiated by science.

String theory was first formulated in 1968 by Gabriele Veneziano. It shows it would be mathematically conceivable that the universe can be explained in terms of very small strings that vibrate in 10 or 11 dimensions. This theory lent support to Everett's multi-verse concept, but did not prove anything.

I'm sure you are aware that the science fiction images of multi-verses are pure fiction, and zero science. Movies and TV shows by Marvel and DC are prime examples. They make for intriguing entertainment, but have no substance.

Nobody can prove multi-verses either exist or do not exist. At the same time, there is no logic to seeing multiple universes as a challenge to belief in God.

If God could create one universe with a big bang or holographic principles, He could do so with many universes.

Hawking's Atheism

Dr. Hawking said, “We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God.”

At first glance it may seem that Hawking implied his choice to be an atheist was based on the simplicity or non-complexity he perceived it would take to exercise faith in God. Hawking was probably not promoting atheism on the grounds of simplicity. He was not known to avoid complexity in his work or life.

We should sensitively take Dr. Hawking's decision not to believe in a knowable God as a personal statement, not an academic one.

Understandably, his courage in the face of severe debilitating physical ailments might have played a part in his choice not to believe in God.

Dr. Hawking was diagnosed with ALS, (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis) also called Lou Gehrig's disease.

I will never forget the old movie about Lou Gehrig and his disease. It starred Gary Cooper. The movie made my eyes well up with tears. ALS was unknown and without a name when the star baseball player contracted it.

Dr. Hawking's heroic life in the face of ALS should be an inspiration to us all. That does not mean he was correct not to believe in God.

Simplicity is the very foundation of the news about Jesus. It is simple: Believe in Jesus Christ as Your Savior. To me, nothing is easier than that.

I love that Dr. Hawking said, “We are each free to believe what we want ". To that I add, we are free to believe in Jesus.

It has been written that Stephen Hawking was very enamored with the laws of the universe to the point of considering them possibly God, but a God no one could have a personal relationship with. That is to me a very sad thing to hear - - Dr. Hawking was so close.

Design Can Seem Obvious

Dr. Hawking saw the complex laws and consistent functionalities of the universe and was captivated by the wonder. I am also captivated in the same way. For me, it is simple, if not obvious, to see it as a result of God's design. If you consider that every contraption of humanity on earth bears evidence of design, it appears logical that the laws and functions of the universe were creatively and ingeniously designed.

We see a 3-D printer, a tractor, a high-end automobile, and millions of other things created by human intelligent design. Why is it a stretch to think the vastly more complex functionality in the universe was not designed?

Noting that many human designs were modeled after complex functions observed in nature - it is not a giant leap to see a sophisticated natural process designed by a super-genious Architect, as believers picture God to be. Personally, I cannot fathom how they could exist by chance.

When it comes to when God created humans, there is one question I have not heard adequately addressed. If, as science declares, homo sapiens existed for 200 to 300 thousand years, why can no evidence of historical writing be found prior to 5,000 years ago?

The oldest coherent fragment of historical writing has been placed at 2,600 BC. Humans intelligent and developed enough to record history cannot be claimed prior to about 5,000 years ago based on archeology.

The Bible's dating of humankind's emergence calculates to at least 6,000 years ago. Some scientists give this general dating to the start of what they call the neolithic period. That is the time they consider that cultural and technological attributes in humanity took a giant leap.

No evidence of agricultural knowledge or its application is apparent on earth before the neolithic period. Pottery and art seems to have begun before then. Dating of the beginning of the neolithic period varies widely among scientists, from 6,000 to 13,000 years BC depending primarily on locale.

In the recorded history within the Bible, it dates the existence of that first man, to be about 6,000 to 7,500 years ago (4,000 to 5,500 BC) depending on the language the ancient text was written in and the calendar involved. The recorded genealogies and life spans in scripture provide the basis for these calculations.

It seems to be beyond coincidence that the beginning of the neolithic period and the formation of Adam occurred in about the same time frame.

Adherents to both young earth and old earth theories can find it useful that mankind, at the level of intelligence and innate ability we recognize today, appears credible to have started in the time period the Bible claims.

Nobody alive today knows for certain because none were present in the beginning to see if a man named Adam had an ancestor or not. I say this to bring into focus that anyone can claim to know things about the prehistoric past, but none of it is empirical.

Something happened. Scientists have called the emergence of fully human people like you and me a 'revolution', as if the people were responsible. I prefer to call it creation, in which God was the responsible party.

Some scientists say the earliest tools were dated around 1.76 million years ago. Other scientists consider the first tools to date to half a million years ago. We now know that at least 10 species use tools, including crows, dolphins, elephants, sea otters, octopusses, chimpanzees, macaques, fegus, and orangutans, according to sources like livescience.com.

On another topic, it is considered by scientists that the human body is home to about 100 trillion cells. Single cell organisms, such as bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes (such as yeast and algae) live in the body. Some of these microbes are good for us, some are bad, and some are neutral in that regard. Cells considered human number far less than single cell organisms at home in the human body.

This is scientifically accepted. I'm telling you this because I want to point out an example of science misuse that is untrue but based on the information above, and suggest that the true findings actually lead to knowledge of a miraculous process unexplainable by science.

Some of the microbes are good for us, some are bad, and some are neutral in that regard. Cells considered human number far less than single cell organisms at home in the human body. Many single cell organisms work alongside bodily functions of human cells. They do so in a positive, productive way. Human cells depend on microbes and microbes depend on human cells.

About 10,000 species of microbes were identified in a five year study. Microbes in the human body contain about 8 million genes, which is more than 300 times the number of human genes in the body. Scientists traced the non-human genes to identify that the microbes came from non-human animals. Some scientists theorize that because so many microbes exist in people, that these microbes are human. But microbes are not human. They are separate single-cell organisms.

The main error of these scientists is failing to realize that a person is not the composition of his or her bodily structure. The human body contains about 60% water. Water is not considered human. But our bodies rely on water to survive. They also rely on microbes, and microbes rely on the body.

The misleading headlines I read were, "Microbes maketh man . . . People are not just people. They are an awful lot of microbes, too." This article in The Economist later said:"The biological Robespierres believe these should count, too; that humans are not single organisms, but superorganisms made up of lots of smaller organisms working together." Then the article went on to say the microbes tell us more about human evolution than our own DNA does! I find these statements wildly ludicrous.

My point here is that it is unwise wise to turn these sensationalized illogical misconceptions pertaining to scientific findings into misleading groupthink. The same is true of any other inconclusive statements made by scientists, that are manipulated to sound conclusive. In this instance the false information appears to be intended to sell magazines. On a positive note, scientists state that microbes that are passed on within a newborn baby are only from the mother. The father's microbes are completely absent.

There is no continuity between microbial properties and genetic human DNA. But the microbes are not just along for the ride. A complex functionality happens in the mothers birth canal just before the baby enters. The body causes the microbes to increase and "change".

Johns Hopkins University article titled, "Baby's First Bacteria" explains how Dr. Noel Mueller, sees these changes. "Most maternal microbes are passed to the baby through the walls of the birth canal. If a birth takes place by caeserean section, the baby is born with very few microbes in comparison. “You’re essentially free of microbes in the intrauterine environment, and then your first microbial exposure happens at birth,” Mueller explains. “Those microbes teach your immune system and body what’s friend and what’s foe and participate in metabolism and generation of nutrients.”

These microbes form a vibrant intestinal community known as the gut micro biome. Mueller believes that early imbalances in the composition of this microbial ecosystem could have serious health consequences as we age." Dr. Mueller gave a delightful explanation of what some might call a miraculous process, in which single cell organisms are brought by the mother's innate bodily functions into the place where they can bathe the infant in protective and friendly microbes that produce health in the child and throughout its life.

I like to think God could have orchestrated the interdependence between the microbes and the formation of babies, the health of intestinal tracts, and other interdependent symbiotic relationships between the single cell organisms and the multi-cell organisms we call humans.

There are many similar inexplicable interspecies dependencies in nature. I tend to perceive them as being full of wonder, and evidence that God exists. Unbiased science can be very fascinating, challenging, and insightful in a way we can apply to our spiritual thinking. For example, it is known by scientists that polar bears have clear strands of fur that transfer sun rays to their black skin. It is similar to passive solar heating fed by fiber optics. A polar bear's fur only looks white because it is densely clustered. It is really clear, like fiber optics.

Spiritually, we can be astounded by such complex functionality, attribute it to a greatly intelligent designer, and as a result glorify the Creator. Wonderful functionality is not exactly proof of God as the Creator. However, it is good evidence. In reality proof comes by a person accepting the evidence. This means it is a human choice to see something as proven. Since human choice is fallible, there is a faint glow of possibility that we could be wrong in accepting specific evidence as proof.

God does not want us to wait for proof that He loves us, and sent His Son to die in our place so we could be saved. He just wants us to believe. It is not a double standard if a believer says science crosses the line when used as evidence against God, while simultaneously observing that many scientific discoveries could point to a highly intelligent and proficient designer. Why is this so? Because, while the scientific mindset is bounded to operate within the natural arena, non-science has no such boundary. It can be supported by the findings of science.

Billions of intelligent people can see how there could be evidence of creation in nearly every aspect of nature. Believers in God, do not cross any lines by appealing to scientific findings as possible evidence of God. Believing in Jesus does not come with restrictions as to how we can think about science. If we believe God created and orchestrated nature itself, then science can inspire and astound us by the intricacy and beauty of it all.

Sometimes I find myself in awe merely because my aesthetic sense is stimulated by the beauty of nature's breathtaking designs. It seems that whoever created my aesthetic sense, also created the aesthetically pleasing scenes of nature. To a believer possessing spiritual and intuitive insight, all of nature appears as evidence of God. It could be a sad fact that to a hardened nonbeliever, nothing in nature is evidence of creation, no matter how convincing it appears to others.

I spent the last two weeks on vacation in Iceland, one of the most beautiful, almost heavenly countries on earth. A week before that, I was visiting Hawaii, also considered a paradise on earth. It is very fresh in my memory the miraculous beauty of nature that to the ears of my heart screams the glory and magnificence of God. It is illogical to look at a beautiful painting and give praise to the paint while assuming no painter exists.

One well known astrophysicist has presented a large number of studies mixing science and logic to make very keenly devised arguments in favor of believing. He has computed the probability of life on this planet occurring by chance to be so infinitesimal as to be considered by open- minded people irrefutable evidence of creation. His name is Dr. Hugh Ross who leads the organization, "Reasons To Believe", which is found at www.reasons.org. That website is a good place to start if you want to examine issues around cosmology.

A prominent scientist who managed the well-known Genome Project wrote a book about how DNA discoveries involving the origins of humans are most likely evidence of creation. In my mind the complexity and functionality of double helix DNA to store 6.4 billion letters (base pairs) in a single human cell is barely imaginable, even when you consider it to the be the result of advanced design. It is incomprehensible to me when people conclude it came into being by accident. A cell is about 100 micrometers in diameter. One strand of DNA from one cell, when stretched out is 3 feet long. Multiply that by 37.2 trillion cells in the human body. Inference, such as used in statistics, is not proof, but it can help provide insight leading to truth.

These examples of inference suggest evidence of God's design ability that is far more intelligent, capable, and personal than any of us can fully appreciate. At the same time, I wouldn't use them in a way that assumes God's existence is scientifically proven. Even if people are convinced by skillful scientific expertise, God wants their faith. He wants their hearts. He wants relationship. God stands outside of science, even good science. The human intellect and its ability to discern is beyond science as well. Our minds can identify bias, and make decisions that filter it out. The mind can also extract the bias, examine the remaining scientific data, and see if perhaps they might logically have value without the bias.

If you are a scientist, or aspire to become one, I encourage you. The world needs more good scientists. Please strive to be immune from group-think, especially anti-God bias. For non-scientists, if you ever choose not to believe in Jesus because experts would disagree, you are misplacing your trust. Sometimes I find that expertise is given too high a role in the non-expert’s mind to justify a belief. I can attest that experts make statements which greater experts in the subject can contradict or find lacking. In my job I was considered a nationwide expert, but I always knew that others were far more knowledgeable experts than I.

For several years my job title was Technical Specialist/Scientist. I don't know if the word “Scientist” in a job title should mean anything significant. I do know first hand that we should not place our trust in worldly experts when it comes to our eternal salvation. We should place our trust in Jesus, “the author and finisher of our faith”.

As with all the other issues in the website, I gladly admit bias toward the existence of God, and the offer of salvation to all who believe in Jesus as their Savior. "My hope is built on nothing less, than Jesus' blood and righteousness", says the old hymn. Something "less" is the age-old discussion about how the world and mankind began. We don't build our hope on it.

First, we note that pointing is not an earthshaking event. Science will continue to point. Second, we note that pointing is not the same as proving. As long as science points to things that challenge biblical issues, the discussion must exit the realm of science and enter the zones of biblical studies, linguistics, etymology, literary style, faith, art, and doctrines.

I think the Genesis account of creation bears the earmarks of oral tradition. I might be the only one with this opinion, but please humor me. Before there was writing, people used spoken words to pass down information from generation to generation. It would make sense that an older generation would form important information into easy-to- remember stories to pass on to their offspring. This is interesting to consider as an explanation for the styles of the biblical creation accounts.

Science has no right to impose anything on a believer, and there is a variety of ways to reconcile scientific theories or findings with the Bible. Two main interpretive points of view prevail on how to reconcile the creation account of the origins of the universe with science. One is that there were literally six 24 hour days in which God created everything. Another is that in Genesis, the word “day” could just as easily be interpreted as “aeon”, or an indistinguishably long period of time.

These two views are generally called the "young earth" and "old earth views". Neither view is a prerequisite for becoming saved, or being a "good Christian". Neither view is particularly scientific. The young earth view is generally based on one possible interpretation of the Bible. The sentiment of its most adamant proponents is that God designed the appearance of age into the universe, but it is only six thousand or so years old.

However, for the old earth view, the idea is that the first two chapters of Genesis reflect a literary device when using the word for “day”. Therefore, each day could be thousands or millions of years long. The same word could be translated "Aeon", or so I have heard.

The old earth view reconciles with modern science much better than the new earth view. Neither view is outside the boundaries of sound Bible interpretation, or possibility, because "for God, all things are possible".

In the end, either interpretation might be correct. Or, another might surprise us. We might need to wait to see in the end, what God shows us in heaven about how it all took place. I am content for that to happen. In the mean time, if I want to hold either of the popular views, I may.

Some people are certain that the biblical idea of the first man being formed from the dust of the ground is in conflict with an evolutionary DNA mapping for homo sapiens. DNA is widely accepted as changeable over generations and can give insight into human family origins. Some DNA changes might take place much more rapidly than previously thought. Much recent scientific work has confirmed the discovery that DNA changes shape, becomes healthier or less healthy, based on the kind of thinking we entertain.

We have known for a long time that thoughts of faith in God and other optimistic elements of life, can promote longer, healthier lives. Now, we are seeing how this works. Our bodies and brains seem to get more healthy due to resultant changes in DNA caused by our thoughts and resultant attitudes. Several studies support this. One is called "Local and Nonlocal Effects of Coherent Heart Frequencies on Conformational Changes of DNA". The studies indicate we are not at the mercy of our inherited genetics because we can change them with our mental outlook.

God has the ability to design an advanced functionality into humans, and surprise us by showing progress takes a shorter time than previously considered. Negative genetic changes are referred to as "non-useful variations". Positive changes are called "useful variations". Non-useful variations can be observed in forms such as birth defects or genetically-based diseases. There is much evidence that useful variations exist.

It is important to note that zero credible support exists to validate that useful-variations were ever responsible for filling the "gap" between one species and another. There is a modern theory of how "useful-variations" can exist based on what they call "recombination". Thousands of similar theories, "breakthroughs" or changes in scientific discovery have come and gone in this arena. There may be thousands more before we know enough to get excited about any of them.

No matter how positive these scientists may seem, they are mistakenly holding up the new theories against the yardstick of believing in God and creation. Why do scientists bother to do this? Progress in science cannot possibly be applied to disprove God or divine creation. Yet, large fortunes are spent on the effort anyway.

I concede that the biblical explanation of people formed out of the dust of the earth could appear simplistic. But it does appear to address the carbon-based elements found in the human body. With that in mind, it reflects an unexpected possible connection between an ancient creation story detail and current science.

As for the story of Eve being made from one of Adam's ribs, scientists in the mid 1900s would have had a much greater sense of skepticism before science discovered cloning. God is much bigger than most people think, even if simplistically told stories for all ages exist in the Bible.

The issue of DNA versus biblical narrative really does not challenge the belief that God created man in His image, both male and female. It does not challenge the integrity or credibility of the Bible. Nobody is capable of going back in time to verify through direct observation how the earth, the universe, or mankind originated. But you and I can each believe that God is our Creator as we wait until we enjoy His presence in Heaven to find out the details. Would you like to get to Heaven to find out? Or would you prefer to stand on the merits of unprovable scientific bias to support your unbelief? If you do that, you may not ever know the details.

My job is not to prove or disprove anything, but to tell people they can have lives of greater meaning for eternity by believing in Jesus as their Savior. If people need to examine the findings of science or any other discipline to feel confident in their decisions, it is just fine. I value personal freedom of choice.

I can guarantee you that no science, logic, or other mindset will result in findings that prevent you from finding Jesus spiritually in this lifetime and becoming saved. It is also impossible that any argument based on science will ever truly prevail against God as Creator.

Evolving Theories

When it comes to Darwinian evolution, it is NOT a valid issue for deciding whether to believe in Jesus and thereby become saved for eternity. It has no bearing on the salvation decision. If you question these statements, read on.

We will NOT be examining two sides of an argument, and choosing which is correct. Only by some form of faith, can anyone say for certain that any case is correct, because no mortal today was alive to observe creation when it happened. Nevertheless, we will look at the subject because it can help people become more understanding. As we discussed above, there Bible experts who see the earth and universe as very old. Others see the earth and universe as relatively new. You can lean toward either view and be saved, without casting doubt on scripture or God as Creator. It is also permissible to believe in Jesus without taking a stand on the issue at all, but simply believe, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Micro evolution, also called "evolution within a species", does not challenge the concept of creation or design under the new-earth scenario. In my mind, if God could design something as observably complicated as the heavens and the earth, He could do it in six days or in six billion years. The issue here is that God is Almighty. He can do anything. To me, the ability to design evolutionary progress within a species is a greater testimony to the magnificence of God's creative ability than most suppose. He could have even sped up or slowed down the micro evolution process at will during the last 6,000 years, after creating the earth in six literal days.

Then there is macro evolution, "the evolution from one species to another". Here are some seriously lacking , as-yet-unresolved shortcomings: The only record we have of species thought to exist prior to human history, are fossils. The number of species we know about, based on fossils, is less than 1% of all species that have ever lived on earth, according to paleontologists. Of those, no convincing evidence of one species evolving into another exists. The best that science can come up with are observations that might suggest the possibility of macro evolution.

It is commonly known that the biggest problem to overcome, with macro evolution, involves gaps in the fossil record. No fossils have been identified as "transitional" species. Scientists have discovered only fossils that fit within the definition of species: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Darwin theorized that the gaps could be explained by long periods of extinction among unknown, theoretical species in-between known species. In this Darwinian theory, one or many transitional species must have existed, one after another, between an ancestor species and a possibly descendant species.

To Darwin, it would have required extinction of each in-between species before a future surviving species appears. There is no convincing evidence in the fossil record of even a single species between one known species and another, even to this day. Therefore, the scientific basis for macro-evolution remains unsound.

Darwin's explanation was imaginative, yet not credible. Much work has been done in paleontology since Darwin to explore the fossil record in greater detail.

Everett Claire Olson of chair of UCLA's Department of Biology is one of the pioneers. He stated the problem of missing "links" has been reduced, however it has become more complicated and it is still a matter of interpretation as to whether Darwin's theory has been supported by the newer evidence.

Dr. Olson's statement was far from reassuring. Despite the enormous support macro evolution has developed, it takes at least as much faith to believe in macro evolution as it does to believe in God, in my opinion.

Since Darwin first presented his theory, two full lifetimes have passed. Many new generations of school children, were taught that "Darwin's theory has been proven." I was one of them. During those years, many people refused to believe in Jesus because of this as-yet-unsubstantiated theory of macro evolution. The theory itself says nothing about Jesus, nor does it even question creation.

Darwin lived before DNA was studied. Today, scientists place a great deal of stock in the similarities of DNA code between different species. I can imagine an alternative explanation to seeing the same DNA code in one species as resides in another. I have completed a lot of computer programming in my career. All programmers understand that lines of code, which they have creatively written for one application can often be used in designing another. It is a very efficient method because they have already tested the code and know it works.

It was not a stretch for me to see how the Creator could use exactly the same coding for multiple species. It is an intelligent thing to do. If you start with the idea of God as Creator, it is a suitable explanation for why so many exact matches of DNA code exist between different species.

Charles Darwin's theories were inspired in childhood by his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, a man of great influence in his time. He wrote his theories about evolution out in poetry, apparently to avoid scrutiny for his unorthodox ideas. Eventually, Erasmus Darwin did write a book proposing that adaptation results in new species.

Charles Darwin later found a kindred spirit in Alfred Russel Wallace, who had come to many of Darwin's beliefs independently at the same time. They eventually collaborated, resulting in Darwin's book.

I must mention that I have great respect for the quality of Charles Darwin's work and knowledge during his time. He was not a bitter man. He had a seemingly unquenchable fascination and curiosity about nature. He was a foremost biologist of his time, and had a knack for assimilating vast stores of observational data into theories using creative problem solving. Where he could not prove an element of his theory, he at least persuasively made a case that it was not impossible. I admire him as a communicator and scientist. "Darwin" is not a bad word. The man was sincere, and in his mind, well-intentioned. But, his theories went against the long-held belief in a literal six day creation, and therefore against the Christian norm of his day.

In the final statement of Darwin's book*, he wrote "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

In this statement I see a glimmer of divine creation subtly entertained and known to be understood by readers, when he used the word "breathe" just as the Bible does. The publisher used quotes from Francis Bacon and William Whewell on the title page to help advertise the book. Bacon wrote something profound. He told us not to "think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy, but rather let men endeaver an endless progress or proficience in both." That message is printed on the original Title Page of his book today.

If most Darwinists would have taken that statement seriously, the world would be a different place. I do not claim to be a proponent of Darwin or Darwinism. I am a proponent of God. And I can tell you this. I would much rather see printed on my currency “In God We Trust”, than “In Darwin We Trust.”

_____________________________

If, as a result of this website, you decided to believe in Jesus as your Savior, please click here for next steps.

_____________________________

Table of Contents