Two views of the origin of all things prevail among men. One is that they were created by God, who is self-existent, eternal and mysterious, a union of infinite life and mind.
The second view is the theory of evolution. It thinks that matter came into bing spontaneously, and that the mysterious factors in Nature are innate in matter, which is self-existent, having no beginning or end. Life and mind are conceived as forms of material in motion. This view is akin to pantheism, ascribing God-like attributes to all things. It is also called the theory of internal cause, finding in matter itself the cause of its existence and motion. The belief that God created all things is the theory of external cause, holding that God has not only made, but continues to sustain and control all things.
1) Will you please give the historical background of these two views.
Answer: Yes. In the Middle Ages, Creationism prevailed in Europe during the ascendancy of Roman Catholicism. Then the Protestant Reformation and cultural Rennaisance led up to the French revolution. A large number of scholar, impatient of church restraints, opposed ecclesiastical rule and advocated atheism. But they did not yet have a systematic hypothesis to counter the belief in the creative power of God. In 1859 a British biologist Charles R. Darwin (1809-1882) published his book Origin of Species, propounded the theory of evolution, which was readily accepted by a large number of scholars, because it offered a more or less rational theory of the origin of living things that dispensed with God and replaced the belief in a Creator. Darwin suggested that all life on earth began with one living cell, which after millions of years, gradually evolved into complex forms of life, one branch of which became the human species.
2) Is it true that some religious people have proposed a compromise theory?
Answer: Yes. The new theory of evolution met with much opposition from religious circles; both sides engaged in heated debate. A compromise was sought in the belief that God created all things, but He did it through the process of evolution. Yet the crux of the problem is: If God indeed made all things, then time would not be a problem; but if God did not exist, something could not come out of nothing, no matter how much time you give.
Creationists fall in two classes. One is called "deists." They believe in an impersonal Creator through logical reasoning, but not the God of the Bible. Another class are the "theists." They believe that the story of Genesis is credible history. Its first chapter says that on this planet God created our world in six days from "the face of the deep that was without form and void." Every day had "evening and morning"--a day of 24 hours. This does not admit a compromise theory. So theistic creationism is biblical.
3) I see that the compromise theory is wrong. How should one who wants to know the truth decide who is right or wrong?
Answer: The best way would be to ask the creationist to pray God to reveal His creative power by a demonstration. The evolutionist should likewise demonstrate how an ape evolves into a man. It must be seen that both propositions are not feasible. A feasible way is for each side to present facts and their bearing to each view, then point out the flaws and failings of the opposite view. Let all engage in objective analysis and draw honest conclusions. Many, including men of learning, tend to be biased. Christians, because of deep-rooted religious feelings, cannot appreciate the reasoning of the evolutionists. And evolutionists, starting from the premise that "there is no God," do not take a fair look at the logic of the creationist--that the laws, designs, order and beauty in nature postulate the existence of a master Designer and Maker.
The creationist believes in God, so he attributes all mysteries to Him, so they have nothing they cannot explain. All supernatural as well as natural laws are made by God. So there is harmony and no basic contradiction.
The evolutionist have no God to fall back on, so they can only attribute all strange phenomenon to matter itself. The highest form of mental activity they trace to the human brain. Aside from that, they do not know of any higher form of intelligence in the universe. Since they believe that matter is not influenced by any external intelligence, therefore its existence and motion is wholly a matter of blind chance. Yet chance is not amenable to law. We ask, Does law exist by chance? The atheist cannot give a satisfactory reply. It can be seen that though the theory of evolution has been accepted by the majority of scholars, yet the questions they cannot answer are more than the problems that creationists encounter.
4) I see that the chief factor in creationism is rapidity, while evolution requires aeons of time.
Answer: Correct. According to Genesis, the world was created in six days. Now let us cite a few facts to examine the two views, and see how they fit.
(a) How did the first living organism appear on earth? Did it require millions of years, or did it appear in one day?
Now the basic material of living things is protein. Protein is made up of multiple kinds of amino acids. Evolutionists believe that billions of years ago, a number of inorganic substances combined to form amino acids, which in turn combined to make proteins. The proteins then became a living cell. In order to test the validity of this theory, scientists conducted experiments to produce amino acids out of inorganic matter in a man-made primordial hydrogen atmosphere. Experimentation finally yielded synthetic amino acids. After this they made them into synthetic protein. The third feat, which has never been accomplished, would be to make living cells out of the protein. Here lies the crux of the matter. If, according to evolutionists, the first living cell came into being this way, every stage must be occur in a short time. The primordial surface of the earth must be in an atmosphere of hydrogen. Oxygen would oxidize the amino acids before they turned into protein. Then once a living cell appears, the air must instantly contain oxygen to sustain life.
The experiments conducted according to the theory of the evolutionists demand that there must be instantaneous change. In fact, the experiment did not take millions of years, not even one year. As the living cell appears, there must be a sudden change in the atmosphere. This first step of the birth of a living cell is no problem for creationists, and millions of years are not needed..
5) So the first step---the birth of the living cell demands rapid change. How about the next step?
Answer: The next step really is also the first. One living cell is not enough. There must be three cells. Because living organisms must reproduce to continue to exist. Yet they reproduce in two ways. One is by fission, or splitting, an example of which is the yeast cell, which is asexual. Then there are sexual cells, where one fertilizes the other for reproduction. So the evolutionary hypothesis really needs three cells to begin with, instead of one. And male and female cells must appear in close proximity to make fertilization possible. So for three cells to appear haphazardly, is again a high demand! So we ask, how long did it take for them to appear? Actually, it is not a matter of time, but of design, formation and the giving of life.
In terms of probability, when we throw a dice with 6 sides a hundred times, the chances for the same side facing up is one in six, that is about 16 times. But if you threw 100 dices together, the chances that all will face the same side up, is practically nil. Under such cases, it is no longer a matter of time.
The structure of an amino acid molecule is very complex. Chance can never produce it. Synthetic amino acid in the laboratory is not a haphazard process. One can't mix some oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and carbon atoms together and produce what you want. A measured amount of each must be placed under controlled temperature, humidity and gas, then exposed to ultraviolet radiation. Making protein is even more difficult, and a living cell is beyond the ability of man to build, only God is able..
Cytology, the study of living cells, is a specialized branch of learning, and so is genetic engineering. They delve into a vast field of knowledge. The tiny cell is a complete factory. It uses fuel, absorbs nutrients and excretes waste. It has its own power house and production line. Specialized cells produce certain secretions for other cells. Their complex functions are directed by a command center. Could such an intricate system exist without a designer? It would be pointless to ask, How many years is needed for such a cell to appear? With a designer and maker, it takes little time. Without God, nothing will appear in a billion years.
6) The first step is for life to appear. But then three cells need to be born. What is the third step that cannot be explained with the evolutionary theory?
Answer: The third question that the evolutionists cannot answer is: "Which came first: external or internal fertilization?" This deals with fishes. Since evolution calls for gradual change, here again there must be sudden change. One kind of fish fertilize internally and another externally. Earthworms and snails have simpler physical structures, yet they fertilize internally. But most species of fish fertilize externally. So if all living animals evolved from one parent, then these two kinds of fish came from one parent stock. If two branches from the same stock are proposed, then there must be a sudden split, not a gradual one over millions of years. This is only one example of many cases where gradual change is impossible.
7) I see that these could not have all come from one parent stock. What else cannot be solved by the evolutionary theory?
Answer: The fourth problem is that of fishes learning to walk on dry land. Evolutionists say that life began in the sea. Later, when fishes came on land, amphibians appeared. After that some amphibians turned into mammals, another branch into birds. People must have lively imaginations to guess that about a billion years ago a pair of fish (they must have lungs, fertilize internally, one of each sex) agree suddenly to break old habits and climb on shore. They have no legs, so must prop up their bodies with their fins and try move forward. How did they do this? It could not have been gradual, but a sudden inspiration. Since they don't live long, they must learn fast. It must be another sudden improvement. Those who thought up this scheme did not solve the food problem. Perhaps when the fishes got hungry, they went back in the water, ate and then came back to practice walking again. Then in order to keep what they learned, they must pass on their skills to later generations, and the younger fishes must inherit the urge to walk on land, and persuade their mates to practice with them. Finally, after a million years, they finally succeeded, and after another million years, they branched off into a family that decided to fly, while another stayed on land as mammals.
We are not being facetious or exaggerating. This is actually the thinking of evolutionists. In 1979 they made a film in China entitled "The Evolution of Living Things." But because this sudden change of fishes walking on their fins, is based on guesswork and could not be filmed in real life, these scenes were made with hand paintings. When this film was making its debut in China, the Peoples' Daily of August 31, 1982, p. 3, carried a report entitled, "Chinese Scientist Zhang Miman Discovers that the Coelacanth has no Nasal Canal, Shakes Traditional Theory of Origin of Quadrupeds." We translate this clipping as follows:
8) That must be an interesting resport. Let me read it.
Answer: Fine! Read from here. "The evolution of living things believes that quadruped mammals gradually evolved from aquatic vertebrae---fishes. But how did they come to live on land? For the last century this has been a matter of debate among scholars. Swedish paleontologists of high repute in their discipline believe that about 350 million years ago, the best-developed animal on earth was the Ceolacanth. This fish had canals inside their nostrils, and could breath air instead of using their gills. Inside their four fins they had hard growths that could prop them up for walking. These fins could grow into legs. It is believed that this fish later developed into amphibians, which then became reptiles and mammals, right up to humans.
"The Swedish school of paleontology developed a continuous grinding technique. They would cast a fossil in plaster, then grind away a half millimeter at a time, record its cross-section, then keep grinding. the whole cast. In this way they can learn as much of ancient marine animals as they do of modern ones.
"Zhang Miman, 46-year-old paleontologist of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, went to the National Museum of Natural History of Sweden as a visiting scholar, and mastered the continuous grinding technique and equipment to study the fossil remains of the Chinese ceolacanth. . . .In examining the nasal structure of this fish, she discovered that it had no nasal canal, and so it could not breath when out of water. It therefore lacked the basic prerequisite to live on the land. This discovery undermined the concept that the ceolacanth was the ancestor of land-dwelling quadrupeds. At present the specialists of all nations are giving this matter careful assessment. Dr. Lawson, the noted American ichthuologist, wrote a letter to Dr. Zhang Miman admitting that this discovery has indeed shaken the traditional theory."
It would be more accurate to say that it has overthrown that traditional theory. The Peoples' Daily did not report that this fish that is said to have lived 350 million years ago, is still living today. In 1938 it was first discovered in the waters near south Africa, and later found in other parts of the ocean. It could not breath when taken out of the water. With such a "living fossil" in hand, what point was there in Zhang Miman going to such lengths as to grind the fossil remains of an ancient species? Perhaps she thought that modern ceolacanths have no nasal canal, while ancient ones had it. If that is the case, would not the evidence prove devolution, instead of evolution of living things? Thoughtful people may wonder: Why is it that a fish that lived 350 million years ago has identical features today after 350 million years of evolution? It seems that some great scientists can be very subjective in their thinking.
The Gingko tree and China fir are also living fossils. Their fossil specimens are said to be 100 million years old. In view of these facts, we must ask, if living fossils, after 100 million years of evolution are identically the same as their ancestors, how is it that, according to the evolutionary theory, an ape can turn into a man in 3 million years? Some say that it is superstitious to believe in God. But when a man departs from God, he can lose his reasoning powers. A reasonable man should see that the evolutionary theory encounters a host of problems that cannot be solved in the face of scientific facts, so instead, this theory may truly called superstition.