How and why are we here?

On the one hand is Evolution that says a speck of dead matter sprang into life, grew, divided, and after innumerable years evolved through a series of unguided accidents to result in the millions of species, including humans, that exist today. Evolution is now taught as proven fact and has itself taken on many aspects of being a dominant religion.

The goal of these articles is to offer some creation evidence to believers in evolution, but who are open minded enough to investigate the alternative. A secondary goal is to help reinforce the faith of those who are already Christian believers.

Perhaps the best way to add credibility to one’s arguments, and to persuade others, is to use material outside of one’s own persuasion. That is why about 95% of the information that follows is from the "other sides" material, from evolution supporting sources.

(Italics, bold or underlining may be added to many of the quotes)

(2) (Job 33:4,; Pro 4:4; 7:2; Rom 6:23, Jn 1:3-4

(3) Rom 1:20

(5) Acts 14:15

Previous "Creation Corner" articles have followed the instructions in Rom 1:20 by studying things in nature that can be seen as evidence of a Creator.

This article, however, while it has some of those elements, is more of an overview with three goals:

• To show some major flaws in the evolution dogma.
• To show specific ways that creation and evolution are directly opposed to each other.

• To show the importance of creation believers standing up for creation.

Evolution, which says all living things happened by mindless accident, is the direct opposite to an intelligent, purposeful creator.

Creation opposition gained major support in 1859 with the publication of Charles Darwin’s book, "Origin of the Species". Interestingly enough, Darwin’s book reveals he himself had doubts and made disclaimers.

Nevertheless the disclaimers were overlooked and Darwin’s book was eagerly accepted and widely acclaimed by many because it was just what they had been looking for. After all, if you can get rid of a Creator, if "humans are just animals", then humans can do whatever feels good to them. There are no more rules, no absolutes, no more right and wrong. And aren’t we hearing those very things widely proclaimed today?

Evolution had been presented years before Darwin. What Darwin accomplished was to propose a method that might make evolution possible. The method was two fold - natural selection and millions of years.

The theory of evolution should have died a natural death after 1859 as new scientific discoveries arrived on the scene. Why say that? Consider these that came after "Origin of the Species" in 1859.

1) Life comes only from life. Scientists of 1859 believed that living fruit flies came from dead matter. Pasteur proved them wrong by keeping fruit in a vacuum. Guess what? There were no flies. Pasteur proved the flies came through the air, only from other live flies. A massive lightning bolt doesn’t produce life. Only living things can produce living things.

2) Laws of Heredity and Genetics. Scientists of 1859 thought many traits were passed on to offspring in a random chance way. Mendel’s studies, however, changed that thinking as his experiments proved the characteristics of the parents are passed to their offspring according to precise mathematical ratios - not randomly or from chance.

3) Cells are not simple after all. In 1859 scientists believed a cell was the simplest of the simple. They believed complexity increased only as size increased. However, with modern instruments and technology scientists were able to examine cells, atoms, and even tinier bits of matter. Scientists now know that not only cells, but the atoms making up cells, are themselves extremely complex. Each one is itself a miniature universe and is intricately organized. The first cell that evolution says emerged dripping wet from the ocean slime, far from being 1859 simple, was already incredibly complex, marvelously designed, and enormously efficient.

Those are just the odds for one cell to evolve itself. What then do you think the odds must be of more than a trillion cells banding themselves together to form a living, perfectly functioning together-as-one-unit human being; or indeed any other perfectly functioning animal or plant unit?

Which leads to some questions. Since new cells are no longer evolving, did cells develop one at a time, or all together at the same time? If one at a time, why stop? Wouldn’t logic indicate if they evolved separately one at a time, they would still be evolving? What is it then that is stopping new cells from continuing to "evolve"? Who or what has determined, "this many cells and no more"?

The book has a diagram of a single cell. It is interesting to note the diagram identifies 19 separate and distinct working cell parts.

The point is - these parts all depend on each other, no part can function alone. They either all function together, or none function. Logic seems to say the parts had to have come together, perfectly operating, at the same time. The theory that the first cell evolved a molecule at a time seems disproved by this late knowledge of the extreme "Irreduceable Complexity" of cells.

To sum up. Each one of the above scientific discoveries since 1859 diminishes evolution’s credibility. But weighed en masse’ they should have discredited it completely.

Nevertheless evolution still marches on with the fervor of a religion.

Darwin himself knew that vital to his theory was the finding of "change" fossils for millions and millions of end species. In 1859 he was confident later geologists would find them.

There have been a few fraudulent "fossils". Eagerly embraced for years until the fraud was exposed and reluctantly acknowledged. But those few frauds are the extent of history’s changeover fossils.

Now consider this - where are today’s changeovers? We don’t see any, do we?

Ants are not trying to become beetles, bees are not trying to become a new termite specie, birds are not trying to become lizards, dogs are not trying to fly, humans are not growing three arms or three legs, there are no half insect and half animal new creatures, there are no half bird and half fish creatures, and you can carry out the analogies as far as you want.

It…is…just…not…happening.

And yet, what is absolutely vital for evolution to be true?

Why it’s change is it not? Change that never stops - as each evolved creature becomes 1) better and better and 2) changes into new creatures. Constant change, unrelenting change, change all over the place. Evolution says change went on for millions and millions of years - and by its own scenario never stops.

But instead of change, change, change, what do see?

Instead we seem to see all around us an unchanging, finished creation!

Not only can evolutionists not find their needed millions of changeover fossils to support what they claim happened in the past; there are no changeovers in millions and millions of species alive today.

As a side observation, consider also how each specie appears happy and content. Nowhere whatsoever do we see a desperate specie frantically trying to become something else.

The finished creation that we see all around us today has to be one of the strongest and most compelling logical arguments against evolution. Indeed it might be said it is the only one we need.

Nevertheless evolution supporters hang on with a religious fervor.

I knew evolution and creation were opposed to each other, but had not realized the far-reaching and actually harmful effects of evolution thinking.

Until I learned about "Eugenics" that is.

I was seventy years old and in all my reading of thousands of books and magazines I don’t recall ever seeing the term "Eugenics". Then, just a few months ago, I learned about it for the first time - twice in the same day. What a remarkable coincidence! A few weeks later I ran across eugenics yet a third time.

At 70 years of age, finding out about Eugenics was a real shock to me; maybe it will be to you too.

Eugenics is the end result of believing in evolution and its dogma that having descended from apes, "humans are just animals". Eugenics is an evolutionist mind set that rationalizes:

• Just like animals, there are superior strains in humans and inferior strains.
• The superior strains are entitled to exploit and rule over the inferior ones.

"According to the Eugenists, precisely the same considerations must be applied to human beings. Central to that idea, remember, is to improve the strain by selective breeding…. The problem - civilization protects the inferior strains…. Humanitarian social policies prevented the unfit from being weeded out, and indeed encouraged them to propagate themselves and to swamp the race with inferior genes."

"Galton himself wrote that the first objective of eugenics was to "check the birth rate of the unfit…. The second objective of the improvement of the race by furthering the productivity of the fit by early marriages and healthful rearing of their children."

Thus it seems eugenics has a lot to do with breeding; with superior vs. inferior strains.

"Karl Pearson, Galton’s disciple, and Professor of Eugenics at London University, declared in 1912, "The death-rate is selective, and if we check Nature’s effective, but roughshod methods of race betterment, we must take her task into our own hands and see to it that the mentally and physically inferior had not a dominant fertility."

What state arose with this thinking at its core?

What was the objective of Nazi Germany? Weren’t they the "Third Reich", which was to rule the world for a thousand years?

What was the Nazi battle cry? Wasn’t it that they were the Master Race? Didn’t they have the right - no the duty - to rid the world of Jews, Poles, gypsies, the mentally ill, and similar as they saw it "inferior" stock, wherever they found it? Wasn’t it Nazi reasoning that good farmers do the same thing to breed superior strains of animals?

In Nazi Germany wasn’t it the duty of the pure Aryan woman to practice free sex and produce babies fathered by carefully selected pure Aryan males? And wasn’t it the duty of the State to school the master race children? Yes, yes, yes to all of those questions.

What, then, was fundamentally wrong with Nazism? Doesn’t it seem to be evolution thinking carried to its end result of eugenics?

Marxism and Communism also murdered millions. A study of their philosophies reveals they too have foundations in evolution carried to its end result of eugenics.

With the defeat of Nazi Germany the term ‘eugenics" fell into disfavor. But is it possible eugenic thinking is still around, just the formal title is not used?

How about a year 2000 article that appeared in Time magazine? The thrust of the article was that because some apes and other animals kill their young, we should not be surprised when a girl takes time out from the prom to have a baby in the rest room, promptly throws her newborn in the dumpster, and then merrily goes back to finish dancing at the prom. This behavior should be accepted because after all, other animals from time to time also kill their young.

Right now, today, there are sociologists busily studying animal "family" behavior so they can apply what they learn to human families. Could an especially rewarding part of the studies be when they find animals that kill their young from time to time? Until just recently live abortions were performed daily in our country. Such abortions, indeed any abortion, are easier to accept if "humans are just animals".

Has evolution progressed from theory in 1859, to eugenics in 1900, to being a religion in 2000?

Consider. The evolution theory is taught today in our schools as proven fact. The creation alternative is not even allowed presentation. The various media also treat evolution as fact.

Today’s evolution does seem much like a religion, and a controlling one at that. One that requires an enormous amount of religious faith from its followers. A book I thought excellent on exposing evolution’s religious aspects as well as refuting its doctrines was "Darwin’s Leap of Faith", sub-titled "Exposing the False Religion of Evolution" by John Ankerberg and John Weldon.

I think readers will find an actual comparison of the two religions revealing. Consider:

EVOLUTION SAYS: CREATION SAYS:

genes, environment, etc. (We can