Here is my response to an article that was published in the Hamilton Spectator yesterday (18/02/09). http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/515412 I would like to thank my science teacher and a geologist at Creation Ministries International for the help and information they have given me.
The opinion article published in the Spectator on February 18, 2009 titled “Evolution is a fact, Not a Theory,” was surprisingly inaccurate and shallow seeing that it was writen by an intelligent academic. The official definition of evolution is change. Since it is true that there are changes in this world, in one way the title is telling the truth. However, in this article, the author is referring to the theory (which he calls a fact) of evolution which means, “Change from simple to complex by way of natural selection and ONLY natural causes.” Here the author goes wrong for proclaiming, without any solid evidence, that evolution is the truth.
The author as contradicts himself throughout the article, first saying that natural selection is a theory, then saying a few lines later that, “Natural selection is a fact of everyday life.” He states that no one has come up with a better theory since Darwin’s theory of natural selction. This is not true, in resent years the theory of intelligent design has been proposed. Moreover, the main idea that contradicts with Darwin’s evolutionary ideas was creationism, which has been proposed as far back as human records go. The author uses the fact of extinction to verify evolution. Just because it is observed that there are a wide variety of species and certain of them have been extinct does not in any way prove or support Darwin’s theory. The fact that something dies out does not mean it had to evolve to get there. Something can exist because it has created/made by a higher being. Just because your car broke down yesterday does not mean it was not made by humans or human aided devices. It simply means it broke down, it does not tell you anything about who made it!
The author says, “Belief in evolution is based on logic and reason.” Is it logical to state the entire universe came from nothing, absolutely nothing? How is it logical to say that things evolved just because they went extinct? How logical is to take a tooth of a pig and make the missing link out of it? (Yes, this was done by evolutionists.) What is more logical and intelligent is to say that a supreme being created the universe, that the universe did not just pop out of nothing on its own. The author says that because there have been fossils found, evolution is a fact. This is absolutely illogical reasoning. There have been many examples of fossils of animals found in layers of rock that were supposed to have be formed millions of years before the animal found even existed. A global flood explains these fossilization even better then evolution does. What is thought to have happen is that these animals where quickly fossilized be a rush of sediment formed by the flood. The assumption that it took millions off years for the rock layers to form can easily be proven wrong. In fact, since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 about 400 feet of rock layers have formed. This digs deep holes into the evolutions view of the way rock layers were formed.
Certain scientists might argue that evolution can be proved because of the dating methods used to detect how old the fossils are. However this dating is full of errors. This is why dates of certain important evidences of evolution are changing constantly. In fact evolutionist only use carbon 14 dating ( the most common kind of dating) when it agrees with there theories. Two scientists wrote this in an article they published, “If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.”1 There is a tree core sample that has been dated 3000 years in the future by Brock University using this method. 2
Evolutionists state that evolution can be proved because the DNA of two different species is similar. This does not prove evolution at all. Just because to organisms have similar DNA does not prove that they came from the same ancestor, it can just as much prove that the Creator of the universe used a common design to make different species. The author used a car as a proof of evolution. He said just as a car evolves as it goes through cycles of death and birth and feeds on things like metals, plastics and rubbers. In fact his proof works better as a proof for creationism. If there were no intelligent beings to make the car, the car would never have been made. If there were no designers to detail how a car would run, there would be no car sitting in your driveway. If there were no humans to maintain the cars, the cars could not take care of themselves. If there were no higher Being to make this world, the world would not be here today. If there were no Designer the world would not be here. If there way no Higher Being to maintain this world, it would have fallen into confusion ages ago. The production and life of a car is proof of an intelligent making of this universe, not random evolutionary happenings.
As any intelligent reader can see, evolution is not at all a fact, but merely a theory. What can be explained in evolution can just as easily be explained with creation. In fact the world’s most famous scientists, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Samuel Morse, Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Sir Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle, the Wright brothers and many more believed in creation not evolution. Louis Pasteur said, “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.” When you look outside and use your brain, you can easily see that this earth could not come by random chance, but was created by a higher Being.
- T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson (Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, University of Uppsala, Sweden), ‘C14 dating and Egyptian chronology’, in Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson (editor), Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 35, 1970.