The Philosophical, Scientific, and Historical Evidence that God Exists

Apologetics to the Glory of God

by David Scott Nichols, MD

The Philosophical, Scientific, and Historical Evidence for God Apologetics to the Glory of God

Table of Contents Preface – A brief presentation is made to encourage the reader to pursue the answer to the ultimate question… “Does God exist?” This book will present a vast amount of evidence in a variety of areas to show that our Universe and all that is in it is the result of God’s handiwork.

Introduction – A concise overview of the subject matter discussed in this book.

P. 10

Section 1 - Philosophical Proofs for the Existence of God

p. 13

Chapter 1: Let’s Just Think About It

p. 14

• • • •

Ontological Proof – a classic, but very poor, proof for the existence of God Moral Proof – A well thought out logical argument to believe in God Teleological Proof – another excellent logical reason to believe in God’s existence Cosmological Proof – a fool-proof argument for God’s existence

Section 2 – Scientific Evidence for God

p. 35

Chapter 2: Science vs. Theology p. 36 An overview will be given to show how theologians and secular scientists have been engaged in a not very subtle warfare in recent history with possible explanations why this antipathy has continued to build. A review of the relationship between science and theology throughout history is useful here. Additional discussion will show how this problem has resulted in our schools delivering to students incorrect and very damaging information about their origins.

It will be pointed out that the intellectual giants in the fields (ex. Albert Einstein) of physics & cosmology and biology generally agree that current scientific knowledge points to a Creator.

Unfortunately, this information is not allowed to filter down to our schools. Reasons for this will be proposed and discussed in this section and in a later section when the controversial topic of evolution will be reviewed in detail.

Much care will be used to present the following controversial subject matter: virtually all secular scientists believe our Universe is several billion years old - Christian cosmologists, on the other hand, disagree on this point, (sometimes, unfortunately, somewhat bitterly). This course will equip the student with the information needed to demonstrate to the non-Christian individual who believes in the “old earth” view that, in fact, this view of cosmology proves that God must exist! Virtually by definition, anyone who believes in a “young earth” is probably a Christian - since that is not the current secular belief. That person therefore, doesn’t need any convincing arguments. Be that as it may, the evidences for a young earth and those for an old earth will be thoroughly discussed later in the book.

1

Chapter 3: The Big Bang p. 50 An unfolding of the scientific discoveries of the past 100 years that have resulted in our current understanding of the Universe will be presented. Fascinating discoveries have been made that show how our Universe came into being at a particular point in time… just as the Bible says. This discovery changed the way cosmologists thought about our Universe; for hundreds of years, scientists had been under the impression that our Universe was eternal.

Einstein, when he finally accepted the reality of the Big Bang, recognized clearly that this could only be true if a Creator existed… and he believed in a Creator from that point onward. These incredible discoveries, that point to an Intelligent Designer of our Universe, will be highlighted and explained with many illustrations. Several different methods for determining the age of our Universe will be reviewed. Many quotes of famous secular scientists who recognize just how amazing the creation of our Universe actually is will be presented.

Chapter 4: Forces of Nature and Expansion of the Universe p. 73 In this chapter, I will discuss the four fundamental forces of nature and how they are so incredibly fine-tuned to values that are absolutely necessary for the development of the Earth and life itself. Several pages are dedicated to an explanation of the expansion rate of our Universe and the likelihood of it remaining viable into the distant future. Some discussion concerning inflation is begun… more on this follows for those interested in Appendix III. Chapter 5: Creation of our Solar System p. 82 This chapter discusses the interesting manner by which our Universe developed our Solar System. Besides the fine-tuning of the four fundamental forces of nature, there were literally scores of other items in nature that were required to be at precisely the right values to allow for Earth to support life. Scientists say that there are literally scores of these “fine-tuned” items in nature that lead one to believe that Someone must have planned our world from the outset.

Chapter 6: Entropy p. 91 The Second Law of Thermodynamics concerns the concept of entropy. This Law will be explained and it will be shown how this leads to the conclusion that our Universe had a beginning at a specific point in time sometime in the distant past.

Chapter 7: Anthropic Principle p. 92 The definition of the Anthropic Principle is given and the various types of it are briefly reviewed. Probably more importantly, the more common usage of this term is explained and many quotes of famous cosmologists are noted to show how they believe that our Universe certainly appears to have been incredibly fine-tuned to support human life.

2

Chapter 8: Alternate Views on the Creation of our Universe p. 99 As so many cosmologists are adamantly against facing the fact that God created the Universe, other ideas have continued to be put forth over the decades. Two of the more significant concepts are the: • Steady State Universe – This would result in a Universe that could always have existed.

Hence, if the steady-state conception of the Universe is correct, a Creator may not have been required for its existence.

• Oscillating Universe – This theory has its origin in Hindu and Buddhist theology. The people who suggested this idea in the 20th century, believed that our Universe continually expanded, then contracted in an infinity of Big Bang explosions. There were many problems with this idea… these problems will be discussed.

Chapter 9: The Multiverse p. 113 Quantum Mechanics - This is a very strange field of physics, difficult to understand and even difficult to accept some of its conclusions. Yet, it is an important way of looking at the Universe as it leads into the various explanations of the Multiverse. So, we shall review some of the basics of this field of physics – a completely new way of looking at the world.

The Multiverse Explanation – the last gasp effort that some scientists have resorted to in an effort to stave off the only realistic answer for the origin of our Universe… i.e. God created it. Quantum Mechanics comes into play in this discussion. Please do keep in mind the amount of evidence that exists for the multiverse model… i.e. literally, ZERO! However, the topic will be reviewed and several popular conceptions will be presented.

Footnotes

p. 125

Section 3 – Evolution; What is the Evidence?

p. 127

Chapter 10: The Origin of Life p. 128 A detailed explanation of the seventy-year search for a non-supernatural explanation for the onset of living things on the earth. So far, this quest has produced zero results.

Chapter 11: Evolution: Introduction A brief history of Darwin’s early years

p. 138

Chapter 12: Evolution: an overview p. 141 In this portion of the book, I will explain what it meant by the term evolution and define a multitude of terms that one should understand when learning about this topic. The critical difference between microevolution and macroevolution will be clearly explained (as one does occur, the other does not). Importantly, I will also give several quotes of just what evolutionists 3

actually believe about the likelihood of Darwin’s theory… now referred to as Neo-Darwinism being true. What does the fossil record show? Is the “tree of life” as Darwin expected it to be?

What have been the cultural effects of this theory? Is it really now considered a fact instead of a theory? I will discuss the current status of the theory of evolution in the last few pages of this chapter and the effort made by Stephen Gould and Niles Eldridge to save this crumbling theory with their introduction of a new conception of evolution that is referred to as “punctuated equilibrium.”

Microevolution – the kind of evolution that has taken place since life first appeared our world.

The Lie of Macro-Evolution – there have been fabulous discoveries made over the last sixty years, most at the cellular level (but, not all) that have eliminated the possibility of macroevolution from being a viable explanation for the existence and variety of the living organisms seen in the world today. Many of these newly discovered concepts will be covered in detail in this next several chapters. The fact is that these new discoveries point to a Creator as the designer of the Universe, including all life within.

Chapter 13: The Cambrian Explosion p. 156 The next chapter begins the series of chapters that will demonstrate the many significant problems with Neo-Darwinism. There is nowhere near the number of transitional fossils that were expected to be found… if any at all. Also, the epoch of time known as the Cambrian epoch produced massive fossil evidence of an explosion of many new life forms in a really short period of time. The fact that so many different animal fossils were formed within a very short period of time, deals a significant blow to those who believe that macroevolution actually took place.

Chapter 14: Taxonomy, Homology, and Analogy p. 166 The failure of homology and the sequencing of various families of homologous proteins (comparative biochemistry) is reviewed. The differences and similarities of proteins in various species is studied to see if there is evidence of evolutionary descent from one to another.

Chapter 15: Irreducibly Complex Systems p. 176 This chapter will explain this interesting type of system and how these point to a Creator instead of macroevolution as the source for the many different species in Nature.

Chapter 16: The Mathematical Limitations of Darwinian Evolution p. 189 A statistical analysis of what mutations can and cannot accomplish with respect to evolution is undertaken. Certain valuable microevolutionary mutations are discussed. Also, further statistical analysis of the likelihood of macroevolution having occurred in nature is evaluated.

4

Chapter 17: Can Macroevolution Lead to New Body Forms?

P. 201 Although microevolution is possible and there is evidence that it has occurred, there is no evidence at all that macroevolution can take place. This chapter discusses the limitations of evolution and shows why it cannot lead to any new body forms.

Chapter 18: Missing Links and Icons of Evolution p.215 Several classic evolutionary icons are discussed and the fallacies in each are revealed.

Also, the well-known missing links are evaluated for what they actually are… none are actually examples of macroevolution.

Chapter 19: Genesis Creation Account p. 230 The three main interpretations of Genesis 1&2 are given. These are the “Day Age,” the “Gap Theory,” and the 24hour/7day week interpretations. Plusses and minuses are briefly discussed.

Chapter 20: The Age of the Earth: Is it Young or Old? p. 239 Due to the fact that there are millions of sincere Christians that believe the Earth is only 10,000 to 100,000 years old, the evidence that these young-earth scientists reference in defending their position is evaluated.

Chapter 21: Unusual Animal Characteristics and Amazing Animal Instincts p.243 There are tons of outstanding examples of animal instincts that show how God had to instill these capabilities within these animals… they are too detailed and complex for evolution to have produced. The penguin, certain birds, ants, bees, and certain fish (e.g. salmon) are great examples to evaluate. The idea that evolution could have led to many of these detailed instincts is much more difficult to believe and understand than to posit that God simply imbued these animals with them. The instinct argument for a Creator is basically a particular aspect of the “irreducibly complex system” argument. Many of these instincts that will be shown in this chapter are required for the animal’s survival (or at least for it to carry out its “mission” in life).

The problem for the evolutionist is that these instincts (at least the ones I will describe here) are complex and would require multiple genetic mutations if one assumes that they came about via evolution. Yet, each aspect of these instincts are basically worthless without all the other aspects of these complex instincts… hence, their irreducible complexity.

Chapter 22: A Detailed Look at the Amazing Human Eye p.253 An incredible example of an irreducibly complex system on a macroscopic level.

I will give about 25 aspects of the human ocular system that are irreducibly complex. A great example of this concept.

5

Footnotes

p. 257

Section 4 - Historical Evidence for God

p. 259

Chapter 23: The Unique Christian God p.260 This opening portion of the last section gives a fairly complete explanation of what it means to be a Christian. Since the Christian Bible includes the entire Jewish scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament) a brief discussion of some of the main parts of Judaism is included as well.

Chapter 24: Fulfilled Prophecies p. 268 This chapter begins the main portion of this section on showing the evidence for the veracity of the Christian message. After a brief introduction, I will begin with a discussion of many of the vast number of fulfilled prophecies concerning, primarily, the nation of Israel.

Prophecies about other nations that had dealings with God’s chosen people (the Jews) will also be presented.

Chapter 25: Messianic Prophecies p. 284 Important prophecies of the coming of the Messiah (Jesus Christ) are featured in this chapter.

Chapter 26: Prophesies Made By The Lord, Jesus p. 296 Several prophecies made by Jesus are noted in this chapter. Also, an important messianic prophecy from the book of Daniel that prophesies when the Messiah will come to Earth is also presented in detail.

Chapter 27: Old Testament “Types” of Jesus p. 302 The intriguing topic of Old Testament types is presented here. This chapter will present many of the more important types including: Jacob vs. Jesus, the Passover, Abraham and Isaac, Manna from heaven, the story of Jonah, the Mercy Seat, and the Brazen Serpent.

Chapter 28: Resurrection – the changes lives of the Apostles p. 320 Regarding presenting outstanding evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, this chapter is without peer. The most significant reason that I believe that Jesus is the Son off God, my Savior, is because of how incredibly much the Apostles changed after He was crucified. Their lives after the death of their friend Jesus only makes sense if they saw His risen body. Details on this topic will be given in this chapter.

Chapter 29: Liar, Lunatic, or God p. 325 C.S. Lewis had an excellent proof of Jesus’s resurrection that revolved around the only three possibilities relating to His character… He may have been a liar, or a lunatic. However, if 6

He was neither of these two things, He had to be God the Son! This chapter explains the logic behind this argument.

Chapter 30: The Archeological and Historical Accuracy of the Bible p. 333 The Christian biblical history, when checked against secular history, is perfectly accurate.

There is outstanding archeological evidence for the veracity of the Christian scriptures as well.

Many examples are given in this chapter. Also, comments by the early church leaders are given and are also confirmatory. The Bible has several important themes that are emphasized from Genesis to the Revelation of Jesus Christ. These themes are reviewed.

Chapter 31: Famous Christians of History p. 345 Many people have the mistaken idea that Christians are a bunch of ignorant and dullminded rubes. Many examples of fine, intelligent Christians are given along with some of their opinions of the Bible.

Chapter 32: The Gospel Message p. 351 This concluding chapter is very, very important. Please take the time to read it so that you can understand what our wonderful God in Heaven wants for you. For those people who have been convinced that God exists and want to have an all-important relationship with the God of the Bible, this last chapter will explain how that relationship can begin.

The Problem of Pain – Unfortunately, many people will come to an understanding of the logic in believing in a Creator… but will still resist. Why? Well, in the final analysis, the decision to accept Jesus is one of the heart. A step of faith is always going to be necessary… that is the way God wants it. The Bible says, "without faith we cannot please God". Some people, like Albert Einstein accept the idea of a Creator, but cannot accept the concept of a personal loving God. Many times, the stumbling point relates to what C.S. Lewis refers to as "The Problem of Pain"…

If God is so loving, why does God allow pain in His world? There is a good answer, of course.

Several years ago, I wrote another book on exactly this topic. As it is approximately ninety pages long, I believe it appropriate to just suggest to the reader interested in the answer(s) to this question to go to my website, nicholsbiblestudies.com and either read while still online or download the entire book to your computer. You will notice that on page 4 of that website all of my books are available for reading online and/or downloading. Page 3 has a brief description of each book.

Appendix I – Schrodinger’s Cat

p. 357

Appendix II – Stephen Hawking’s Oscillating Universe Idea

p. 359

Appendix III – The Inflationary Universe (Monopoles, Horizon, Flatness)

p. 360

Bibliography

p. 366

7

Preface Ever since I was a teenager, I have been very interested in studying anything related to apologetics (defined in Webster’s Dictionary as “defending by argument, especially the Christian faith”). I have been a Christian since a small boy, but when I began to be introduced to topics such as evolution in school, I felt compelled to delve into the study of philosophy, science and history as a means of strengthening my faith. I recognized that the possibility existed that this pursuit might, indeed, have the opposite effect. However, if the Creator in whose hands I rested my eternal destiny was truly non-existent, I wanted to know. Over the years I have, fortunately, been able to satisfy myself on the veracity of my beliefs. I certainly do recognize, however, that for those people who rely solely on what they learn in school and hear in casual conversation, it would be very easy to come to the opposite conclusion, tragically... that God does not exist and that people have no more purpose in this world than petunias.

What actually amazes me is how this does not seem to bother a lot of people. It sure would trouble me! I cannot understand how so many of my acquaintances and some family members, will admit to the possibility that God actually might exist, but then spend little time, if any, in finding out whether He does! And my, the stakes are so high! If we do have a Creator, and He is the one described in the Bible, our belief in Him will reap us tremendous dividends, both now and for eternity. On the other side of the coin, our lack of belief will have very undesirable consequences.

Frankly, over the years, I have asked many an agnostic person (and a few atheists) if they thought there was at least one chance in a hundred that my belief in God just might be correct.

Most, in fact all, have said “yes” to that question. I then ask them if they truly had one chance in a hundred (the same chance that they give to the existence of God) of winning 1 billion dollars would they be willing to drive to New York (a 20-hour drive)? Naturally, as you might expect, almost all quickly said “yes” to that question as well. Next, my question to them was, “How is it that you would be willing to spend that much effort in pursuing money (admittedly a bundle of it) but not a similar amount of time and effort pursuing something infinitely more valuable (a meaningful life on Earth and the promise of a perfectly glorious eternal life in Heaven to come)... and by your own admission just as likely (i.e. at least 1 chance in 100)?” They then tend to mumble something under their breath and soon we were on another subject.

I chose the 20-hour trip in my example above as I believe that if a person, with an open and prayerful attitude, were to spend a similar amount of time reading and studying the Bible and possibly a few other related books, that God would reveal His truth to them. In fact, God tells us that he will reveal Himself to us if we only look for Him (... he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. Hebrews 11-6) (...seek and ye shall find... Luke 11-9). The problem comes with that incredible attitude that the time required is not worth it... what am I missing here? The question of where and how a person will spend an eternity is not worth pursuing?

If you are an agnostic (or an atheist), I am hopeful that the fact that you are reading these words puts you in another category than those I alluded to above. I ask that you read this book with an open mind. I also recognize that there may be many Christians reading this book who, 8

like me, want to strengthen their faith and gain another tool for use in witnessing to others.

Hopefully, this book will bring the reader closer to his/her omnipotent Creator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I began to write a book on the subject of apologetics in the fall of 1997. I spent portions of 2-3 years on this project before suspending it around the turn of the century. Prior to that time, I read over fifty books and/or articles on the topic of cosmology… almost all of them were written by secular scientists (almost all were non-Christian). I also read a significant number of books on the topic of evolution – these included books by those individuals who believed that evolution was actually the method by which nature has given the world all forms of life… and books by other scientists who believe that discoveries made over the last fifty years or so have shown that Darwinian evolution is not the mechanism that has led to the existence of all living things. My plan was (and still is) to show that even a large number of secular scientists have recently come to the unsettling conclusion (to them) that there is, indeed, a God of this Universe.

As you will see, I have included many quotes in the chapters that follow from these cosmologists and evolutionists that prove this point.

I have found a great quantity of excellent books on the various aspects of apologetics over the years. I have studied and learned a lot from many of them. I now have plans to write a comprehensive book on the scientific and philosophical proofs of God… the book that I had begun to write in the latter part of the twentieth century. In this book, I will present the main areas of evidence to convince, hopefully and prayerfully, the majority of open-minded individuals that God does exist and He is, indeed, the God of Christianity. I will also add a Power Point Presentation to the lecture series when it is complete.

I noted in my expanded Table of Contents what topics I plan to cover in this book on apologetics. This book will present evidence in a significant number of different areas to show why it makes perfectly good sense to believe in God, specifically, the God presented in the Holy Bible. The key is to keep an open mind while reading and studying the pages to follow.

9

Introduction

Anyone who ever entertains the thought of writing a book needs to ask himself some very important questions, starting with... Do I really want to do this? and this then leads to... Why should I do this? Isn’t there already a book out there that accomplishes what I want to do? I have been thinking about writing a book like this for thirty years, but it has always been easy to put it off for another year or so for a variety of reasons. Actually, I started to write it a little over twenty years ago… but, only got about 35% of it accomplished at that time. Hopefully, now I will stop the procrastination and get this book written as I do think that it could be useful in convincing open-minded skeptics that God really does exist and He loves them and wants them to turn to Him in faith.

I found it difficult to understand, when I was a lot younger, how a person could not even believe in a Creator. But, actually, given the world in which we now live, it really makes perfectly good sense. We grow up in a school system where even the mere mention of God is essentially prohibited in the classroom. The idea of actually presenting facts concerning the wide variety of evidence for creation and against evolution is out of the question. Teachers do not want to get into any trouble by not abiding by the current day edicts of our public-school systems. Not only that, but the “theory” (and I use this term loosely) of evolution is drummed into the heads of virtually all teachers so that most of them do not know about all of the excellent evidence against macroevolution that I will be presenting in the chapters that follow. Sadly, I believe that a significant majority of high school and college science teachers have been hoodwinked into believing the lie of evolution. The “brainwashing” of our students has been going on for several generations. They are literally not allowed to be exposed to the evidence against evolution. The ability to mention God as a possible source of the Universe or life was outlawed in 1962 by the Supreme Court. Several legal cases over the past 35 years have resulted in the ruling that the evidence for supernatural input in creation and life is not to be tolerated.

Our whole society doesn’t seem to have any time to contemplate matters of eternal importance... not if we are to make as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Most people seem to let the “experts” think for them... it is very “easy” to do this...but what if those so called “experts” are wrong! It is my contention that they are, indeed, tragically wrong... and that is why I am writing this book... to show the many reasons we can and should believe that we all have a Creator and, not only that, but a Creator who loves each and every one of us.

It has always bothered me that so many people are so willing to accept what they are taught in school as “gospel” and literally never question whether those teachings are true? Just think about it... it is so very obvious that scientists are constantly coming up with incorrect “truths”. Is our world flat? Does the sun rotate around the earth? That is what the great minds of just a few hundred years ago believed as certainty... well they were wrong! And so many of our ideas accepted as “fact” today are wrong as well! This is true in all fields of science. I see it myself in medicine, my profession - many things we believed to be true decades ago simply are 10

not. Interestingly, more than one of my medical school professors used to tell us as we prepared for an exam week, “The questions on the test will be the same as always… only the answers change from year to year.” They were only half kidding as answers regarding the best treatments for various diseases do change frequently in the field of medicine. Evolutionists are in a mad scramble to patch up their quickly crumbling “theory” that has started to unravel significantly even among its staunchest supporters (I’ll delve into this later in much more detail). The “big bang” theory” has led some of our most prominent modern-day secular scientists to acknowledge the absolute requirement of a Creator! Sadly, some of these new developments do not filter down to our classrooms where students are still being taught “science” as it was accepted 40-50 years ago. I do not know all of the reasons for this delay, but it certainly is extremely unfortunate.

There already are books on the library bookshelves and in the bookstores that accomplish many of the purposes that I have in mind for this book. In fact, there are many outstanding books that have been written in the last 15-25 years in the various fields of apologetics. And there are many great classics in this area, as well. I have read most of them! However, there seems to be one type of book that is missing.

Although very many good books have been written in the field of apologetics, virtually all of them are at least somewhat difficult to understand. Apologetics is not a topic that lends itself to simplicity. In fact, it is almost a contradiction in terms to talk about an easy to understand book on apologetics. For that reason, I believe, many people never even attempt to read any books in this field. Certainly, there are many individuals who do have questions of eternal significance and want answers. But it can be difficult to find a book that will cover these topics that is not written for the philosopher, scientist or historian. I have tried to write this book in such a way that the majority of readers will be able to understand the important points without too much difficulty. For example, I have added a couple of appendices to explain difficult topics… for those who want to understand more in certain areas. Others can simply skip that section without missing any important points. I also hope that this book will at times be entertaining (it is far too easy for these subjects to become laborious).

I want this book to cover what I perceive as the three main areas of apologetics… philosophy, science and history. Each of these fields gives a unique look at the reasons we should believe in the existence of a Creator - and definite clues as to what that Creator is like.... indeed, even who He is! I want to give the reader a full appreciation of the entire field of study ... although not in so much detail to drown him in complexity. Through the use of footnotes and references, any given topic of discussion can be pursued more deeply through the excellent books that I have already alluded to above.

The first portion of the book will review the way philosophers down through the ages have sought to prove that God existed. There are several “proofs” that will be discussed... one with obvious holes in it... others that are quite convincing... and, I believe one that is a real winner! Of course, there are many people who have doubts about every philosophical proof ever

11

proposed, but that does not necessarily mean that these proofs are all in error. We’ll take a look at them and point out their plusses and minuses.

After this philosophical discussion, I will turn my attention to science. I will discuss the current theories on the origin of our Universe. There have been many scientific discoveries in the past few decades that are very exciting to apologists. In fact, if these scientific discoveries are to be believed, it virtually demands that there be a Creator! We will see how these discoveries point to a self-existent, omnipotent God. The so called “theory of evolution” is coming under attack like never before. Over the last 25-35 years, more and more scientists are wavering greatly on this Darwinian concept. This topic also will be covered in detail as we conclude the study of the scientific proofs for God’s existence. I will admit that there will be a couple of portions in this scientific section that will be somewhat complex. However, if need be, these areas can be skipped over without sacrificing the important concepts.

Hopefully, I will have convinced many of you that there are indeed very solid reasons to believe in an omnipotent Creator by the time I head into the last section of the book. If there is a Creator, then it is certainly appropriate to ask, “What is the nature of this... God?” Can we know something of what “He” is like? Is there any particular religion that best describes the God that we would expect from what we know of “His” nature from our studies of philosophy and science? If so, what is that religion? What other historical “proofs” can we find that will lend credence to the veracity of this religion?

If we then find and believe in the God of our Universe, has he left us any messages that we should know about? If so, what?

12

Section 1 - Philosophical Evidence for God… This book will be divided into four sections. Each will feature a different topical argument showing that God does exist and is intimately involved in the running of our Universe and everything within it. As will be shown, He created it, He set the laws of nature in such a precise way that life would be possible, He then created all life on the Earth, and He is everpresent and omnipotent to help us live our lives to their fullest potential.

In this first section, I will present several philosophical “proofs,” or better stated, evidences for the existence of God. All throughout history, there have been philosophers who have made a variety of philosophical arguments in their quest to prove to the world that there was a God behind all creation. Some of these arguments are pretty weak, some are very good, and one or two are outstanding. I will review the main points of four or five of the more wellknown of these arguments.

The key point to understand when looking at this philosophical evidence is that it is all based on logic. In order to have a good and reasonable proof of anything, including the existence of God, the argument being used must be completely logical. It is really quite depressing when I see so many people in our world who believe certain things without any logical reason for their belief. Often, it is simply because they heard some teacher say it was so, or their parents believed a certain thing concerning a religion or God. Admittedly it is important to consider strongly the teaching of one’s parents, but even they can be wrong. I know of many wonderful instances where a child (typically one that is at least a teenager in age) has led his/her parents into a loving, saving relationship with the God of the Holy Bible.

Although as will be shown, there are philosophical proofs that should lead a thoughtful person to believe in God, typically more is required to lead a person to the knowledge of just who that God is… i.e. the God of the Bible. The information required to make an informed decision on that issue is surely available and will come in a later section of this book. So, now let us get started…

13

Chapter 1: Let’s Just Think About It On the first day of class, the professor looked out over the classroom as he deliberately held up over his head what certainly appeared to be a brand-new yellow pencil. Then, after instructing his students to spend a few moments studying the object, he proceeded to hand it to the student closest to him. After approximately five minutes, the “pencil” had been viewed at close range by all and it was once again in the hands of the bearded professor. Now with all eyes affixed and ears once again attuned to the erudite looking teacher, he proceeded to ask the question that would keep his students occupied for hours. “Tell me why what you have just seen is NOT a pencil.” Thus began my daughter’s first year’s honor’s philosophy course.

This true anecdote demonstrates a couple of important points that I would like to mention about the study of philosophy. First of all, most of those who engage in this field of study which is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “a critical study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence and the grounds for them” certainly possess the admirable trait of an inquisitive mind. They also are engaged in the pursuit of the truth. To the philosopher, just because something has always been accepted as truth, does not necessarily mean that it is true.

Everything is open to question, analysis and debate. Generally speaking, this is all very good.

However, sometimes students of philosophy can get so involved with esoteric (indeed, sometimes inane) arguments that they miss out on obvious truths (ex. when a pencil is a pencil).

Unfortunately, I believe that it may be this tendency that has relegated the study of philosophy to relatively few people as most others feel that it has nothing of any real merit to offer. This, I believe, is not the case. In fact, I hope to show in the next several pages that we have much to gain by asking and then attempting to answer a question of eternal significance. The study of philosophy should not be limited to just those behind “ivy covered walls.”

So then what will be our question? How about a real dandy. “Is there a God?” You may say as many have before... “There is no sense in pursuing the answer to that question... no one can prove that God exists.” Well, who says so? Surely God doesn’t? Anyone who believes that the existence of God cannot be proven using logical arguments would do well to remember the point of my daughter’s professor... don’t just blithely accept what you have been told by others... especially true when dealing with such an important a question... but instead, look into the subject matter yourself. Some may already be blessed with a very comforting belief in God already. They may wonder why they should attempt to understand these arguments for God’s existence. For one thing, it is always encouraging to see further evidence for what one believes to be true. And, keep in mind that there are many people in the world today that are not so fortunate to believe... they are searching for the answers to life’s eternal questions ... foremost of which include the reasons for their own existence and their eternal destiny... both of these questions point to the basic question... Is there a God? In other words, with a basic understanding of the philosophical proofs pointing to the existence of a Creator, some readers may for the first time see the possibility of a purpose in their lives and then take the next step towards finding out more about this God. For those already comfortable in their belief, these

14

arguments may someday be shared with another who is still looking for reasons to believe. So, let’s take a look together.

Over the course of everyone’s lifetime, one cannot help but ponder certain aspects of our world and even life itself. For one thing, it would be very difficult to believe that a reasonably intelligent person could make it through a lifetime without questioning where our Universe came from? Even more certain to be asked would be the question of “where did I come from?” Well, these questions have been asked down through the ages... and attempted to be answered. Of course, there have been the religious answers which we shall review in some detail later in this book. These would include the world’s major religions (such as Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) and a variety of mythological answers to these perplexing questions. It has only been in relatively recent times that science has had a lot to say about the “origins” of man and his world. Admittedly, as we will see in the next section, science has had a lot to say lately.

However, in this chapter, I would like to review what the world’s greatest “thinkers” (i.e. philosophers) have had to say on the subject.

When I was in college, I took a college course in philosophy... like daughter, like father.

It was very interesting and enjoyable since I have always liked a good “discussion.” We spent almost the entire semester discussing the “proofs” for the existence of God. The professor was a real fan of Rene Descartes and was convinced that his proofs for God’s existence were foolproof.

I took exception to this and we entertained (or bored) the class for a couple of weeks arguing back and forth on this issue. Eventually we moved on to another topic, but I decided to do my term paper on the fallacies in Descartes’s logic in his proofs for God’s existence. I was convinced at that time that no one could show in any logical way that the Universe had a creator... that God existed. I remember the final paragraph in my paper stated that although I did indeed believe in God, I felt that the only way we could ever believe in God was through faith and not through any philosophical proofs. I felt that people were “barking up the wrong tree” to look for logical reasons to believe in God. Well now, years later, I would like to say that I was wrong - I now do indeed believe that we can come to an understanding of the necessity of the existence of God and some knowledge of His nature through the use of our brains (one of his many gifts to us) and the study of his handiwork... the Universe! “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Psalms 19:1) “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20) “Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.” (Job 9:8-10) As one can see, the Bible states that evidence for God and his great power can and should be found in nature… particularly the study of the “heavens” (i.e. space). Scientists have found excellent evidence for the existence of God and his handiwork over the course of the last century by the detailed study of the Universe. I will hasten to add, however, that the final step in our acceptance of the God of the Bible will involve faith ... the point is, however, that it does not have to be a “leap”… just a very reasonably small, yet critically important and wonderful, step.

15

In my study of apologetics, I have been struck by the strange arguments some philosophers have given to dismiss some of the philosophical arguments for God’s existence (by the way, this is also true of scientists, possibly to an even greater degree as they dismiss substantial scientific evidence for God’s existence). I will be reviewing several of the most well-known philosophical proofs for God’s existence in the pages that follow. Most of these “arguments” fall short in the minds of many of proving with absolute certainty that the Universe required a creator. On the other hand, I do currently believe that there is one logical/philosophical argument that does give incontrovertible evidence of God’s existence… contrary, of course, to what I thought was the case in my college years. Even with the philosophical arguments that may be less than perfect proofs, it is my contention that it is absurd to dismiss those arguments as having no value (which is commonly done) just because they may fall short of 100% certainty. Rarely do we do this anywhere else in life. If I were to tell you that the world as we know it will still be here tomorrow, you would probably believe me. However, I cannot prove this to you. No one can. Therefore, according to the “logic” of some vehement detractors of the following proofs of God’s existence, you shouldn’t accept that the world will still exist tomorrow. But I believe you could bet your life on it. More importantly, I think you would believe it absurd to bet your life that it wouldn’t be here... in essence, that is what some atheistic philosophers are asking people to do... bet their eternity on the fact that in their mind there is no absolute certain proof of God’s existence. So, they say a person should not believe in God. Yet, it does not follow that if something is not 100% proven to be true that it is false! Obviously, let’s use a little common sense here... if something is well over 99.999% a certainty then it is very reasonable to believe it to be true. The final step will be a step of faith, admittedly as mentioned earlier... but that is OK. It is a reasonable step, a very reasonable step. And if the Bible is true, it is a step God planned for us to take as He has told us that “… without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Heb 11:6) “For it is by grace ye are saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God…” (Eph 2:8) Before moving on to a few of the more prominent philosophical proofs for God’s existence, I should point out some basic ground rules used in all of these proofs. First of all, the rules of logic apply. In other words, logical arguments are made in an attempt to ascertain the truth. So, what is truth? The truth is defined here as that which corresponds to reality - this is called the correspondence theory of truth. Truth cannot be contradictory. Simply put, if something is true, its contradiction cannot also be true. Some may wonder why I am taking the time to define what to most people is so obvious. Good question. However, if you will stop to think for a minute of the world we live in today, it is a topic that does need some clarification.

Consider how often people in our society seem to believe that contradictory views on certain moral issues can both be right. To many in our “post-modern” world, everything is relative... everything. But if everything is relative, it makes the attempt at proving God’s existence fruitless. Even after a perfectly flawless logical proof of the necessity of His being, the person who engages in relativism could simply say... “So, what. I still don't believe it since the contradictory belief may also be true!”

But is this a tenable position? Is it really possible that in the real world two contradictory statements can be true? For example, if someone is told that their car has no gas in it, do they 16

really believe that they can drive home in it? If someone is told that it is not a good idea to jump out of an airplane (without a parachute) at 40,000 feet, do they really believe that it would also be perfectly safe to do so? Let’s not kid ourselves here. Only when it suits their needs do people really ever invoke the “relativistic” or “skeptical” (nothing can ever be known to be true) point of view. And when does that tend to be? Usually when the conversation turns to morals or God. But during their everyday life, these same people do not live their so-called beliefs. They, in fact, live by the rules of logic.

Well, I believe that the vast majority of those reading this book do recognize that there are certain things that are true. Armed with the proper amount of knowledge (defined as a justified belief) and using logical arguments, it is indeed possible to ascertain the truth about many things. The purpose of this book is to see if we can find out the truth about the Creator - if indeed there is one. This shall be done through our use of various philosophical arguments, study of the scientific literature on this topic, and the evaluation of historical evidence.

All of the arguments that will be discussed in the paragraphs that follow, will be pursued in a rational and logical manner. All right, now let’s take a look at some of the philosophical arguments for the existence of a Creator. Over the centuries, several proofs have been most prominent among those advanced by philosophers in their attempts to show the necessity of a Creator. These include the Ontological, Moral, Teleologic, and Cosmologic arguments for the existence of God. It is my contention that the Ontological proof is fallacious in its construction. I include it because it is one of the more famous classical proofs and also to point out the importance of step-by-step logical thinking when trying to prove anything using logical arguments. This proof, as we shall see, has a fatal flaw in logic.

The moral and teleologic arguments point to the marked likelihood of a Creator... although they do not “prove” absolutely that one was required. Importantly, they do lend a great deal of evidence as to the likelihood that our Universe came into existence via a Creator... God. Not only that, but these arguments tend to tell us something about the character of this Creator.

For this reason, they are very important to understand.

Lastly, as I will attempt to show, the cosmological argument when looked at carefully, does indeed guarantee that our world, and everything in it, had to be created by an outside, selfsufficient omnipotent force... a Creator - God. Certainly, the four proofs that will be discussed are not an exhaustive list of the philosophical proofs for the existence of God. However, they do represent a combination of the most well-known and, more importantly, three of the better arguments. It is important to understand that all of these proofs (with the exception of the Ontological Proof) outlined in subsequent paragraphs should be taken together as providing a strong argument that our Universe required a Creator.

One classical argument for the existence of God is called the ontological argument.

This was originally conceived by Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century. Rene Descartes came forward with his modified version several centuries later. Over the centuries it has become 17

a popular topic for discussion. Although it is a straightforward proof, it is far from simple. Here is Anselm’s proof: 1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than to exist in the mind alone.

2. “God” means “that than which a greater cannot be thought.”

3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not reality.

4. Then a greater God could be thought of (a God that had real existence in addition to all of the attributes of our “imaginary” God) 5. But this is impossible, for God is “that than which a greater cannot be thought.”

6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

Think about that one for a while!

Although this “proof” has interested philosophy students for almost a millennium, I feel that Anselm and others who have used variations of this argument are using some very faulty logic as they try to show that God must exist. Of the three classic philosophical arguments for God’s existence this one has very little, if any, merit in my opinion. Let me dissect the steps of the proof and show where I feel that Anselm’s logic wanders off course: 1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than to exist in the mind alone. (well, this is certainly a reasonable assertion, especially as he is about to apply it to the concept of the Creator of the Universe) 2. “God” means “that than which a greater cannot be thought.” (I can understand and accept Anselm’s “definition” of God in this second point of his argument. We must recognize that this God that we are now thinking of must be perfect, i.e. be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc. .... AND most certainly He must actually EXIST if a real entity - see point “1” above)!

3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not reality. (There is a serious problem here in that God cannot simply exist in a person’s mind – the concept of God can, but not God) So, this is where this “proof” fails; if God does not exist in reality, He cannot be anywhere, including in a person’s mind.

4. Then a greater God could be thought of (a God that had real existence in addition to all of the attributes of our “imaginary” God) ----- HOLD IT! (I have a problem with this assertion – our first thoughts of God included the fact that he existed). Just because we can imagine God’s existence does not insure his actual existence. Immanuel Kant pointed out that simply adding existence to the definition of a being, does not cause it to actually exist. I just watched a youtube video where a young man pointed out that simply stating and defining that a realicorn (a unicorn that is real) actually must exist in the real world, does not guarantee that it does. Hence, simply stating that even though the concept of God must include his actual existence, this conception in 18

our minds does nothing to actually bring about his existence in reality… no more than a realicorn is an actual real live unicorn simply because we define it that way.

So, points 5 and 6 in Anselm’s logical argument above becomes irrelevant as we were not able to think of a God greater than the one we originally imagined… and imagining this God does not bring him into existence. Hence, we did not prove anything at all except that all proofs are not equal - some are actually worthless (except for use as fodder for college philosophy classes).

One other method used to show the fallacy of this argument was first put forth by one of Anselm’s contemporaries. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers noted that this argument led to absurd conclusions if one used its logic to prove certain other points. For example, he suggested that one only need to replace the word “God” with “greatest imaginable island” or “a perfectly irresistible force” or a “perfectly immovable object” to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument.

Following the same logical argument that was used for the existence of “God,” you would come up with the conclusion that this greatest imaginable island must exist. For the same reason, you would come up with both a “perfectly irresistible force” and a “perfectly immovable object” exist. Yet, both cannot exist in the same world. This is known as the “reduction to the absurd” argument. Interestingly, Anselm tried to counter this attack on his ontological argument by saying that God was different in quality than those other things in that God was a Necessary Being… a Being that must exist. In doing this, he was making a statement of fact that he did not actually defend. As it turns out, there is a very effective argument that will be discussed below that Anselm was attempting to use to bolster his weak ontological argument. Don’t be upset if you do not follow the above two objections to the ontological argument – it is confusing. More importantly, just recognize that this classic proof for God’s existence is considered very unsatisfactory by many, if not most philosophers.

Another interesting argument for the existence of a Creator involves the apparent “conscience” that humans appear to possess. Many noteworthy philosophers have argued that there is an inborn objective moral code that all people possess. It does not matter what culture they come from nor whether they believe in God - everyone, it is suggested, has this “conscience.”

Immanuel Kant wrote about the “highest good” (summum bonum). He postulated another truth “the existence of God as necessarily belonging to the possibility of the highest good.” Hastings Rashdall, at the turn of this century, carried the argument even further as he stated, “The proposition that some things are right, others wrong ... is an immediate datum or deliverance of consciousness. The truth is assented to, and acted upon, by men of all religions or no religions, by persons who hold most dissimilar views as to the ultimate nature of the Universe, and by men who profess to have no theory of the Universe at all.”

Even more well-known is C. S Lewis, the English philosopher/theologian. Lewis had been a life-long atheist. Eventually, however, he came to a belief in God. In the paragraphs below, we will see how this belief was expanded to a belief in a Christian God largely due to his analysis of this “moral argument”. Lewis noted that people live their lives subject to what he 19

referred to as the “Law of Human Nature.” Let me outline C. S. Lewis’ moral argument for the existence of God. I believe that it is the best on this topic that I have come across: Lewis noted that “each man is at every moment subjected to several sets of law, but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey.”1 This is the “Law of Nature.”

Gravity is an example of the many natural laws that man cannot choose to ignore.

However, only this “Law of Nature” - this moral law - can man choose to disobey. Many have suggested that different cultures have their own ideas of morality - that there is no universal “Law of Nature.” Lewis flatly states that this contention is untrue. He notes that although there are a few differences between various societies (ex. Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, etc.), the impressive fact is how similar that their moral codes were overall! Just think about it for a moment. How many cultures have you heard of that admire a man for murdering his wife; raping his daughter, stealing from a sickly, blind woman? There are none.

Common objections to the concept of the “Law of Nature” and their rebuttal: 1. This “moral law” is simply our herd instinct - a desire to help another person We all have certain things that we are prompted to do by instinct - for example eating food, a mother’s love for her child, the sexual drive. Classically, if a situation arises whereby only one of two or more instincts may be acted upon, the one that is strongest will be chosen by the individual. For example, if a starving man is offered food or the opportunity to date a beautiful model, he will take the food (maybe somewhat reluctantly I’ll admit... but the selfpreservation instinct will rule). Now the question is whether we are prompted to follow this “moral code” by some sort of herd instinct as well. The answer is no. There are many examples that show how our internal moral compass causes us to do certain things that are not consistent with how one would assume we should act if we were guided only by our instinctual drives. For example, there are two desires that a person would be faced with if he knew that he was the only person that could save a man who lay unconscious inside a burning house. One would be his instinct for self-preservation; the other would be a desire to race inside and try to save the man.

It is certainly not in his best interest to run into a burning house at the risk of his own life. Yet, there will invariably be a third little “voice” telling him that he ought to help the person in so desperate a need. Now that does not guarantee that he will obey that voice. Some people will, and some won’t. But that voice will be there for everyone. Why? It is not either one of the two basic instincts. Instead, it is somewhat of a “judge” of what instinct is morally better. Even those that did not risk all in attempting this heroic task would still be thinking about it and recognize the “good” involved if someone had indeed performed this act of heroism.

2. This Moral Law is just a social convention - ingrained into us only by education Here C. S. Lewis gives us a very nice analogy. Just because we are taught something as being true (or right) does not negate the possibility that the thing we have been taught may be more than a human invention. For example, we are all taught certain mathematical facts in school. However, that does not mean that someone can come along and arbitrarily change these 20

facts. Many things that we have learned in school are more than just conventions - they follow natural (i.e. physical) laws. Of course, some are just conventions. The same is true concerning what we learn from our parents. We may learn to dress a certain way for a certain school - a convention. This may not be appropriate for another school. What about the moral law? Lewis points out that we should place this law into the same class as those physical laws. Why? Two reasons. First, there is universal acceptance of these laws with only minor differences.

Secondly, and very important, we need to recognize that when we think about the differences between the morality of one culture versus another, we typically decide which one is better than the other. For example, the Nazis did have a moral code that they followed, but certainly most of us would agree that the moral code that our country followed in WWII was better. If you do indeed feel that one culture has a better moral code of ethics than another, you must be comparing them both to some Ideal. It makes no sense at all to suggest that one thing is better than another unless there is some ultimate truth as our yardstick.

Lewis now points out again that when dealing with humans, something interesting occurs. Not only do people behave in certain observable ways (just like we see things in nature behave according to natural physical laws), but with people, we also have another factor - how these people ought to behave. Never do we realistically believe that a rock should have fallen up instead of down, or the rain should not be so wet, but we often note that a person should be more honest or kind - why should they! Because there is a moral law! Some have said that people get this idea of how to act “right” because it is the most convenient thing to do. I don’t think so.

Remember our example of the burning house. Keep in mind that we as a human race recognize the inherent good in honesty (yet cheating may conceivably help get someone in college), bravery (yet this trait may result in one’s death), and many other similar examples.

Possibly this moral good can be explained away by noting that these apparently noble actions benefit the whole of the human race even if they don’t necessarily benefit the individual.

Human beings will only have safety and what most perceive as happiness if society as a whole can function decently. True, but this argument misses the point entirely if you think about it a moment. Just because it is important for people to act out of moral obligation for the good of society (and this is true), on an individual basis the person may indeed be better off in some ways (ex. financial) if they do not. However, that same individual is driven by the need to do what is right. If he doesn’t, a feeling of guilt will result. It is understood that there are exceptions to this rule, but the moral argument is based on the overall effect that this natural law has on mankind, not the rare exception - even the apparent exception will be somewhat affected by his conscience - unless mental illness intervenes.

Now what does all this have to say about our Universe - if anything. Science until lately has had little to say about the origins of our Universe - little to say about whether there was a God. The capabilities to study the cosmos were not very great until recent years. But we have always had the opportunity to analyze ourselves. Can we arrive at some understanding of our origins by looking within? Is there something that we see about ourselves that we might not expect in a Universe without a God? YES! For some reason there is this amazing urge within 21

humans that pushes them to abide by a moral set of standards. It makes people feel good when they do right and uncomfortable when they do wrong. Somehow there must be an intelligent “Mind” “out there” directing us to do certain things. Although we can only see the effects of this “Director” on our minds, it is logical to assume that other things in the Universe are being affected as well (for example the physical laws of the Universe probably have their origin from Him just as this Natural Law does).

In summation: There are many who would say that there are no moral absolutes that have been given to us by a divine Creator of the Universe. Yet, few of those people believe that it is appropriate to disobey their own conscience. Why not? If there is no one to set any absolute guidelines as to what is right or wrong, then there no is logical reason whatsoever to suggest that any one action has any more moral value than any other action. Even suggesting that anything or any act is evil is absurd. Who says what is evil? Talking in any terms related to morality becomes somewhat inane. One may believe that people can ascertain certain moral absolutes for themselves. On what basis, I would ask? And what right does society have to tell me what is right or wrong? In fact, maybe the values that society teaches are at odds with what my own conscience is saying. Certainly, most of us can think of at least one area in which we differ in our beliefs compared to those of society as a whole. Although I may artificially obligate myself to a set of moral beliefs, they cannot be moral absolutes in a Universe without God. Indeed, if I am the person in charge of determining my “conscience”, then I can change what these moral “absolutes” are at any time. But if that be the case, they would not be absolutes!

Therefore, neither society or the individual can be the root cause of our conscience. In fact, the only source of an absolute moral obligation must be something that is superior to the individual. If there is any such thing as a conscience... and most would agree that there is... it would have to have been placed in the individual by something greater than himself. Certainly, a Creator of the Universe would be capable of accomplishing this task. Although this argument does not have the sophistication of the following two proofs, it does certainly lend credence to the necessity of a supernatural force of some kind that would be the cause of our moral consciousness.

The Teleological Argument (telos - Greek, “goal or purpose”) for the existence of God is based on the fact that we see order (evidence for design... a “purpose”) all around us in nature. It can be stated as follows: • Our world (and everything in it) exhibits intelligent design • Therefore, our world (and everything in it) required an intelligent designer This is a very straightforward concept, obviously. But let me elaborate on it for a moment. William Paley (1743-1805) was the English theologian and philosopher who detailed this argument a little over two hundred years ago. It goes something like this: if a person walking in a forest came upon a watch lying upon the ground, it would be unreasonable to come up with the conclusion that this intricate instrument had somehow assembled itself over time 22

through mere chance. One would be thought somewhat daft if they believed that through a combination of just the right distribution of trash and garbage dropped in the forest through the years mixed with just the right amount of rain and wind, that all of the elements of the watch would just happen to fall together to produce a perfectly functioning time-piece. Even as I write this, I realize that it would take a blithering idiot to actually believe something like that happened. So, what is the only reasonable alternative? There must have been a “watch-maker” who created this intricate instrument - somehow it had been lost in the woods after its creation.

Well, I am sure everyone will accept that the watch-maker was necessary in the above example... but, “so what!” you may say.

Well, Paley goes on to use the following analogy. If we take a look around our world, we see a lot of incredible things... in fact, many amazing designs are seen in plants, insects and animals... indeed, far more intricate than those seen in any watch ever made! It is an interesting coincidence that the example in nature that most interests Paley is the human eye. As an ophthalmologist, I can attest to the incredible design that has gone into the production of this instrument of vision. The focusing system composed mainly of the cornea and lens bends the parallel incoming light rays just enough so that they come to a point focus on a tiny point in the retina called the macula. Then this light information is collated by the retina and sent back through the optic nerve toward the visual cortex. Along the way, certain fibers peel off to the brain stem containing information about the quantity of light that has just entered the eye. More neural impulses are then sent back to the pupil to adjust the size of the pupil (so that just the appropriate amount of light comes through). In the meantime, visual information in the form of electrical impulses continue along the visual pathway until it reaches the occipital cortex (the visual cortex). Here the neurological impulses register as whatever it is that the eyes are viewing at that moment. And that, by the way, is an incredibly simplified version of what really is happening!

Not only is there amazing evidence in design within individual organisms, but there is possibly even more impressive evidence for intelligent design in our Universe demonstrated by the interdependency that we see between different systems. Consider the fact that animals require a constant supply of oxygen to maintain life. But how can this be obtained? Well, how about if plants produce this oxygen as a by-product of the carbon dioxide they need for their existence (of course they get this from the animals!).

Let me mention just one more example of amazing design seen in living things.

Hemoglobin is a protein absolutely required for humans to exist. It resides in red blood cells and it is carries oxygen through the bloodstream and then deposits it into every living cell. It is by far the most efficient carrier of oxygen known. Without hemoglobin our red blood cells could not carry enough oxygen to support life. Hemoglobin is a protein that is made up of two strings of 287 amino acids - all having to be in an exact order! Alterations of the amino acids in the chain typically results in a malfunctioning molecule (e.g. sickle cell disease). Keep in mind that we do not have an unlimited variety of options as to what we as humans could use to supply our cells with an adequate supply of energy... in fact we only have one - oxygen! What a 23

“coincidence” that oxygen is found in abundant supply in our atmosphere (the plants “feel” the same way about carbon dioxide)! If it were not for hemoglobin, animal life would not exist and you certainly would not be reading this book. Somehow, this oxygen carrying protein just had to exist. It either got here by chance or design. There is not a third choice. Let us consider the possibility of chance. There are twenty possible amino acids that could fill any one spot in the chain. This results in a statistical likelihood of one out of 20287 that chance (i.e. evolution) could have resulted in the production of each hemoglobin amino acid chain. This figure is infinitesimally small. No open-minded person could believe that this could happen by chance.

But maybe there is an infinite amount of time for these things to eventuate! In the first seventy years of the 20th century evolutionists typically dismissed the teleological argument as they were convinced that “natural processes” (evolution), given enough time, could account for the apparent design that we see in living organisms. Since the advent of instruments such as the electron microscope, scientists now are recognizing the fact that the building blocks of life are incredibly more intricate than what was originally thought to be the case. In his excellent and well researched book Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe argues convincingly that the recent discoveries of the inner workings of the cell demonstrate markedly interdependent complexity that simply cannot be explained via the evolutionary model. I will go into much more detail on this topic in a later section of this book. Suffice it to say at this juncture, that the more we find out about the biochemical processes of animal cells, the more evidence we see that intelligent design was at work.

In recent decades, there have been amazing advances in our knowledge of biological science. Several scientists have attempted to calculate the probability of “blind chance” resulting in the production of even the simplest living system. For example, the outstanding scientist Stephen Meyer calculated that the chance production of the simplest living cell is only one chance in 1041,000. It is worth noting that there are “only” 1080 particles in the entire Universe.

Hence, it would be markedly easier to pick out a particular electron out of all of the various particles in our Universe than to have a chance event result in the formation of a living cell.

Another important point to mention relates to the argument put forth by evolutionists over the years. They readily admit that the likelihood that certain things (ex. hemoglobin coming into existence) could happen by chance is incredibly small. However, they just fall back on the argument that given enough time (infinite time was assumed as being available in years past) anything will and in fact does happen. So, no matter how unlikely an event was to happen by chance, if we were witnessing its existence, then it did happen by chance. Many scientists do not even allow for the possibility of a creative entity. Unfortunately for these scientists, it is now known scientifically that our Universe is finite (it had a beginning) and the time that it has been in existence is not even close to being long enough for many of the items to have appeared on the world scene via chance using their calculations. Of course, many excellent scientists do not believe that even an infinite amount of time could produce what we see in our Universe today.

Many reasons for this will be discussed in detail in the section concerning evolution later in this book.

24

We do not have to stop with biological examples either. Consider the laws of nature and the mathematical elegance with which they can be described. There is incredible order in our Universe (note the change of seasons, the orbits of the planets, the properties of various elements that allow for life on earth (ex. water is one of the few molecules where its solid form (ice) is lighter than its liquid form ... if this were not so, life as we know it could not exist on this earth!).

There are so many other examples of phenomenal design in nature: the amazing “instincts” we see in animals and birds (ex. migratory patterns of birds and whales; the intricate structure seen in the life of bees and ants), the body structure of birds that allow for flight and that of fish that allow for life in the sea; the incredible relationships between brain, neurons, muscles and joints that allow for the graceful capabilities of a Michael Jordon and a Nadia Comaneci. Paley then wonders in his writings, as do I, that if we all recognize the obvious need for a watch-maker in our original example, how can we come to the ridiculous conclusion that all of the incredible wonders we see around us every day happened by pure chance??? Frankly, this conclusion is simply not very logical, yet millions of people blithely accept it - without giving it much, if any thought. But please, for your sake, give it some thought!

OK, so if “chance” was not the cause of these incredible designs in nature, the only other possibility is that our Universe is a product of an Intelligent Designer! Since we do not see any obvious designer at work, we need to postulate the existence of an “invisible” Designer... a Creator... God. Before going on to our next topic, let me point out some of the philosophical objections to the Teleological argument and then my response to them. David Hume, a very prominent philosopher/skeptic of the 18th century, argued against it in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: • The only way that we know that watches need watch-makers is that we have knowledge of how watches come into existence. Since we have never seen a Universe come into existence, we cannot know what it requires for its existence.

• Secondly, maybe the Universe is more like plants and animals than a watch. That is maybe it comes into existence through some sort of reproduction and, therefore, does not require a maker.

• Even if we were to grant that a Creator was required by this design argument, nothing has been shown to require that this Creator be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (i.e. characteristics typically attributed to God). my response to Hume’s criticisms:  It is unreasonable to suggest that we cannot make certain assumptions about our Universe’s origin just because we were not alive to see it created. For example, I actually never saw a watch assembled. Yet, by seeing the intricate detail in a quality watch, I come to the conclusion that it required an intelligent and knowledgeable person to design and build it.

The whole point of Paley’s argument is to draw an analogy between what we can see for ourselves in our present-day existence (to build a watch would require a bright and 25

knowledgeable watchmaker) to an area that is impossible to actually “see” (i.e. to create the Universe would require an amazingly powerful, intelligent, and knowledgeable Creator).  Hume’s second argument just postpones the inevitable ... that is, if our Universe just was the result of the reproduction of another pair of Universes, then how does one explain the existence of these two “parent Universes”? Eventually, Paley would argue, one has to realize that the “first Universe” needs a ‘Universe maker” just as a watch needs a watchmaker.  As far as Hume’s objection that even if one grants the need of a creator, the design argument does not require this creator to be an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. That is an arguable point. But it certainly suggests that this creator is mighty impressive and is a Creator!

I do not believe that the teleological argument absolutely proves beyond any doubt that God exists. On the other hand, when one considers the amazing complexity that we see in plants and animals, the inter-relationships that exist between various systems in our Universe, the mathematical principles in nature that point to a “cosmic mathematician,” plus all of the structural beauty that we see in the Universe, it takes much more faith to believe that pure chance resulted in our present Universe than to postulate a “cosmic watchmaker” - God. In conclusion, I would like to quote Robert Gange, a modern-day scientist who feels that the evidence is so strong for an Intelligent Designer of our Universe that the direction of his conclusion is quite clear: “Since the Universe is simply too young and too small to account for its appearance, (even at 13 billion years and 30 billion light-years across) we are forced to ask, “From where did it come?” The logical answer is that it came from a Supreme Intelligence! Not only is this logical, but it’s also the simplest answer. If this implies religion, then this is something the individual will have to grapple with. But the irrefutable fact is that information theory and data from electron microscopy, when applied to living cells, force the conclusion that they have been designed. Why do they force this conclusion? Because they are jam-packed with information that cannot be logically explained as the issue of natural processes within this Universe.” (Gange, Robert, Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 71) So, although we cannot absolutely guarantee God’s existence based on this argument alone, it would certainly be very reasonable to bet our life on it being true! To be sure, the other choice is much less likely to be true and certainly far less appealing.

Over the years, I have been struck by one philosophical proof for God’s existence that I feel stands above all of the others. In fact, I personally believe that if understood properly, it absolutely proves, beyond any doubt, that there must be an eternal Creator of our Universe... and hence all that is in it. Admittedly, I realize that not everyone agrees with me on this. If they did, I would not be writing this book. In fact, it intrigues me that there can be two equally intelligent and open-minded individuals studying the same arguments and one is totally convinced that something has been proven; the other is not. That just happens to be the way it is. My hope is 26

that I will be able to explain this proof clearly enough so many of you will come to the same conclusion that I have - that God must exist. Note that in this case I have stated that God must exist - not that He probably exists, nor almost assuredly exists- but instead that GOD MUST EXIST. There have been many names given to the various sets of ideas used to present this proof - I will refer to it simply as the cosmological argument for a creator of the Universe.

The cosmological argument has been presented over the years in a variety of ways. In general, it derives its name from its two root words - cosmos (world) and logical (characterized by clear, sound reasoning). In other words, its name suggests that we can come to an understanding of the necessity of a creator through the careful study of our world.

Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), in his Summa Theologica presented “Five Ways” of reasoning all resulting in the conclusion that God exists. The first three “Ways” are different methods of presenting the same argument... in essence, that a Universe made up of contingent (caused) beings requires a First Cause - God. Over the succeeding 750 years, many philosophers have undertaken to present the same general argument with their own modifications. Simply put, however, all of these proofs are grounded in the same idea - that we can infer the existence of God by truly understanding the properties of the world in which we live.

As I just mentioned, there are many ways to formulate the cosmological argument. I am going to carefully present two methods of looking at this proof. Some may understand one better than the other... and it is also my hope that the added discussion will shed more clarity on the entire argument. Let me warn you that this is one of the more challenging concepts in this book and one that will require a lot of thought - but I believe that the results are worth the effort. In fact, I believe that many will enjoy the mental exercise!

First, I would first like to present a step-by-step outline of the argument. Then I will go through each step carefully explaining why each one is true.

1. Something (anything) exists in our Universe.

2. A being/entity/thing either is contingent or not contingent (self-sufficient).

3. There can only be one self-sufficient entity.

4. The Universe is made up of contingent beings.

5. Every contingent entity requires a self-sufficient entity for its existence.

6. Therefore a self-sufficient (necessary) being exists 7. A self-sufficient (necessary) being might reasonably be referred to as God 8. Therefore God must exist

1. Some things exist - This may be all too obvious. Indeed, if you feel that this is the case, congratulations - you still are in touch with reality. For those of you who doubt this statement, 27

keep in mind that you are doubting this statement - therefore, your doubt (a thing) exists. For those of you who still doubt that some things exist, I admit that this proof and any other rational argument will probably not succeed in convincing you of anything - however, not to worry - you don’t exist anyway! For the other 99.9999999% of you, let’s go on to step 2.

2. An entity is either contingent or self-sufficient - This will be true by definition. Let me define a contingent entity as something (anything at all) that requires some other entity for its very existence. Furthermore, external causes (ex. the physical laws of nature, parents, etc.) are responsible for the continued existence of any contingent entity. Simply put, a contingent entity requires an antecedent cause - it, itself, is always an effect. Of course, it may also be the cause for another contingent entity. Any entity that is contingent will always be contingent. On the other hand, a self-sufficient entity is a necessary being. It has no external cause and, therefore, is not an effect. It requires no outside help for its continued existence. It is an uncaused being and as such has always existed. Why? Well, it is true that some people (like Bertrand Russell) suggest that maybe things (like the Universe) can come into being without a cause - simply pop into existence out of nowhere and with no external cause. In other words, beings can create themselves. However, most rational people recognize that self-creation is simply impossible. It is rationally impossible for anything, even God, to come into being without an antecedent cause (note that this is markedly different than saying that God has always existed). Why not, you say?

Certainly, there are some that will claim that something can come from nothing. Let’s think about this for a moment. In order for a being to create anything it would require some power.

Where would that power to create lie? Obviously, this “self-creation power” would have to lie within its own being - in its essence. Well, how can this power within the being be activated and, therefore, create itself if it does not yet exist? If this sounds absurd to you... you’re right!

Something simply cannot create itself ... it is a logical impossibility. Therefore, a self-sufficient entity is not only uncaused but it also must be eternal. If it were not eternal, it would have had to come on the universal scene at some specific point in time. Since a self-caused being is an impossibility, any non-eternal being would have to be an effect of some other cause. But that cannot be the case with our self-sufficient being. This necessary being would obviously be independent of anything else. Nothing could affect it in any way - otherwise it would be contingent upon something outside itself.

Most of the proponents of this cosmological argument would go even further in describing the attributes of this eternal being. It is their contention that a necessary being would have no potential to be anything other than what it currently is (and has been for eternity). The term used to describe this is pure actuality. In other words, it would have no potential to change or develop into anything else. It would be immutable. This is certainly a distinction from contingent beings. In their argument, this immutable, eternal, creative force must be infinite in every attribute that it possesses. This would result in the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. The reason for this according to Norman Geisler is that “only what has potentiality can be limited. Limitation means that which differentiates the sphere of one thing 28

from another. Pure actuality is being pure and simple; everything else has being in one form or another depending on its limiting potential.” Also, they say that this type of existence must be omnipresent. It is certainly true that an eternal force capable and willing to create everything that we see in our Universe would very likely possess all of these attributes. When we couple this proof with the teleological and moral arguments, the combined weight of all three proofs lends incredible credence to the fact that this eternal being is indeed an infinite being with all of the attributes outlined in the preceding paragraph. As we will see later, when the scientific and historical evidence is added to the mix, there will be very little doubt that a “necessary being” does indeed have these additional attributes.

3. There can be at most one self-sufficient entity - Although we have defined what the characteristics of a self-sufficient entity would be, it is still conceivable that none exists. I will address that question later. For the moment, let’s see if more than one could possibly exist.

At this time, it is appropriate to introduce the principle of identity of indiscernibles. This principle states that if two items are different from each other, they must differ in some respect if not, the items under discussion are really the same thing. For example, suppose your sister told you she ran into a strange looking girl while shopping at the mall last Saturday afternoon.

The girl was wearing bright orange lipstick, had on one red shoe, while the other was yellow.

Not only that but she had shaved off all of her hair and painted her head with pink and blue polka-dots! She topped it all off with a T-Shirt printed with the words “What are you lookin’ at.” As it turns out, you had seen a girl fitting exactly same description on your trip to the mall that same Saturday afternoon. Using the principle of the identity of indiscernibles you would obviously conclude that you both had run across the same girl - not that you had coincidently met two different people making the identical, yet remarkably unusual, fashion statement. This same principle applies to the question about whether there can be two self-sufficient entities.

Remember that this ‘necessary’ being must be immutable, eternal, omni-present, omnipotent, omniscience, totally independent, and infinite. If there were more than one of these beings, there must be at least one difference between the two (otherwise, as we have seen, there really would be only one entity). Now let’s assume just that… i.e. that one of our ‘necessary’ beings has one attribute more than the other. Oh, Oh! That would mean that one of our self-sufficient beings lacks something - it would therefore be limited. This is not possible according to our definition.

As we can see then, there can be at most one self-sufficient being. Keep in mind that so far, we have not proven that one does exist, however.

4. The Universe is made up of contingent beings - Any entity can be either contingent or selfsufficient according to our definition above. If it is one, it is not the other ... but it does have to be one or the other. In other words, our Universe is either composed of beings that were either caused to exist by another being or have always existed. So, what is it? Here the answer is as obvious as it seems. Certainly, everything and every person that we know was contingent upon something or someone else for their existence. I will not belabor this point any further since only 29

an “odd duck” would argue with this contention. Our Universe is made up of contingent beings and other entities.

Maybe it is possible that our Universe is a self-sufficient entity. If the Universe is necessary, we would basically be saying that the Universe is God. That might be all right theoretically… but is it true? Bertrand Russell and the actress Shirley McLane like the idea, as do thousands of others. Of course, this would mean that the Universe would be eternal, infinite, unaffected by time and space and unchanging. Indeed, that is what pantheism is all about. But is this what we see to be true? Is everything in the world self-sufficient? Of course not. Certainly, we see many effects from various causes in our everyday lives. This would not be possible if the Universe were self-sufficient. It would never change. So, we cannot have a Universe that doubles as God. 5. Every contingent entity requires a self-sufficient entity for its existence - Now we come to the heart of the matter. As we have just seen, our Universe is filled with contingent beings.

Their ultimate cause had to be one of only two types of entities... another contingent being or a necessary being. There are no other possibilities. Is it possible that everything in our Universe was caused by other contingent beings? If so, we would not have to postulate a necessary being.

Well, how could a contingent being (requiring a cause itself!) be the ultimate creative force for all other contingent beings. Admittedly a daunting task! Maybe if there were enough of them it would be possible. How about 747 contingent beings? Well, then we would need number 748 to cause number 747 to come into existence. Yes, you say, but that wouldn’t do as now number 748 would need a cause for its existence! Hmmm... well maybe if there were an infinite number of contingent beings we could get around this difficulty. There are certainly people who feel that it is possible to have an infinite series of contingent beings, and not have to postulate the existence of a necessary being. But are they right or just fooling themselves (and others)? Let’s think about this logically as it is the critical point in the entire cosmological argument. If it is not possible for an infinite series of contingent beings to create themselves, then the implications are tremendous!

At this point it is extremely important to realize clearly that a contingent being, by its very nature (and definition), requires another being for its existence. Do not forget this - a contingent being cannot stand alone.

For example, I exist and was contingent on my mother (among other things) for my existence. She, on the other hand, came into being through her mother... and so on. The important question is whether it is appropriate to extend this chain of cause and effect infinitely into the past. Is it possible that an infinite string into the past of contingent beings can somehow be responsible for all that we see in our Universe today? If so, we do not need to postulate a necessary being. If not, then a necessary being must exist.

I believe that we can find our answer by looking at a couple of analogous situations.

When I attended kindergarten, I remember really enjoying building towers out of blocks. It was my favorite activity. I attempted to build them as high as possible, basically placing one on top 30

of another (with some minor modifications). If anyone had suggested that the sole support for the block on top was the block immediately beneath it, even at five years of age I would have known that they were mistaken. Well, maybe the top two blocks were so high because the third block from the top held the two of them up. True in one sense, but why was that block there?

The fact is that even most 5-year old children would recognize the absolute necessity of having the base block lie flat on the floor... for the floor was giving the ultimate support for all of the blocks. Without the floor’s support, there would be no tower! Indeed, every block’s position was somehow tied to that ultimate support - the floor., Another illustrative example was given by Wilfred Corduan in his excellent book Reasonable Faith. Dr. Corduan describes a person’s view as he passes by a long freight train.

As your car pulls alongside the caboose, you wonder aloud what is pulling it. Your friend points out that the caboose is being pulled by the car directly in front of it. Of course, being a real cracker jack, you point out that train cars can’t just pull themselves; so, you ask what is pulling that car. Your friend, being as dumb as a post, just keeps pointing to the next car in line.

Finally, you are able to show him that without a locomotive with a powerful engine in front of all of these other train cars, none of them would be moving. There had to be one unique car that did not need to be pulled by another car… it had the power to move itself and the other cars.

The point of these illustrations is to show the common sense fact that contingent objects do not have the necessary “power” to do, on their own, whatever it is that they need to do (rise up into the air in our first example, move along a railroad track in the second, or come into existence in the case of our contingent beings in the cosmological argument). These contingent objects absolutely require a power source ... i.e. a necessary being to accomplish the task. An infinite number of blocks still needs to be anchored to the ground, an infinite number of railroad cars still requires a locomotive and an infinite number of contingent beings obviously still requires a non-contingent ultimate cause - a necessary being – to bring the first contingent being into existence. In fact, if anything, the need becomes even greater the more contingent beings that exist - imagine the power of a locomotive required to pull an infinite number of railroad cars!

Here is one more example. There exists a chain with multiple links in it and it hangs from the ceiling. Each link in the chain is attached and dependent on the chain link immediately above it to keep it from falling to the ground. The position of each link is contingent on a link higher up the chain. However, even an infinite number of chain links rising up toward the ceiling does not have the ability to hold the others up in the air. There must be some entity outside this series of contingent chain links that these links can be anchored to – i.e. something on which the whole series is grounded. “If a chain with five links in it needs a peg to hang on, then a chain with an infinite number of links would need an even stronger peg outside itself to hang on. Therefore, an infinite regress of current causes of here-and-now existence is impossible.”2 (Geisler, Norman) 6. A self-sufficient being exists - Since we have now shown that our Universe requires a selfsufficient being (an uncaused Cause), it follows that one must exist, since our Universe exists.

31

7. A self-sufficient entity might reasonably be referred to as God - Remember that our proposed self-sufficient being reveals the following characteristics - it is eternal, self-sufficient and not only has the power to create - but has used it to create our Universe. Certainly, these characteristics are consistent with those that we commonly associate with our concept of God. 8. Therefore God must exist! In summary, we now have shown that our Universe is made up of contingent beings (i.e. a being whose existence is caused by another entity). These contingent beings require a necessary being (an eternal, uncaused Cause) as the ultimate power to exist.

The commonly given name given to an eternal, requisite non-caused being with the power and will to create our Universe is God. Therefore, God must exist! [see Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler, pp. 237-250]

I would like to present another way of looking at the cosmological argument for God’s existence that has enjoyed wide popularity among both Christian and Muslim theologians for centuries. It is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Whereas the classic cosmological argument noted above argues from contingent effects back to an ultimate uncaused Cause, the Kalam Argument notes that the Universe is not eternal and therefore it required an uncaused Cause. This cause must be considered God. The Kalam Argument: 1. The Universe began to exist 2. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its being 3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause – and this cause is personal.

Let’s discuss each point separately.

1. The Universe began to exist: The Kalam argument involves an understanding of the concept of infinity (both negative and positive). It is important to recognize that although a potential infinite is possible (i.e. we can imagine continually adding numbers to a series of numbers out to infinity), in reality, this cannot actually be done to completion. If someone asked you to count to infinity, you could never do it even if you lived forever.

You could try as you might but you would never get to the end. There would always be one more number you could count. In fact, the actual number you would reach would keep increasing as you counted but it would always be a finite number. Now let’s assume that this present moment in time is “zero hour” and let’s also assume that the Universe never had a beginning. If that were possible, time would go back infinitely into the past. If the Universe went back an infinite number of years, then the number of years that would have had to have gone by in the past to reach our present moment (i.e. - “zero 32

hour”) would be actually infinite. It would be like counting to zero from negative infinity. Here comes the tricky part (tricky... but true and very important). If we were to count back in time to see how many years had passed, we would have to count back to negative infinity. But can one ever reach infinity (either negative or positive) when one counts? Is it possible? No! It is exactly like saying that you could count to positive infinity... this you can never do as was shown earlier. Therefore, this means that the Universe could not go back to a time in the infinite past. The present moment could never have arrived if the Universe was infinite. So, since we actually live in this moment, our Universe has to be finite.

I realize that this may indeed sound a little like gobbledygook to some. But think about it - it is not just an exercise in sophistry. It really does demonstrate that our Universe is not infinitely old. [By the way, for those interested in reading more on this topic of there being no possibility of an infinite regress, there are a great many books on the subject. My favorite is called The Kalam Cosmological Argument by William Craig.

There are also many YouTube videos that attempt to make this difficult concept more understandable].

It is also true that in the light of recent scientific discoveries which will be fully discussed later in this book, it is well acknowledged that our Universe had a beginning.

But as we can see, the same conclusion is reached simply (simply?) via philosophical arguments.

2. Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning: We have already shown that it is impossible for anything to create itself - and therefore everything that is an effect needs an antecedent cause.

3. The cause of the beginning of the Universe was personal: The Kalam cosmological argument goes one step further than the first argument discussed. It attempts to show that the Creator of the Universe is a “personal” Creator. Here’s why. Let’s for the moment assume that the Universe was created by an impersonal power - say some form of “pure eternal energy.” Now keep in mind that this “Creator” had to exist forever (remember, otherwise it would be a contingent being just like the Universe). The writers of the Kalam argument suggest that it is not logical to suggest that an impersonal entity would at some point in time create anything. Why would a totally non-personal force pick a point in time to create anything? If it had no “mind” or “personality”, it would seem a little silly to suggest that it would all of a sudden decide to create anything, let alone an “intelligent” Universe. Of course, if the creative force behind our Universe was a personal God, that is exactly what we would predict would happen.

In conclusion, I have discussed in some detail four classical proofs for the existence of God. When we consider these arguments together, we begin to understand God as a personal, 33

moral being with similar attributes as humans but with notable exceptions - he is infinite in His scope and perfect in His character traits. Admittedly, some will still not see the logic behind the four proofs discussed above. Some because I have failed to explain them adequately, others will reject them out of hand. In fact, there are some who would not believe in God if he came to this earth, spoke directly to them, performed miracles in their presence and even rose from the dead... hmmm..... that sure sounds familiar‌ Others, however, will hopefully have gained some insight and understanding from this discussion.

For over one hundred years, many scientists have used their interpretation of scientific data as evidence against the concept of God. As everyone in this country is well aware, public schools have been unable to teach any subject matter that might even suggest the need for a Creator of the Universe. It will be very interesting to see what will happen in the years to come as recent scientific discoveries have shown rather conclusively that it is virtually impossible to deny God’s existence any longer. The next two sections of this book will show you why.

Footnotes: 1. Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, 1952. p. 18.

2. Geisler, Norman, Christian Apologetics, 1987. p. 245.

34

Section 2 - Scientific Evidence for God… This next section is one I started researching all the way back just prior to the turn of the century. I got much of it complete at that time, but then decided to put it down for a while. Then, a few years later, I began to write books on a wide variety of theological topics and created their corresponding Power Point slide presentations. At the beginning of this year, I decided to rededicate myself to finishing the book on apologetics that I started long ago. In Section 1, a couple of logical arguments were given to show that the Universe had to have a beginning… it is not eternal. It was also determined that our Universe, our world, required an uncaused cause… i.e. a Creator… an eternal God. The study of philosophy gives us that information. What can we learn from a serious scientific study of the world?

This Section 2 will be totally concerned with the study of cosmology – the science of the origin and development of the Universe. As we shall learn, there has been a total paradigm shift from the belief that we live in an eternal Universe to a Universe that had a beginning in time. The vast majority of scientists living before the 1920s were convinced that our Universe had always been here. However, due to the impressive creativity and intelligence of Albert Einstein and the astronomical discoveries of Edwin Hubble, scientists recognized that our entire Universe actually came into existence about 13.8 billion years ago. Its continued existence and the Earth’s ability to support human life also turns out to be quite surprising because there are so many forces and constants of nature that are required to be at incredibly exacting levels, otherwise, life would not be possible. So, now let us take a look at the details concerning the amazing creation of our Universe.

35

Chapter 2: Science versus Theology – An Unnecessary Conflict In recent history, a great deal of dissension has characterized the relationship between most secular scientists and theologians. Few demonstrate this antipathy better than the Oxford Zoologist, Richard Dawkins: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”1 Or how about this comment by Michael Ruse: “There are degrees of being wrong. The Creationists are at the bottom of the scale. They pull every trick in the book to justify their position. Indeed, at times, they verge on the downright dishonest ... Their arguments are rotten, through and through.”2

Obviously, not all scientists are as scornful for those in the religious community who do not hold to the currently accepted mainstream beliefs as are Dawkins and Ruse, but most do believe that theologians should stay out of the scientific realm and stick to their “religious stuff.” The difficulty here lies in the fact that the subject of origins - of the Universe, earth and man - lies at the heart of theology. In other words, theologians would be shirking their responsibility to avoid these controversial subjects. Indeed, if their concept of a Creator is not consistent with what is actually known about our Universe, then they have a problem that should be addressed.

Russell Aldridge, on the other side of the coin, ripped into current day secular astrophysicists and astronomers as: “high priests of the decades-old cult of the big-bang myth.”

He said that they were “persuasive speakers (who) have deceived an unsuspecting public.”3 Apparently, some advocates of the creationist point of view have become a little testy themselves. By the way, lest there be any confusion in future discussions, let me define what I mean by the term creationist. A creationist (as I will use the term) is simply someone who believes that our Universe and life itself required the intervention of a supernatural power at some point. This includes the subset who believe that the Universe and therefore the earth is very young - but is certainly not limited to them.

Although currently any chance for a meaningful dialog between creationists and mainstream secular scientists is nil, this certainly has not always been the case. In fact, until the 36

late 15th century, science and theology existed in a reasonably peaceful harmony. Most, if not all, of the great scientists of early history were also “creationists.” I believe it would be helpful in our current discussion to understand how the science/theology relationship has changed over the millennia.

Cosmology, in its broadest usage, is the study of the origin and structure of the Universe.

This topic can be approached philosophically, theologically and scientifically. It is important to recognize that the prevailing scientific view of any civilization has important theological implications. It has never been possible to totally separate the two as some scientists erroneously suggests should be possible in our world today.

As we go back in history to the time of ancient China, India and Egypt, there really was nothing that could be called a science of cosmology. Although these civilizations were beginning to make great advances in such fields as engineering, agriculture and mathematics, the scientific study of the cosmos was virtually non-existent. Yet, as with all cultures, there was no lack of interest in their origins - this topic was just not approached scientifically. Instead, religious myths abounded - some were quite colorful. Chinese historians of that time will even describe in impressive detail the creation of the world. As it turns out, the first man, P’an Ku, spent a great deal of time (18,000 years) carving out our Universe. He finally completed his work a little over two million years ago. Fortunately, he was able to use many of his own physical attributes during this creation process. “As he worked, his breath became the wind and the clouds, his voice became the thunder, his veins the rivers, his flesh the earth, his hair the grass and trees, his bones the metals, his sweat the rain, and the insects that clung to his body became the human race.”4 (Will Durant) Interesting where we came from, isn’t it? It is worth noting that the ancient Chinese did postulate a beginning to our Universe. As their religious concept developed, the concept of yang and yin appeared. “Heaven and earth were bound together as two halves of a great cosmic unity, and were related very much as man and woman, lord and vassal, yang and yin.” (ibid p. 783) The heavens were linked to the moral order of mankind; they were parts of a universal rhythm called Tao - God was heaven itself. When Confucius was elevated over the centuries after his death, another type of religion was introduced. Shang-ti, the Supreme Ruling Force of the world, became the impersonal deity of the emperor. Heaven was no longer a place, but just the will of God. In is important to recognize that this concept of God was not satisfactory to the people of China - it offered no hope for the trials of this world and no hope for the future. Eventually, this concept of God was supplanted by Taoism and then by Buddhism.

The ancient Egyptians were certainly highly developed engineers and mathematicians.

Their scholars were mostly priests, living a privileged life while they laid the foundations of Egyptian theology and science. According to their own legends, Thoth, the god of wisdom, invented science in 18,000 BC. Thoth ruled for 3,000 years on earth while composing some 20,000 books on the various sciences. Thoth was certainly very prolific. These priests did have a rudimentary concept of astronomy. They believed the earth to be a box, the sky being upheld on each corner by mountains. The heavenly bodies were spirits. The sky was a vault which 37

contained the goddess Hathor. The earth lie beneath her feet and her belly was adorned with thousands of stars. The moon was a god as was the sun - indeed, the sun was the greatest of gods, Ra, the creator.

In the ancient civilization of India, the first significant attempts to study the cosmos scientifically were undertaken. The Hindu religion dominated every day. As the heavenly bodies were worshipped, it was a natural extension to attempt to understand them scientifically.

In India as in Egypt, scientists were also their priests. Observations of the greatest Indian astronomer, Arybhata, were way ahead of his time. He was well versed in mathematics, but made his most impressive contributions in astronomy. Almost 2,000 years before the Renaissance, he described the revolution of the earth within the larger framework of the heavenly bodies. Arybhata and his followers described with accuracy the diameter of the moon, the eclipses of the sun, the position of many stars and planets and even recognized the force of gravity! Most of the Indian cosmologists described the Universe as oscillating through an infinite series of cycles. As each cycle came to a close, the Universe would re-appear and the cycle would begin again. This description was perfectly consistent with one of the major religious beliefs of their culture at that time, Buddhism. Interestingly, another religious sect, Jainism, began in the sixth century B.C. A young man developed a following after spending 13 years in self-denial. He was hailed as a Jina (conqueror). Eventually, their doctrine developed to include the tenant that nothing could ever be really known to be true or false. Everything was relative. There was no beginning, no God... everything has always existed... nature itself has inherent powers whereby all change comes. Gandhi was strongly influenced by this sect... but overall, their influence is minimal in India today.

With their entrance onto the world scene, the ancient Greeks attempted the first significant scientific description of our cosmos. They were the first culture to break from mythology in an attempt to explain the Universe and man’s place in it (although the ancient Hebrews were correct in what they wrote about our Universe‌ as will be discussed later). Of course, the Greeks had their own mythology as well, but now a scientific view of the world was entering the picture. Thales is generally regarded to be the first Greek philosopher (lover of wisdom). He was the first man in recorded history to attempt to give a purely natural explanation to the origin of the world. He declared that everything came out of water. This was based on his analysis of fossils of sea animals that were discovered far inland. Thales’ efforts were probably due in part to his recognition that all previous attempts at cosmological explanations were totally based on myth and varied significantly from one culture to another.

Recognizing that this approach yielded no worthwhile answers to the perplexing question of origins, he decided that via the observation of natural phenomena he might be able to arrive at some reasonable answers. He and his followers, in particular, Anaximander, tried to give a somewhat comprehensive account of the cosmos. Anaximander developed a very detailed concept of the origin of our Universe - he stated that everything developed out of the apeiron, a substrate both infinite and indefinite. This break from the mythological tradition of the cosmos was the precursor of modern scientific inquiry.

38

The Pythagoreans attempted to find the fundamental harmonies of the Universe by studying the regular motions of the heavens. They constructed the first model of the solar system which postulated that the earth (and the other heavenly bodies) revolved around a central fire. Later, in the 4th century B.C., Eudoxus developed a theory of the Universe built around the concept of concentric spheres. Aristotle further enhanced this idea into a series of 55 spheres arranged about the Earth which was positioned at the center. Aristotle’s views on the cosmos changed over his lifetime. In the last two books of his Physics, he noted the necessity of an unmoved mover as the cause behind everything else in nature. He also noted that this unmoved mover, God, must be eternal.

With the rise of the Roman Empire and the subsequent elevation to prominence of the Roman Catholic Church, a long period of history was to be dominated by religious thought.

Roman Catholic tradition and their interpretation of the Holy Bible was the only acceptable manner to approach questions of origins. Although several philosophical arguments for God were developed and refined during the first 1500 years A.D., very little scientific reasoning was advanced during this period. Anyone who developed a scientific cosmology that might be construed to contradict the teachings of the Church would be putting their lives in danger.

Eventually, however, the explosion of information made possible by the introduction of Gutenberg’s printing press in 1456, made it impossible for the Catholic Church to continue to stifle scientific inquiry.

Nicolas Copernicus was now able to study the works of the great Greek and Roman scientists. He published a treatise, On the Revolution of the Celestial Spheres, the year that he died, 1543. This work was truly a watershed in scientific cosmology as the Earth was no longer placed at the center of the Universe. Now, the sun was placed at the center with the earth revolving around it, in that sense, no different than any of the other planets. This was a massive departure from the Aristotelian and Christian view that had dominated the world scene for 2,000 years. It had removed the earth, and therefore man from the center on the Universe and in the minds of many, it would naturally follow that man must not therefore be at the center of God’s plan for the Universe. This work by the brilliant Polish scientist and mathematician was the catalyst for numerous other scientific advances during the golden age of the Renaissance. No more would the pursuit of knowledge be suppressed with any effectiveness. Science had now been liberated from its philosophical base of Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks. It still had a way to go to remove the constraints placed on it by the religious beliefs of the day. However, with the dawning of the “age of reason,” man began to put the emphasis on reason based on experience and to relegate faith to the affairs of the church.

Soon after the discovery by Copernicus, there was a paradigm shift in our view of the cosmos. By the beginning of the 17th century, Galileo Galilei, born in Pisa, Italy on the day of Michelangelo’s death in 1564, was deeply involved in the study of astronomy. He had worked diligently at improving the quality of his telescope. With a markedly improved instrument, he was amazed at what he could see in the night sky. He made dozens of new discoveries and by the year 1610 had concluded that the earth had to rotate around the sun. In letters he wrote to a 39

fellow astronomer and friend, Johann Kepler, he expressed his regret and disgust that his associates at Padua would not credit his discoveries, in fact they would not even look through his telescope! Galileo therefore moved his professorship to Florence where he hoped that the intellectual climate would not be so oppressive. He wanted to study the world without any constraints, neither philosophical nor religious. He believed that scientific inquiry had essentially been stagnant ever since the time of the Aristotle. He certainly was not a timid man.

When reading the book written by the Jesuit Antonio Rocco defending the Ptolemaic astronomy that Galileo had just so impressively disproved, he wrote in its margin ... “Ignoramus, elephant, fool, dunce ... eunuch.” Eventually, however, this assertiveness landed him in “hot water” as he soon began to talk of his and the Copernican theory as being “proved.” The Jesuit astronomers had no real objection to his offering up his concept of the solar system as a hypothesis, but since this “Copernican” astronomy was so contradictory to the prevailing religious view, the advancement of this cosmology as fact was unacceptable.

He tried to plead his case in a letter to Father Benedetto Castelli, “The holy scriptures cannot err and the decrees therein contained are absolutely true and inviolable. But ... its expounders and interpreters are liable to err in many ways; and one error in particular would be most grave and frequent, if we always stopped short at the literal signification of the words.”5 Galileo recanted his position to save his skin.... “Inasmuch as the Bible, calls for an interpretation differing from the immediate sense of the words, it seems to me that as an authority in mathematical controversy it has very little standing... I believe that natural processes which we either perceive by careful observation or deduce by cogent demonstration cannot be refuted by passages from the Bible.” 6 (Will and Ariel Durant) Galileo went to Rome to attempt to sway opinion. But this was to no avail and he eventually did have to submit to the decree of the Inquisition. If he did not agree to abstain from teaching this Copernican view of the solar system, he would be imprisoned. Galileo then returned home to Florence. Nine years later with a new pope in place, he again returned to Rome with optimism that his views would now be heard. He did win consent to publish his treatise as long as he revised it once again to treat it as a hypothesis. His bravura resulted in his adding a preface that suggested that his previous dissenters were basically simpletons! This was promptly pointed out to the Pope by the Jesuits. Soon thereafter, Galileo was summoned to Rome to appear before the Inquisition’s commissioner. After a long and drawn out case, he finally submitted and offered to do penance. He affirmed at that time that “I still hold Ptolemy’s opinion - that the earth is motionless and that sun moves - as absolutely true and incontestable.” (ibid, p. 610). He was found guilty of heresy and disobedience. He was allowed to live in the quarters of a former pupil in Siena. Years later, while still technically a prisoner, he was allowed to return to his own villa at Arcetri. The fate of Galileo was not lost on other scientists and philosophers of his time. For many years, scientists in Italy avoided the theological and philosophical implications of their discoveries. In other countries, his treatment seemed to paradoxically raise the status of science. In 1835, the Roman Catholic Church withdrew the ban on his books. It had taken over 200 years, but finally the Church had recognized its error.

40

Only a few years after the death of Galileo, one of the greatest scientists ever was born in Lincolnshire, England. Sir Isaac Newton came onto the scientific scene during the most revolutionary time in history. Rene Descartes had set the stage for Newton as he introduced a new concept into the framework of science. In contrast to Aristotle, Descartes viewed physical reality as composed of a mechanical interplay between particles of nature. If one could understand the reasons behind this interaction, one would therefore understand reality! Newton was able to extend this concept of science as he developed the calculus and later, he presented his tour de force, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in which he described three basic laws of nature that enable the prediction of the motions of visible bodies. Sir Isaac Newton had completed a scientific revolution that had started a little over one hundred years earlier with Copernicus. It had become obvious that a great deal could be learned about the cosmos through a study of the natural sciences. What was once the sole province of religion, was now being invaded by science - with little thought to how the theologians viewed their findings. A century later a man of very small stature, yet of incredible influence was to come onto the scene and push religion even further into the world of the mystic.

The 18th century witnessed the appearance of arguably the most influential philosopher of the last 250 years. Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in Konigsberg, Prussia. The first portion of his life was devoted to the study of the physical sciences. At the age of 31 in 1755, he wrote a treatise on the “General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens.” More importantly, however, was his eventual move into the study of theology and then in 1770 he was offered a professorship in philosophy where he made his major contribution to the world. His master work was first published in 1781 after 12 arduous years of work. At that time, he published his “Critique of Pure Reason.” It was written in a very abstruse manner, but its eventually influence on society and science has been immense. In this treatise, Kant proposes that all attempts to demonstrate the truth or falsity of God, morality, and free will by pure reason were doomed to failure. He tried to show that pure reason alone was equipped to deal with phenomena or experiences - but not the reality behind these things. In his Opus Postumum, published soon after his death, he noted that “God is not a substance existing outside me, but merely a moral relation within me... As time passed, his mark was felt on the world of science as well as philosophy. Science was now restricted to the real world of phenomena. A big problem related to the fact that in 1650 AD, Archbishop Usher placed the beginning of our Universe at 4004 BC. This was based on his analysis of the book of Genesis, and this date for creation resulted in a significant controversy between the scientific community and the theologians of that day.

Religion was banished to the esoteric world of the mind - not able to be studied in any “scientific” manner.

Only five years after the death of Kant, Charles Robert Darwin, the father of evolution, was born in Shrewsbury, England on February 12, 1809. After an abortive attempt to study medicine, he asked to accompany Capt. Robert Fitzroy on a naval voyage bound on a mission to survey the coasts of Chile and Peru and to visit some islands in the Pacific. During this voyage, the groundwork was laid that would eventuate in his historic publication in 1859, The Origin of 41

Species. Actually, Darwin had developed his theory on natural selection and evolution almost 20 years earlier, but had spent the intervening years gathering data. His thesis may have been even further delayed, except for the fact that he became aware that another biologist, Alfred Wallace was about to come out with a similar theory. In fact, a joint presentation was made by both men in London in 1858. To say that Darwin’s theory changed the world is a gross understatement.

The scientific and philosophical revolution that had begun with the astronomical findings of Copernicus 300 years earlier, had seen its philosophical viewpoint of nature expounded and gain wide acceptance after the works of Descartes, Hume, and Kant in the centuries to follow, had now reached its zenith with the theories proposed by this English biologist. The pendulum had swung completely, from the supernatural, theological view of the Universe and mankind that held complete domination until the Renaissance to the purely naturalistic, experiential concepts held by virtually all scientists since the time of Darwin. Science was now KING, as theology was now relegated to a back seat in any “intelligent” discussion of our cosmos and origins. It would be all right if theologians commented on matters of the soul, but my no means should they ever again suggest viewpoints on these “scientific” subjects. As a matter of fact, Kant and his successors had developed a philosophy of science that by definition excluded the possibility of any reference to the supernatural!

Certainly, all was quite well in the scientific community as the 19th century drew to a close. They had certainly succeeded in putting the theologians in their rightful place. They had a right to gloat as for centuries the study of science was stifled by religious beliefs of the day.

Worse than that, many of their departed colleagues had suffered undue emotional and physical pain at the hands of organizations such as the Inquisition. Yes, all was really looking up!

So, as we entered the twentieth century, scientists had pretty much everything figured out (at least they thought they did). Our Universe was infinitely old and infinitely big - therefore, according to scientists it was not in need of a Creator as it simply had always been! Now, thanks to Darwin, a beautiful mechanism was found to explain the potentially sticky problem of how man came to be - certainly with an infinite amount of time, Darwin’s suggested mechanism of natural selection would result in all of the species we see on earth today. Although no one had yet found any evidence of the macroevolution required by this theory of evolution (i.e. no “missing links” had been discovered), that “minor” problem should soon be solved as biologists redoubled their efforts in their search through the fossil record of nature!

The twentieth century has seen a few abortive attempts by creationists to re-assert their world view. In the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, the Judeo-Christian concept of creation was, in a sense, “on trial” against the relatively new theory of evolution. Later “Inherit the Wind,” a play based on this “trial,” opened on Broadway. This play and the subsequent movie of the same name (movie released in 1960), was very successful in portraying the creationists (in this case, Christians) involved in the actual events as foolish, ignorant and meanspirited. In reality, the actual events of the case were quite different than those portrayed in the movie. Be that as it may, this case did result in a “black-eye” to creationists and elevated the evolutionists, and their case, in the sight of the general public. The playwright was successful in 42

painting those people on the side of evolution as intelligent, broadminded and tolerant people - of course, the opposite picture was detailed for creationists (fundamentalists). Sadly, this movie really did lead many people astray with respect to their Christian beliefs. This situation and the fact that in 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that school-led prayer and Bible reading were unconstitutional; these events have had a markedly significant deleterious effect on our country over the last sixty years.

Another group of scientists that have been fairly vocal over the last fifty years are often referred to as Creation Scientists (a sub-set of Creationists who hold to a strictly literal, word-forword interpretation of the Genesis account in the Bible). These scientists believe that any scientific viewpoint that does not strictly correspond to their interpretation of the Bible (in particular, the question concerning the age of the Universe) brings into question the infallibility of God’s word. It is therefore no wonder that they sometimes get very vociferous in their attacks on the evolutionists and secular astronomers - the repartee is mutual, by the way. The problem is that these verbal “attacks” complete with name-calling have done absolutely nothing but widen the unfriendly gulf between these two groups. Unfortunately, the general public inclusive of the secular scientists, paints all creationists with a broad brush - everyone who advances a supernatural account of Creation must be a vitriolic boob! That is simply not the case.

But, in a concerted effort to suppress any reference to the supernatural, modern day scientists have enlisted the aid of the courts to eliminate the possibility that any side other than a purely naturalistic account of creation (both of the Universe and life) will ever be tolerated. It should be noted that most, if not all, of the legislation against the teaching of a supernatural concept of creation events, has been in response to Creation Scientists (those Christians who believe the earth is very young) views. Frankly, the unorthodox scientific opinions of this group of religious scientists has made it relatively easy to advance anti-supernatural legislation. There is certainly another large group of scientists in the Christian community that argues the need for a supernatural Creator strictly from accepted scientific “facts!” However, the following examples of recent legislation point out that even these views will be disallowed from being discussed in the public-school system at this time. On the other hand, I believe that the secular scientists would be just as uneasy in having this viewpoint taught in the classroom (actually, probably much more uneasy as this group uses the secular scientists’ “facts” but comes to a conclusion that includes a Creator – therefore, this view would be much more difficult to dismiss).

•

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education This U.S. District Court case stemmed from a 1981 law signed by the Governor of Arkansas entitled "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." This law mandated that "Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science." Based on expert testimony, Judge William Overton concluded that "creation science" is "simply not science," and instead is undeniably a religious notion promoted by certain fundamentalist movements. Thus, Overton ruled, "The Act therefore fails both the first and second portions of the test in 43

Lemon v. Kurtzman." [Overton1982]. https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/court-cases.php The council of the National Academy of Sciences wrote in a resolution in 1981, “Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religion.”

•

Edwards v. Aguillard In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a Louisiana "Creationism Act," which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science."

In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down the law. They ruled [Supreme1987]: The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. ... The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." ... The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. In other words, once again the Supreme Court ruled against allowing the evidence concerning intelligent design in our Universe along with the evidence that points out the significant areas of weakness in the “theory of evolution” to be taught in public schools. Representatives from the National Academy of Sciences noted that, "‘Creation-science’ is not science. It cannot meet any of the criteria of science. Indeed, it fails to display the most basic characteristic of science: reliance upon naturalistic explanations. Instead, proponents of "creation-science" hold that the creation of the Universe, the earth, living things, and man was accomplished through supernatural means inaccessible to human understanding.” Creationism is not based on scientific research. Rather, in large measure creationists seek to discredit scientific explanations of the development of the physical and biological Universe, especially the theory of biological evolution.” http://users.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/edwards_v_aguillard_NAC.html

•

On December 20, 2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District. Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community." This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public-school science classroom. (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v.

Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688). In his strongly-worded decision, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones struck down the school district's actions, characterized intelligent design (ID) as not science and emphasized that evolutionary theory is in no way antithetical to religion. (ID – Intelligent Design). Sadly, the court stated that the 44

•

Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

In fact, the reality is that the teaching of macroevolution as fact actually does conflict with the Bible and actual significant recent scientific evidence (especially over the last fifty years). Court cases such as the three just mentioned result in millions of students (and adults) believing a lie. The majority of scientists that espouse macroevolution and its implications strongly suggest that it leads them away from a belief in God. In fact, many of the most famous proponents of this theory mock those of us who believe in God… especially Christians. So, many people, sadly, are hoodwinked into believing that only stupid people believe in the Holy Bible. As I will point out later in this book, this belief is way off base. Unfortunately, though, this does keep millions of people from actually pursuing the truth of our origins and the truth about God. Hopefully, these people will one day have the opportunity to read this book or a similar one.

The California State Board of Education has adopted a Policy Statement in response to pressure from science educators. In that state, it was theoretically possible to discuss the evidence for a Creator when studying topics such as cosmology and evolution until the late 1980s. This edict, however, put an end to any discussions of this nature. The “Statement” explained that any theory not subject to testing and rejection would not be open for discussion in the classroom. This Policy Statement was soon followed by a curriculum guide, the “Science Framework.” The basic thrust of this guide was to ensure that book publishers print books that teach evolution as accepted fact. Since scientists are firm in their belief that any allusion to a Creative power is by their definition not subject to verification, no further mention of a creative source will be allowed in California public schools. Sadly, since to Darwinists, the theory of evolution is actually a “fact” in their minds, students are effectively made to spout the “facts” back to their teachers on tests, etc. with no possibility to present the evidence against evolution ... since this evidence, as we will see, points directly to a Creator. This is rather a ridiculous bind to be put someone into. First, you are supposedly encouraged to think with a critical mind and question all current scientific beliefs (and I use the word belief purposely), but then you are told that you must not ever reference or consider as a possibility the one thing (supernatural creation) that best fits with current scientific theories on the subject. This is similar to a person being encouraged to suggest other alternatives as to how he got so wet when a person enters a house completely soaked… while there is a thunder storm raging outside. However, he is not allowed to point out that it was the rain! Wait until you see the evidence for a Creator as we go through the book… but, remember, in our publicschool system, teachers cannot mention any of this evidence!

45

It has always intrigued me how scientists can be so dogmatic about certain things (such as evolution) when history is replete with so many examples of previously accepted “facts” later being proven wrong (e.g. Is the earth flat? Is the earth the center of our Universe? etc.)

All of these examples, and others could be cited, revolve around the same point. The scientific mainstream has defined science in such a way that any reference to the supernatural is not allowed. But is this fair? Is it the best way to arrive at what is actually the truth? This is a crucial point.

I believe that it is not difficult to understand why the science establishment has fought so hard these past many years to avoid any reference to the supernatural. Remember that scientists came into the 20th century riding a wave of success. After literally fearing for their lives during the times of the Inquisition, scientists had assumed the prominent position (actually their views were now taken as “gospel” not at all unlike religious views of earlier centuries). With the help of Kant and others, they had defined their specialty as a purely naturalistic endeavor... there could be no room for God or any supernatural element. But now in the latter part of the 20th century, there was a group of religious people that had decided to question their position, and even their authority in this matter of origins! That just wouldn’t do. For some, thoughts of Copernicus and Galileo would come to mind - not that they were in fear of their lives, but the idea that someone on the religious front might want to become involved in their domain had to prove very bothersome. They now had defined the supernatural right out of the equation and were not about to let this concept back in!

As Phillip Johnson aptly states, “scientific naturalists insist, paradoxically, that the cosmos can be understood by a rational mind only if it was not created by a rational mind.”7 He also points out that “to scientific naturalists, recognition of a supernatural reality amounts to a superstition, and hence to an abandonment of science.”7 They firmly believe that any reference to a Creator is tantamount to referencing a “belief” - and that is not scientific... they say. German philosopher, Ernst Haeckel stated, “If creation ever took place, it lies entirely beyond the scope of human knowledge, and hence can never become the object of scientific investigation.”

Of course, when it comes to topics such as the origin of our Universe, the origin of life, the origin of the first human, everything is indeed a matter of belief. No one was there to see any of these things happen... no one can reproduce any of these things. So, all discussions of origins are, in actuality, discussions as to what current mechanism does one choose to believe is true. As you will see in the succeeding chapters, scientists “believe” a great many things in this area that they cannot prove - nor will ever be able to prove. They advance these beliefs because they seem reasonable to a majority of scientists and help to explain our cosmos. Michael Ruse, the expert witness in the aforementioned Arkansas case, now acknowledges “that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which - it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law - but I think in all honesty that we should recognize.”8

46

All that Christian scientists are asking is to not “a priori” eliminate one very possible avenue in our quest for the truth - God. At least until recently, there was no law that said that mankind’s search for truth had to be undertaken in such a narrow-minded way.

Remember, if you will, how the definition of science has changed over the millennia.

Early on, with the Greeks and Christians, the purpose of scientific inquiry was quite consistent with and complimentary to religious and philosophic musings. In fact, for Plato and Aristotle, the major purpose of science was as an aid to philosophic and theological development. Only with the coming of the “age of reason” epitomized by Kant, was science defined to exclude any reference to the supernatural - please recognize that this is an arbitrary philosophic definition of science. The worldview known as naturalism was defined by philosopher, Sterling Lembrecht to be a “philosophical position, empirical method that regards everything that exists or occurs to be conditioned in its existence or occurrence by causal factors within one all-encompassing system of nature.” There is nothing but nature. It may serve us very well in most situations - but it will do us a major disservice in certain areas if there, in fact, is a God. Let me explain.

Let us just assume that God does exist for a moment. This is certainly not logically impossible. However, we would never be able to arrive at this conclusion via modern day scientific inquiry. By definition, as we have seen, a Creative supernatural force is excluded!

Therefore, it is quite apparent that at least in this area, a purely naturalistic approach to science may limit our discovery of Truth! Considering what is at stake, it certainly behooves us to redefine how we can best gain the knowledge of the ultimate truths of our cosmos and our origins.

As it is obviously not necessary to limit our approach as modern science seems to require, let’s see if we can arrive at a better and more reasonable method of seeking the Truth. Let scientists pursue, with great vigor, all naturalistic explanations for all cosmological questions taking advantage of every physical law and piece of evidence that they can discover in nature. But, if and when, certain facts cannot be explained by reference to these natural physical laws without straining any reasonable person’s credulity, allow for the more obvious answer at that point to be considered... that is, that the physical laws of nature were usurped by a supernatural intervention at that point in nature. (Let this be a new paradigm, a new definition of scientific pursuit). This method of study will still allow for and indeed encourage further analysis to see if there is any more reasonable “natural” answer that can be found. But, until one is found, the more likely supernatural explanation (now that we do not have to exclude this possibility) will serve as our model. As William Dembski stated, “Methodological naturalism confuses appeals to God that mask our ignorance of natural causes with appeals to God that arise because we have exhausted the full range of possible natural causes.”9 It is appropriate, at that point, for naturalistic answers to give way to the supernatural. Scientists seem to say that the “naturalistic explanation is somehow intrinsically better than nonmaterialistic explanation. This is certainly a value judgement. (This) is prejudice because its effect on inquiry is limiting and destructive.”10 The current definition of appropriate scientific inquiry is very limiting to the search for truth. If God does truly exist, he would thus likely be a major contributor to the development of our Universe and all that is within it. Yet, we can never determine this unless we re-define our methods of 47

inquiry. Sadly, we cannot do this in our society today if we stick strictly to an approach of scientific study as currently defined. But we can at least use our new definition of science as we present the intriguing facts of this Universe in the succeeding chapters of this book!

Some might object that this allows for a world view that includes God. Well, so what?

For dozens of years, we have been forced to exclude God from any world view. If the best evidence that science can unearth points to a Creator, then this should be made known. Keep in mind that we will only suggest that God is the answer for any particular aspect of creation (i.e. of the Universe, origins of life, mankind, etc.) if the evidence points to the necessity of supernatural intervention. This is not the same as calling on the “God of the gaps” simply because we have no reasonable answer as to a particular event that occurred in nature. We will only reference God if the evidence we have points to the necessity of a supernatural Creator to be involved. Let truth rule here. If it turns out that the reality of God became obvious in our culture, I believe that society as a whole would benefit greatly. Let me just note one example... there would then be a logical reason for moral behavior... there would be certain absolutes. Since we currently live in such a godless secular society, and since so many have bought into the notion that scientists have eliminated the possibility that God created the Universe and life itself, what good does it do to talk of moral absolutes? Without God, there would be no arbiter of morality!

In summary, I have tried in this introduction to review the various ways in which science and theology have interacted down through the ages of recorded history. As we have seen, significant scientific inquiry was really only introduced during the Greek Empire. It is true, that the Hebrew civilization, through their Bible, was the first to present the amazing revelation that the Universe was not eternal… instead, it was created by God. Before the Greeks and Hebrews, any reference to cosmology was non-scientific, and typically mythologic in nature. The Greeks introduced a certain level of scientific methodology. Even so, science for this great civilization and the succeeding Roman Empire was limited to an adjunct status to theological explanations of our cosmos. For example, astronomical discoveries were of value in pinpointing the important calendar dates for various religious holy days for both the Greek and Christian religions. On the other hand, never were any scientific discoveries that might cast doubt upon the current religious beliefs of that time ever tolerated – or even considered. That situation all changed with the coming of the Renaissance. The scientific revolution totally changed the way people viewed our Universe – and their place within it. Over the course of a few hundred years, scientific explanations for our origins became paramount. In fact, partly due to the widening gap between evolving scientific evidence and the dogmatic theological doctrines of the day, many theologians began to withdraw into their own world – rejecting even the possibility that scientific explanations and theological beliefs were compatible. By the end of the 19th century, most theologians and scientists alike agreed that the biblical and scientific explanations of our origins were mutually exclusive. Theologians had retreated into their world of moral doctrines, ethics and beliefs – they had no illusions that the biblical explanations for our origins were compatible with what the scientists were discovering about our Universe. They should have had more faith.

48

As we have also seen, the “philosophy” of science changed so drastically (certainly in part as a reaction to the centuries of repression at the hands of various religious leaders) that we have finally come to a time in the late 20th and early 21st centuries where, somewhat amazingly, the supernatural has been totally excluded from our search for truth. It is important for the reader to remember, that although science has been defined and legislated to exclude any reference to any non-naturalistic explanations for our origins, this does not exclude the possibility of there being any! It may not be coincidental that in our “politically correct” world of today, there are a variety of other things that we are supposed to exclude as causes for certain societal woes, but yet, common sense tells us that in many cases we are just blinding our eyes to the obvious… as a society, we have turned our backs on God. That is not a good idea.

So, as we progress through the main portion of this section of the book, our scientific search for the truth of our origins will not exclude any possible source for our origins – including possible reference to the supernatural when that is the best answer. As I have already stated, it seems to me to be totally inappropriate for modern day science to exclude any reasonable explanation in their search for the truth – I certainly will not.

My goal for the rest of this scientific section will be to present the scientific evidence for our origin and not be limited by an artificial blockage to the pursuit of the truth. Obviously, I will not rule out the possibility of recognizing a creative force... if that is the most logical and best answer - but it absolutely need be the only reasonable choice – or we won’t consider it!

Let me now present an overview of the rest of this section on the cosmological arguments for the existence of God. The next chapter will review the evidence that has resulted in the “Big Bang” theory as being the currently accepted scientific explanation of cosmology. Chapters 4, 5, and 7 will detail many of the remarkably “coincidental” features of our Universe that have enabled it to evolve to its present state and to eventually result in human life itself. Alternative hypotheses will then be presented and discussed. In Section 3, I will discuss the evidence, if any, for the origin of life on earth from inorganic material. What evidence do we have that totally natural processes could result in turning inorganic matter into a living cell? Is that possible? We will delve into this topic to find out. Then, the controversial topic of evolution will be addressed… is it a proven fact as is taught in most high school and college classrooms… or not?

What is the evidence for and against? As I review the many areas of evidence that cast significant doubt on those scientists who are adamant in their belief in macroevolution and NeoDarwinism, the reasons that so many Christian scientists believe that God is the Creative Force that is responsible for the creation of our Universe and all life (including human life) will become obvious. The vast majority of Christian scientists do not believe in the “young earth” view of creation. However, I will devote a chapter to the Creation Science movement (proponents of the “young earth” view). There is so much antipathy between secular scientists and this group of Christian scientists, I believe it is appropriate to attempt to understand the reasons that these men and woman defend so strongly their beliefs. Now let us pick up on our scientific inquiry as we head into the twentieth century…

49

Chapter 3:

The Big Bang

As the nineteenth century was drawing to a close, the scientific community was enjoying their position atop the intellectual world. They were really “on a roll.” The scientific revolution, which had begun in the mid-16th century with Copernicus, had just recently been completed.

Discoveries by Galileo and Descartes had led quickly to Newton’s tremendous advances in physics and math. Scientists continued their revolution of ideas into the field of chemistry.

Then, fairly recently, had come the blockbuster theories introduced in biology that were first advanced by Darwin. Although all of the details had not been worked out as yet, the overall concept of the cosmos was considered to be understood. Having shaken the shackles of religion, scientists had been on an all-out quest for the accumulation of knowledge – and they had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams!

Yes, even the mind-boggling questions of origins had now been answered. Man was no longer thought to be the center of the Universe, neither philosophically nor scientifically. Nor was the Universe thought to be static with the Earth at its center. The idea of an infinite Universe in extent and time was now the accepted view. Giordano Bruno, an Italian monk and scientist, put forth the idea of an infinite number of planets revolving around an infinite number of suns. The Universe, therefore, did not need any explanation for its being as it had just always been. This view was also accepted by Newton. With his publication of Principia, Newton distinguished himself as one of the greatest minds ever. He had derived three basic laws of motion and elucidated the law of gravity using the insight that he had gained from his predecessors, Galileo and Kepler. His infinite view of the Universe seemed to present a paradox to a Reverend Richard Bentley of Cambridge University, however. In an exchange of letters between the two scholars, the effects of gravity on an infinite Universe were argued. Bentley suggested that in an infinite Universe, all of the stars should collapse into a giant ball of fire due to the combined infinite gravitational pull of all of the matter in the Universe. Newton countered with the suggestion that if the stars were perfectly uniformly distributed across the infinite space, their gravitational pull would just cancel each other out and the collapse that Bentley described would be averted. Newton soon realized that this explanation was none too likely as even the slightest movement of one star would throw things out of kilter and a giant collapse would follow. He then added that this could be avoided if God intervened to keep it from happening.

In any case, the concept of an infinite Universe, in time and extent was universally accepted soon after the beginning of the scientific revolution. Indeed, the influential philosopher, Immanuel Kant had put his stamp of approval on this notion as well. Darwin’s theories had built on this “fact” and further enhanced the infinite view of our Universe – in fact, his natural selection theory required an extremely old Universe… ideally, it should be infinitely old. So, seemingly with all of the answers well at hand, all was tranquil in the scientific world as we entered into the twentieth century. But trouble was brewing…

Actually, another crack in the infinite Universe concept (in addition to Bentley's perplexing question) had been noted by the famous seventeenth century astronomer Kepler. He recognized that an infinitely large Universe with an infinite number of stars should result in the 50

sky always being bright. There should never be any night. No matter what direction we look, we should be looking at starlight if there are an infinite number of stars uniformly distributed and an infinite time for each one's light to reach the earth. The German astronomer, Heinrich Olbers also made this observation in the early nineteenth century. Olbers attempted to give a solution as well. He believed that there would still be a night sky in an infinite Universe if there were clouds of interstellar matter blocking the light from distant stars. This explanation seemed to pacify astronomers until another disturbing discovery really began to shoot holes in the infinite Universe theory.

In 1879 Josef Stefan showed that any body in space will eventually radiate away as much energy as it receives. This was confirmed five years later by Ludwig Boltzmann. This meant that the solution that Olbers had offered for dark night sky‌ that is the interstellar medium, would not suffice as an answer any longer. In an infinitely old Universe, this medium would also have reached an equilibrium at which point it would radiate the light energy that it had absorbed. Now the problem of the night sky re-surfaced! But that was not all. A problem was about to surface that would challenge the universality of Newton's Laws.

Due to an impressive array of experimental discoveries throughout the 19th century, a clearer understanding of the wave characteristics of light was obtained. This wave-nature of light seemed to require something in the Universe as a medium to transmit these waves just as air is the medium that transmits sound waves. This substance was called aether, a reference to Aristotle's use of the word over two thousand years earlier to describe what made up the heavens.

This aether was also extremely important to scientists as it was to be their reference point for all measurements of motion. In fact, without this reference point, the universality of Newton's laws of motion would be in jeopardy... and therefore physics in general. This aether would not only serve as the transmitter of energy forms such as light, but, maybe more importantly, would be at absolute rest... unmovable... and therefore a universal reference point whereby all other motions could be measured absolutely. It did not matter if the scientists could actually measure any bodies motion relative to this aether, but it was all important that this absolute motion was true in principal... Newton's laws of motion rested on this premise.

As the nineteenth century drew to a close, two American physicists, Albert Michaelson and Edward Morley, attempted to see if they could determine a method of measuring absolute motion (that is motion relative to the aether). But before detailing their reasoning, it is important that we understand the concept of relative motion. Let me explain using an example.

Picture yourself in a car riding down a four-lane highway in a desert wasteland - there is nothing but flat brown land and blue sky for as far as you can see! You happen to be in a new "superlimo" that rides so smoothly a full glass of water on the hood does not even spill a single drop no matter what the speed! The highway is as smooth as glass and with the air-conditioning on you are able to enjoy a totally quiet ride. We have even provided you a driver for this trip!

After awakening from a short nap, you look out your side window to see another limo in the next lane. The man in the back seat is motioning to you for something. Being a bit groggy, having just awakened, you don't catch his drift immediately, but when he holds up his sandwich, and 51

mouths the words, you realize he is asking if you might have some "grey poupon.� Sure enough you do. Being the generous soul you are, you are about to open the door and take him the mustard... but, fortunately just in time, your driver yells back that you are travelling at 100 mph!

Wow! In this example, your motion relative to the other car was zero. But relative to the earth it was 100 mph. But the earth is also moving relative to the sun... and the sun relative to our galaxy... and so on. That is why scientists needed the aether - to be the absolute reference point from which all motion could be measured.

Light consists of waves in this proposed aether. Michelson reasoned that if the earth was moving toward this aether (and the light waves therein) any measurement of the speed of this light would show an increased speed when compared to the speed of light when measured if the earth were moving away from the aether. On the other hand, if the earth and aether were both at absolute rest, the speed of light would be the same no matter in what direction it was measured.

Although, by definition, the aether is at absolute rest, there is no reason to believe that the earth is as well. Therefore, scientists fully expected to see some difference in the speed of light depending on the direction of measurement. Before Michelson came on the scene there was no device sensitive enough to measure these differences. In 1881, however, he introduced an instrument he called an interferometer. In 1886, with the help of Edward Morley, a most amazing discovery was made. The speed of light was not altered by its direction with respect to the aether! These two scientists repeated their experiment hundreds of times, always with the same result. Apparently, there is no motion of the earth relative to the aether. This made no common sense, but is what the experiments showed... and every experiment that has followed for 100 years! The search was then on to explain this seemingly preposterous finding.

A young Swiss physicist, born only two years before Michelson invented his interferometer, decided to tackle this problem. German-born Albert Einstein (1879-1955) spent his early twenties attempting to understand the concepts of time, light and space. For hundreds of years, scientists as well as the general population accepted the explanations offered from Newton's laws of motion. These laws had revolutionized physics in the 17th century and were accepted by the entire scientific community. Newton's concepts also had the decided advantage of making common sense. They were relatively easy to understand. During the late nineteenth century, a couple of discoveries began to show some shortcomings of Newton's explanation of the cosmos. Besides the seemingly paradoxical measurements of Michaelson and Morley, two other well-known scientists had shown that Newton's laws of physics fell short in their explanation of electromagnetism. By the turn of the century, these difficulties were understood by the scientific community and attempts were certainly underway to rectify these shortcomings, within the framework of the established laws of physics. The genius of Einstein was that he was not only willing but eager to look at the entire Universe, the cosmos, from a totally new perspective! As is almost universally true in physics, most important discoveries are made by brilliant physicists in their youth. Albert Einstein was no exception. He was able to use his youthful "wonder" to look at questions that to everyone else were already answered. He was about to embark on a decade of discovery probably approached only by Sir Isaac Newton 52

himself. Einstein spent his late teens and into his early twenties obsessed with these perplexing questions. He often would exchange letters with Michele Besso, a close friend. Eventually, Besso moved to Bern, Switzerland to be closer to his friend Albert, and the two of them were able to devote more of their time to these discussions. One day in 1905, Albert felt that he was very close to an important breakthrough. He asked that Besso help him as he tried to put his thoughts into order. He went over everything very carefully, hoping that the missing piece of the puzzle might be forthcoming with a little help from his friend. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, he was seemingly no closer to his dream of discovering the "secret" that he was after. So, he went to bed exhausted and discouraged. He awoke the "next morning in great agitation, as if, he said, 'a storm broke loose in my mind.' With it came the answers. He had finally tapped "God's thought" and tuned in to the master plan for the Universe."11 Einstein had battled for years for this understanding, and all at once it had broken through into his consciousness.

Einstein himself believed, as he told his biographer, Banesh Hoffman, that these moments of revelation were "Ideas come from God.�11 Einstein had developed a theory that simply avoided the absolute reference point (aether) that everyone else was sure existed, but instead he treated all motions as relative to some other object that was arbitrarily taken as being at rest. In June of 1905, he published a paper based on motion at a constant velocity... the special theory of relativity. He advanced the notion that the velocity of light in a vacuum was constant and did not depend on the motion of the source of the light relative to the observer. Now this makes no common sense at all. Let's look at what this is actually saying.

Assume that you had the unique opportunity of visiting the Texas ranch of former baseball great, Nolan Ryan, as he attempts to pitch a baseball through a hoop while standing on the hood of his son's jeep that is speeding along at 100 mph! Nolan is one of the few pitchers ever who could throw a ball 100 mph. Initially, he fires it while heading directly towards the target. Sure enough, he zips it right through - a bullseye! As we stand next to the hoop, the ball appears to us to be travelling at an astonishing 200 mph! Why? Well, according to Newtonian physics, the observed speed of an object (the baseball) to an observer at rest is the algebraic sum of the speed of the object (the baseball) and the speed of its source (the jeep). But now his son turns the jeep around, but going directly away from the hoop. Again, he gets the speed of the jeep up to 100 mph. Ryan lets it rip. But, lo and behold, the ball drops to the ground at approximately the spot that it left his hand. It appeared to you that its velocity was zero! In this case, the algebraic sum was 100 mph (baseball) - 100 mph (jeep) = 0 since they were travelling in opposite directions! This is what Newtonian physics would predict.

But what of Einstein's special theory of relativity? It tells us that as the velocities approach the speed of light, the observed speed of the object in question will become increasingly independent of the speed of its source. It is not that relativity principles do not exist at lower speeds, it is just that their effects are negligible. Even though Ryan's fastball appeared to approach the speed of light to many opposing batters, of course it actually did not.

Hence, our observations from our visit to his ranch. Einstein tells us however, that had his 53

fastball actually hit the speed of light, it would have appeared to us (an observer at rest) to be travelling at exactly the same speed (186,000 mps) regardless the speed or direction of travel of the jeep. Come on now, Albert. But it is true! Numerous experiments have proven this to be true. To expand on this, Einstein's revolutionary theory also tells us that the sum of velocities of the source of an object plus the object itself will never exceed the speed of light. Furthermore, it shows that nothing can ever exceed the speed of light.

This special theory of relativity also changes the way that we view the cosmos.

Everything becomes relative to something else. This concept avoids the nebulous aether that used to be taken as a "cosmic reference point" - and that was on shaky ground after the Michelson-Morley experiments. Instead, Einstein's revolutionary perspective stated that "one's relative position in the Universe controls one's viewpoint - sometimes to cosmic effect."12 He went one step further to state that not only was there no absolute space (the aether) but there was also no absolute time! Time was also relative to some system of reference. He noted that we cannot assume that our sense of time applies throughout the entire Universe. Of course, all of this would be just so much baloney if it were not true. But the fact is that although many have looked, no physicist has ever found anything in nature that has ever violated the tenants of Einstein's special theory of relativity!

It is interesting to note that before this paper on relativity, Einstein had sent three other papers for publication in 1905! The first was a paper on the photoelectric effect (eventually winning him the Noble Prize), the second was a paper concerning the size of the sugar molecule, the third a very important paper describing "Brownian motion" and the fourth was the paper on relativity. He was rolling! Only two years later, in 1907, he introduced his famous equation, E=mc2. This equation equated mass and energy through a constant - the speed of light, "c.�

But Albert wasn't done yet. For most of the next eight years, he was hard at work on a much more impressive and comprehensive theory. By 1915, he had left his job as a patent officer and assumed a professorship in Berlin. In the late fall of 1915, just over ten years after his completion of his special theory of relativity, Einstein had concluded his remarkable work on his general theory of relativity. This work is considered by many to be the greatest intellectual achievement in the history of mankind. In this proposal, Einstein considered the more general situation of non-uniform motion. He also had a lot to say about gravity and its effects on planets through the notion of curved space. He predicted that light beams would be affected by gravity and therefore bent by stars and planets. His theory also showed how light will lose and gain energy based on its interaction with gravitational fields. Since light can only travel at one speed, an energy loss is reflected in a lowering of its frequency.

Einstein's general theory explained several observed phenomena precisely in situations where Newtonian physics failed. One example relates to the discovery of what are called white dwarfs. These are very dense stars that have enormous gravitational fields. Einstein's theory predicts that this gravitational pull would lower the wavelength of the light as it leaves these stars and thereby create a shift to the red end of the light spectrum... this, in fact, is what is observed in nature!

54

Very importantly, his theory also "explains the origin and destiny of the Universe, predicts that light passing a massive object will undergo a reddening and that a clock near a massive object will run slower than one at a distance from it, accounts for the inconsistent orbit of the planet Mercury, and points to the existence of gravity waves (moving waves of energy that transmit a gravitational effect), as well as what have come to be known as black holes."13 Of course, the question remained whether or not all of these predictions made by the equations would turn out to be true! It turns out that over the course of the last one hundred years, when tested, all of the predictions that his equations make have come true! His equations are a true reflection of the “physics� of our Universe.

Albert Einstein did have a problem with one of the consequences of his equations - they pointed to something that was in direct contradiction to the prevailing viewpoint of the time, including that held by Einstein himself. That is the fact that the Universe was not static but instead it was expanding and therefore must have had a beginning! Maybe it is surprising in retrospect that even Albert Einstein, who had accepted amazing new ideas as truth (and indeed they were true), but he could not accept this one prediction made by his unified field theory... most likely because it struck at the heart of so many of his deep seated religious and philosophical beliefs.

Up until the introduction of this watershed theory, the cosmos was understood very well by virtually all scientists... so they thought. As previously noted, physicists, chemists and biologists had concluded that the Universe was infinite in extent and in time. In fact, as we have seen, biologists counted on this fact in their theory of life's origins. Now, Einstein noted that his general theory of relativity required that the Universe be finite! That just wouldn't do at all.

After much soul searching, the greatest scientist of our time, if not all time, decided to do what some of us have done when our figures don't come out the way we want them in our lab experiments in high school... he added a fudge factor! Holy cow... but it is true! This "cosmological constant" brings the Universe back into a static condition as far as his equations are concerned.

It is interesting to note that although we remember Albert Einstein as an unbelievable genius, his theory on general relativity (which was his tour de force) did not gain quick acceptance. In fact, he was nominated for the Noble Prize for many years before he finally won it in 1922 for "services to theoretical physics" and for the discovery of the photoelectric effect... not for the general theory of relativity! He had been passed over in 11 previous years in which he had been nominated. Even in 1922, seven years after he had published his general theory of relativity, the judges were still too baffled by it to recognize its impact and importance on physics and cosmology! Suffice it to say, these "field equations" were a step or two beyond high school algebra!

During the war years and after he had published his theory, Einstein was taken very ill.

Some say that he felt that he was going to die from cancer. As it turns out, Einstein "only" had a severe ulcer... but he lost about 50 pounds and suffered from severe abdominal pain. With the medical expertise today, he probably would have had no significant difficulties... but that was 55

one hundred years ago. In any event, there was a period of time in late 1917 where he was basically bed ridden. He continued to communicate with his colleagues through letters. It was very difficult to remain in contact in any other way due to the war. William de Sitter, the famous Dutch astronomer, and Einstein exchanged correspondence regularly. De Sitter came up with solutions to Einstein's field equations (including the cosmological constant) that required the Universe to be in a state of constant expansion. However, this model was of a Universe without matter. He believed that the Universe was expanding from a singularity (today called a black hole). Einstein thought that this was so much nonsense. Expansion?? And what sense could be made of space without matter?

In the meantime, De Sitter had sent Einstein's paper on relativity on to Arthur Eddington in England. Eddington was one of the few physicists capable of comprehending and appreciating the importance of the work. In fact, for three to four years after its publication, this theory was understood by few scientists and accepted by even less. One story noted that a reporter asked Eddington if it was true that only three people in the world understood Einstein’s Theory. After apparently thinking about it a moment, Eddington responded, “I was just trying to think who the third person is.”14 But all of that began to change soon after WW1. Eddington was able to measure the starlight deflection during a solar eclipse in 1919 and the "greatest moment of his life occurred: his measurement on one photographic plate agreed with Einstein's theory."15 Other measurements confirmed Eddington's and the first real evidence proving Einstein's general theory of relativity was in! In the succeeding years, more and more evidence has accumulated demonstrating that Einstein had indeed developed an incredible new way of accurately describing the Universe. Although Newton's classical physics is perfectly good for most purposes, Einstein's theory goes beyond Sir Isaac's and is useful even on the larger scale of our Universe. After Eddington presented his proof of Einstein's theory in London in November 1919, Einstein assumed the role of the world's most famous and influential scientist - never to be relinquished until his death.

As the scientific world entered into the 1920's, questions concerning the origin of the cosmos were being seriously entertained for the first time in centuries. Many, like Einstein, clung to the centuries’ "old" belief - that the Universe was infinite in time and extent. Centuries ago, his fellow countrymen, Kant and Hume, had convinced themselves and most of the civilized world of this philosophical concept. Kant understood that an infinitely old, static Universe would allow for an infinite number of random events. He reasoned that this would result in the complexity that is seen in our Universe and, in particular, the earth today. In his youth, Einstein loved to study the works of these two great "thinkers.” In addition to these philosophers, Sir Isaac Newton, a scientist that he idolized, also believed in an infinite Universe. It would not be easy to unseat this concept of the cosmos. Of course, it is still true that Einstein was continually irritated that his own theory required a "fudge factor" to allow for a static Universe. But he did add this factor... and for no good scientific reason. As George Smoot notes in his excellent book, Wrinkles in Time, "one reason Einstein rejected this implication of his general relativity theory was that, if the Universe is currently expanding, then long ago it must have started from a single 56

point. All space and time would have been bound up in that "point," an infinitely dense, infinitely small "singularity." Hence it would be impossible to calculate what happened "before" the singularity, as any calculations would yield nonsensical results. The singularity would be an ultimate barrier to human knowledge, and this struck Einstein as absurd. Einstein had no evidence for the existence of a cosmological constant; it is the kind of rabbit-out-of-a-hat idea that most scientists would label ad hoc. And in Einstein it represented his philosophy embodied within his mathematical equations."16 Einstein dogmatically continued to adhere to the static Universe concept throughout the 1920's. De Sitter and Einstein each had their own models of the Universe. The question was which of these two were correct - if either?

In 1922, a Russian mathematician, Alexander Friedmann re-worked Einstein's ten, incredibly complex, field equations and found that they had a class of solutions that represented a currently expanding Universe. He also found that depending on its density, one of two fates was in store for our currently expanding Universe. It would either continue to expand throughout all time or gravity would eventually cause it to reverse its direction and implode upon itself. This "critical density" will be discussed in more detail later. Still, Einstein was unconvinced. Since there as yet was no clear evidence for an expanding Universe, Einstein believed his "cosmological constant" (fudge factor) was still indicated to aptly describe what appeared to be observed in nature - a static Universe. But within ten years he would change his mind. For one thing, he finally began to recognize the significance of Hubble’s astronomical discoveries.

As early as 1914, an American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, discovered that certain nebulae are receding away from earth at high rates of speed. At the meeting where this information was presented, a young graduate student, Edwin Hubble, determined to pursue this issue further... he wondered about the significance of this finding. Through incredibly pain-staking observations and measurements in the fifteen years that followed, Hubble eventually found evidence that our Universe was not static, but was expanding from what amounted to a point source billions of years in the past to its current vast size! In 1929, Hubble announced his findings in what is called the law of red shifts. Before stating this law, it would behoove us to discuss the topic of the Doppler Shift for a moment.

The Doppler effect (named after Austrian physicist, Christian J. Doppler -1803-1853) relates to the characteristics of certain wave phenomena depending on the wave's relative velocity to that of the observer. This "effect" is seen in all types of waves; for example, it is seen in both light waves and sound waves. For ease of illustration, let me use as an example that of sound waves. Most of us are aware of the differences in the sound of a car horn as a car passes us by as we wait to cross a street. As the car approaches, the sound is relatively high pitched.

Immediately upon passing us by, the sound changes abruptly to a noticeably lower pitch. If you have not ever noticed this phenomenon, pay attention the next time you are in the city. The important point here is to understand what is happening so that we can understand how Hubble used this concept as it applied to the light waves coming from distant galaxies.

How we perceive a wave (i.e. its sound or its color) relates specifically to the distance between each crest of the wave as it we observe their approach. In regards to sound waves, the 57

pitch is higher if the distance between wave crests is small. Keeping in mind the relative motion principles we reviewed a little earlier, each wave crest (in our example, the soundwave crests generated by the car horn) arrives at a stationary observer (you, as you wait to cross the street) based on two speeds: the actual speed of sound plus or minus the speed of the car that this sound is originating from (as it approaches or recedes). Therefore, the wave crests will arrive at our ears in more rapid succession as the car approaches than they will as the car recedes into the distance. In other words, we will experience the sound at a high pitch as the car approaches (speed of sound plus speed of car). As the car continues on past us, the frequency of arrival of the wave crests will be much less (frequency ~ speed of sound minus speed of the car) and the sound will come to us at a lower pitch. Remember, the perception of the wave (sound in this case but light in the case of stars or galaxies) relates solely to the frequency of arrival of the wave crests to the observer. In order to understand Hubble's discovery, we must understand the Doppler Shift. We must also recognize that the color red is experienced by observing light at a relatively low frequency… blue would be at a higher frequency. If we knew how light should appear to us down here on earth as it comes from a particular distant galaxy (and this can be determined by studying spectrograms), and then see if it appears a little more red or blue than that predicted, we could easily figure out whether the galaxy was approaching or receding from earth. If a galaxy is a little redder in color than expected, it must be receding from the earth… if bluer, it must be advancing towards us. In fact, with exacting measurements, even the speeds of these galaxies relative to earth could be determined!

This is exactly what Hubble did! Slipher had demonstrated to the world that at least some galaxies were moving away from the earth, but it was Hubble who found, through more than a decade of measurements, that virtually all galaxies are more "redshifted" than they should be. Only relatively close neighbors had any blueshift (this is due to local gravitational effects).

The conclusion was a blockbuster! If every distant galaxy was speeding away from our own, and apparently from every other galaxy as well, our Universe must be expanding, apparently from an original point source! He went even further and uncovered a very important linear relationship between the distance to a galaxy and its speed of recession from earth (its redshift) this is now, appropriately, called Hubble's Law announced first in 1929. Hubble's Law states basically that the further away any two galaxies are from one another, the faster they are receding from each other. It is important to recognize the import of Hubble's discovery. His was the first experimental proof of an expanding Universe. No matter how much Einstein wanted to cling to his beliefs in a static Universe for philosophical reasons, he was too much a realist to continue to hang on in the face of this incontrovertible evidence. He and de Sitter finally got together in 1932 and developed a specific solution to his equations in which space was flat but expanding (the term ‘flat’ will be defined in chapter 4). This is now known as the Einstein - de Sitter mathematical model of our Universe - the dreaded fudge factor had been removed! In retrospect, Albert commented on more than one occasion that his failure to trust his own original equations was the biggest mistake of his professional life. The Einstein - de Sitter solution has served as a very accurate mathematical model of our Universe to this day.

58

But now an odd picture was beginning to emerge of our Universe. Now both theoretical and observational evidence seemed to point unmistakably to a beginning! Naturally, as we would expect in a situation like this, several enterprising physicists were hot on the trail of an explanation. How exactly did "we" get here anyway? During WWI, a Belgium cosmologist, Georges-Henri Lemaitre became enamored with the topic of our origins and spent the next 15 years working on a theory that would eventually earn him the moniker "father of the big bang theory.” But he was certainly not the only scientist in the hunt. Princeton cosmologist James Peebles has been quoted: "Weyl and Friedmann were on the track before Lemaitre and before the observational situation was ripe; Robertson had all the pieces a year or so after Lemaitre, and Eddington and Tolman were close behind him."17 But Lemaitre was first to publish his viewpoint in an article in 1933. In his view, the Universe had begun from a primordial atom (or quantum of energy). Through a process taking billions of years, this atom had generated the complexity that we see in our Universe today. Everything that is present today came from that one "primordial atom"! Even space and time were created from that beginning point!

So, how was this revolutionary idea accepted by his fellow scientists? You probably guessed it. Most scientists were appalled by it. A Universe with a beginning… no way!

Initially, Einstein thought that Lemaitre was way off the mark. He told him in 1927 at a meeting in Brussels that although "your calculations are correct, your physical insight (into how the Universe actually arose) is abominable.”18 Sir Arthur Eddington summed up the way many scientists felt about the new order of things in cosmology when he said, "philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of the Universe is repugnant… I should like to find a loophole.”19 "We must allow evolution an infinite time to get started."20 Many other famous cosmologists voiced their displeasure with this new, very unexpected conception on the beginning of our Universe. Here are just a few quotes from some of them…

•

• • •

• • •

Sir Arthur Eddington: "I have no axe to grind in this discussion, but "the notion of a beginning is repugnant to me… the expanding Universe is preposterous… incredible… it leaves me cold."21 Philip Morrison of MIT: "I find it hard to accept the Big Bang theory; I would like to reject it." But he couldn't!”22 Paul Davies, "It is now generally accepted that the Universe came into existence abruptly in a gigantic explosion."23 Robert Jastrow, “Most scientists maintain that the Universe evolved from a hot, dense gas of quantum particles which subsequently expanded rapidly – an explosion called the “hot Big Bang.”24 Paul Davies, “Nearly all cosmologists now accept that we live in a Universe that had a definite beginning in a big bang, and is developing toward an uncertain end."25 Robert Jastrow, "The fact that the Universe was once in a dense, hot state is considered proven by almost every scientist."26 Allan Sandage (Carnegie Observatories): “It is such a strange conclusion… it 59

• •

•

cannot really be true.”27 Walter Nernst (German chemist): “To deny the infinite duration of time would be to betray the very foundations of science."28 "Nobody can go back in time to study the Big Bang itself, but we can learn about it by studying "fossils" from the earliest eras, just as a geologist or paleontologist can infer the early history of the Earth by studying the record in the rocks today. The theory can never, of course, be "proved" but it is certainly more plausible than any equally detailed alternative model, and we certainly believe it has a better than even chance of survival."30 (John Gribbon & Dr. Martin Rees) Newton, Sir Isaac, “These bodies may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws. Thus, this most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”31

There were many, many more famous men and women of science who had a very difficult time dealing with this new, shocking information. However, be that as it may, Lemaitre's idea, with some modifications, was here to stay! Both Einstein and Eddington eventually were convinced… they didn't like it, but they recognized that our Universe did begin with a "Bang" … a big one at that!

Now it is time to review in some reasonable detail just how astrophysicists believe that our cosmos came into being and how it has changed over time. We will also touch on the question regarding the ultimate fate of the Universe. I will attempt not to get bogged down in too many details as they are not necessary to understand the big picture nor the consequences of the "Big Bang.” Anyone who would like to delve more deeply into this area of cosmology will find some excellent books on this topic referenced in the bibliography at the end of the book.

A logical extension of the equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity presented in the 1960's by Stephen Hawking, George Ellis and Roger Penrose "demonstrated that if general relativity is valid for the Universe, then, under very general conditions, space and time must have originated in the same cosmic bang that brought matter and energy into existence."32 The Big Bang theory suggests just this situation.

At some point in the distant past, before time and space existed, there was an incredibly big explosion that spewed forth matter from an incredibly hot point source, called a point singularity. Matter and energy were sent out uniformly in all directions. As difficult as it is to conceive, there was no time nor space prior to this origin. Only since this explosion do the four dimensions we know as length, width, height and time exist. In fact, there are almost certainly many more dimensions (up to a total of eleven) - most of which our human minds cannot fathom.

Within this point source of near infinite temperature, density and pressure was contained all of the matter and energy that we currently see in the Universe! It has just been redistributed throughout the cosmos. Since the onset of time, our Universe has been expanding 60

continuously… from its initial singularity. Space and time have continued to grow. It also has been shown that the Universe, both theoretically and observationally is decelerating. Soon after the initial explosion, the elements that we see in nature began to form. As time progressed, some of these elements were mutually attracted to form stars, planets and galaxies. Through billions of years and many iterations, the cosmos that we now observe has resulted. It is still in a state of expansion, but its rate of expansion is slowing. This is what Einstein's equations predict and what Hubble's observations gave some early credence… but there has got to be more proof… there is!

Let me now go through a few illustrations of just how the Universe is expanding as it is important to grasp this point in order to understand at least one of the better proofs of the "Big Bang.” Let me make clear at the outset that you are going to have to be willing to stretch your imagination a little in order to understand some of the concepts that I will be presenting in the next few pages… but I believe that it will be worth your while to do so. There are basically two ways to look at this explosion of a point source that we call the "Big Bang", the way that makes common sense… and the right way. Now what do I mean by that wisecrack. Let us look at an ostensibly analogous situation… but in reality, it is not. One might get the impression that the explosion of a hand grenade would be a good model for the explosion that brought our Universe into existence. First there was this little ball of matter and energy (the hand grenade) and then suddenly… BOOM! Hot stuff flying everywhere in basically an even distribution. In this example, we recognize that as the "hot stuff" flies farther and farther away from the point of the explosion, it will get cooler and cooler. Everything will be expanding from the reference point where the hand grenade exploded. The closer the debris is to the point of explosion, the hotter it would be. Seems like what we might have happening in the "Big Bang.” But there is a strange but undeniable problem that destroys this analogy. The Universe exploded into literally nothing … it created 3-dimensional space (and time) while it expanded (by the way, it is still doing this creating space and time). The hand grenade exploded into pre-existing space. This is an insurmountable difference between the actual Big Bang and our hand grenade analogy - the hand grenade matter and heat expanded into already existing space!

Let's not give up yet. We'll look at another example where the object of expansion creates the space it occupies… that is the key. As you will recall, I warned you earlier that there will be some areas that will border on the impossible to visualize in your "mind's eye.”

Certainly, the expansion of a three-dimensional space into complete nothingness qualifies! But, let me use a two-dimensional illustration that I believe will be fairly easy to visualize. Then we only need realize that an analogous situation has taken place to create our Universe… but in three dimensions - even if we cannot actually "see" it.

Assume that you were able to place tiny little ink spots on various regions of an incredibly small, deflated balloon. Picture this balloon as being so small in this deflated state that it was virtually non-existent (our point source) but had an amazing amount of elasticity throughout each section of its, as yet, unstretched rubber (an infinite "energy" reserve). Now some mysterious source begins to blow the balloon up. As we see it begin to expand, "time" for 61

this balloon "Universe" begins. Only the balloon rubber itself represents the Universe… the air within it nor anything beyond it is not relevant to our example… again, only the rubber of the balloon itself represents the Universe. Now let’s get back to our Universe and see what is happening to the ink spots. Every ink spot is separating from all of the others. Not one is moving closer to another! Why? Well, they all started out together, but as the balloon expands, the two-dimensional "space" (their expanding "Universe") on which each ink spot exists grows.

Therefore, an ant placed on any given ink spot on the balloon would get the impression that all of the other ink spots were moving away from it while it was standing still. This is true regardless of what ink spot the ant was located on. Furthermore, the closer the ink spot was to the ant, the slower it would be moving away. Think about that one for a moment. Remember, all of the ink spots were basically together at time=0; but now one may be all the way on the other side of the balloon, another may be just as inch away. The one that is close by may move to two inches away as the balloon continues to expand whereas the ink spot on the opposite side will surely recede much further away than just an additional inch. This is exactly what Hubble noted about the galaxies in our three-dimensional Universe and for the same reason. All of the galaxies had started out from a point source as well! Also, the ants on the balloon will see their Universe as being flat since it will appear to be so to each individual ant when the balloon is significantly expanded.

Some people like to use the three-dimensional illustration of a loaf of raisin bread baking in the oven. If we can stretch our imaginations to "see" this bread as starting from an infinitesimally small ball of dough mixed with many raisins, we can attempt to understand that as the bread expands, each of the raisins expands away from each one of the others as its "space" (the expanding dough) is being created. The key to understanding the Big Bang model of the Universe is to understand that space is literally being created as the Universe explodes… just as our ants' "Universe" was created as the balloon surface stretched outward. The reason that this is so important is that it shows that each and every region of our Universe should have certain properties in common… as we shall see.

Now that you hopefully have a better understanding of what is meant when referencing our Universes expansion, let's review some of those things that would be predicted from the Big Bang model and then see if there is any observational confirmation (or denial). First off, with the exception of some nearby stars and planets due to local effects, we would expect to see an ongoing expansion in our Universe where the velocity of retreat of any galaxy would be linearly related to its distance from the earth - the further away a galaxy is to the earth, the faster it is moving away (just like we saw with the ant on the ink spot in the balloon example). As we have already seen, Hubble showed this to be true in the late 1920's.

The next quest for confirmation related to the actual matter of the Universe - its elemental make-up. Where did the elements come from and how did they get here? Could the Big Bang offer an adequate answer for these two questions? Is this consistent with the Big Bang? As it turns out, it is indeed. George Gamow, a transplanted Russian astrophysicist, while working at George Washington University, attempted to explain the origin of the elements that are seen 62

throughout the Universe via the "Big Bang.� He proposed that the early Universe (immediately after the "explosion") contained matter in a primordial soup-like form. He called this the ylem.

This ylem was an extremely hot sea of neutrons and photons that began to cool immediately as the Universe started its expansion. After partial decay of the neutrons into protons, electrons and neutrinos, the stage was set for the production of the earliest elements. Gamow states that all of the elements of our Universe formed in the first twenty minutes of time! A single proton with its corresponding electron is referred to as the element hydrogen (the lightest/simplest element).

Heavier elements were produced by the fusion of neutrons, hydrogen and other light elements.

To produce helium (the next element in line), intermediary reactions needed to take place in quick succession. An important intermediate product formed in this process is called deuterium, "heavy hydrogen" (one proton + one neutron). This bond is very weak and with the extremely high temperatures and resultant energies in the first few minutes of our Universe's creation, the deuterium nucleus thus formed was quickly bombarded by the seemingly ubiquitous photons the photons acted as "missiles" and broke the tenuous bonds. However, about four minutes after the big bang occurred, temperatures had cooled to a point that deuterium became stable and it was then able to continue on to the development of helium (two protons + two neutrons).

Interestingly, after the massive production of deuterium and helium, further fusion of these elements became more unlikely as the Universe by this time had expanded to a point where interactions between particles became increasingly rare. This accounts for the massive amounts of these two elements in our Universe today. It also so happens that nuclei with five or eight particles are very unstable so collisions of helium (4) and hydrogen (1) would not result in any resultant heavier elements. It would take the collisions between elements such as helium and deuterium (4+2=6) to yield stable particles. Although these did in fact occur to some degree in the early minutes of our Universe, the majority of the heavy elements were produced later within stars (to be discussed later). As the temperature continued to cool to below 3000 degrees K, photons no longer possessed enough energy to keep electrons from hooking up with their hydrogen and helium nuclei. Finally, there was a permanent separation of the photons from the electrons (before they all had been in the ylem resulting in continual collisions). Visible light was now evident in the Universe for the first time. Also, until gravity acted upon the lighter elements to bring about the formation of stars, few of the heavier elements were evident in the Universe. As we will learn later, a unique set of circumstances in stars allows for the production of virtually all of the heavy elements we see in our Universe today‌ which still is less than 3% of all of the elements. So, we now know what the Big Bang predicts concerning the particles that we see in our Universe. How does observation correspond with the scenario I just described?

Through a variety of measurements, we now know that our Universe is made up of approximately 73% hydrogen and 24 % helium. There is under 3% of all heavier elements combined. These figures are exactly what are predicted! Even better for Big Bang proponents was a recent finding from the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite. A team lead by Dr. George Smoot had spent many years developing an extremely sensitive measuring device 63

that was launched into space aboard a satellite in the early 1990's. In 1994, measurements were made for the first time ever from very distant intergalactic gas clouds. That information gives us knowledge of what our Universe was like when it was very young. Why? Well, light travels at a finite speed. Therefore, the light that we are "seeing" from these extremely distant gas clouds, and the information this light carries, comes to us from a time in the very distant past. What does it show? We now see that the condition of the Universe billions of years ago contained exactly the amounts of helium and hydrogen (and deuterium) that is predicted from the "Big Bang" theory! This is particularly impressive because there were essentially no other mechanisms of element production at that time (such as stars)… everything had to be a result of the initial "explosive event" itself. This information also tells us that it was one massive event that contributed over 99.97% of the energy of the Universe. This rules out the possibility of a combination of smaller "bangs" creating a similar outcome. It is also worth pointing out that the quantity of helium we see in the Universe can only be produced in situations where the heat is greater than anything possible today… including the heat generated by stars. Only an event such as the Big Bang had the requisite heat to generate this quantity of helium. The same can be said for the trace element deuterium. The amounts that are seen in our Universe cannot be explained in the absence of the Big Bang. As Heinz Pagels, Executive Director of the New York Academy of Sciences puts it, "Deuterium cannot be made in stars and survive… the only viable explanation is that all the deuterium is primordial - it was made in the big bang."33 Other predictions from the Big Bang theory were forthcoming. In 1948, Ralph Alpher and Gamov presented a couple of papers showing that the early Universe had to be just the right temperature in order for the proper amount of heavy elements to form. If the Universe were too hot, free protons would have blasted apart the nuclei as they formed… if it were too cold, free particles would not have enough energy to create new elements as they would not be able to overcome the electrical repulsion forces in the target nuclei. They calculated that this required initial temperature would result in a "background temperature" today - everywhere in the Universe - of about 5 degrees Celsius. Now there was something else for astrophysicists to verify (or refute) via observation! Beginning in 1948, many astrophysicists took up the challenge to see if they could find this cosmic background radiation and measure its temperature.

Before going into this quest, let's take a moment to understand what exactly is meant by "background radiation.” Keep in mind that our Universe was pictured as beginning from a singularity (point source) of virtually infinite density, pressure and temperature. What would we expect to happen to the temperature of the Universe as time passed? Let's refer back to our two dimensional "balloon model" of the Universe for a moment. Let's assume that someone placed our tiny balloon into a pizza oven set at 750 degrees until it reached that temperature itself.

Now, every ink spot and every bit of rubber (heat resistant, of course) was a hot 750 degrees.

Then, after removing it from the oven, someone (we'll call her "Hot Lips") begins to blow it up.

As it reaches the size of a golf ball, the temperature will have dropped to 600 degrees… then, at the size of a basketball, it would be down to 500. Eventually, when it was as large as a weather balloon several hours later, the temperature will have plummeted to only 5 degrees… every ink 64

spot and every fiber of rubber will be at exactly the same temperature, i.e. 5 degrees. As the balloon "Universe" expands, the temperature will uniformly drop. Every part of the rubber balloon, our simulated Universe, will have the same temperature. Of course, this should be true of the actual three-dimensional Universe as well… if the Big Bang model is correct.

Incidentally, the exact type of radiation (heat) predicted from this theory is referred to as blackbody radiation.

Now let's return to the search that was underway for evidence of this cosmic background temperature. When Alpher and Gamov created a stir with this prediction in 1948, there was no way yet available to measure this radiation. Some scientists continued to mock this search for evidences of the "Big Bang.” So far, except for Hubble's work, no clear evidence had been found to prove this theory of origins. Some astrophysicists attempted to explain Hubble's results in a way that would avoid this singularity and the virtually instantaneous creation concept. One particularly famous astrophysicist was Sir Frederick Hoyle from England. He thought Gamov's prediction was absurd. In 1950, in fact, Hoyle actually coined the phrase "Big Bang" in an attempt to denigrate the theory with what he felt was a derogatory phrase. He had his own theory which we will review later. As it turned out, the name stuck and, of course, is used even today to refer to the currently accepted view of our cosmos' origins. A battle was underway to see whose view of the Universe was to be accepted. If the background radiation was found and noted to be uniform at the calculated temperatures, the debate would be settled… if not, it might be as well, but in Hoyle's favor. For the next fifteen years, no adequate detectors were available to answer this question. Then, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were working on a very sensitive radio antenna receiver that was used in satellite tracking. It was capable of measuring very small "noise" levels of radiation. They noted that no matter what direction that they "looked", they kept getting a disturbing background reading of microwave radiation that corresponded to about 3.5 degrees Kelvin. It is a little humorous to note that initially they thought that this seemingly aberrant reading was due to pigeon droppings in the antenna. But even after they had cleaned it thoroughly, the results persisted. They did not know what to make of this, but after calling around they eventually were told of the significance of their discovery by Princeton astrophysicists James Peebles and Robert Dicke. Together they published their findings in 1965… with the explanation that this radiation was most probably the leftover radiation from the "Big Bang"! The two keys to their discovery were the following: the radiation that they measured was equally intense regardless of its location in the Universe and it was of the "blackbody" variety. Both would result from the "Big Bang", but not from anything else imaginable! This was extremely firm evidence for the "Big Bang.” In 1967, Dennis Sciama admitted defeat for the steady state theorists. He noted that "for me, the loss of the steady-state theory has been a cause of great sadness. The steady-state theory has a sweep and beauty that for some unaccountable reason, the architect of the Universe appears to have overlooked. The Universe is in fact a botched job, but I suppose we shall have to make the best of it."34 Let me mention a couple other predictions of the "Big Bang" theorists. Although it was very comforting to note the overall "smoothness" of the background radiation (i.e. it was 3.5 65

degrees Kelvin seemingly everywhere), this apparent "perfect" uniformity did cause a little concern. Why was it so smooth (i.e. uniform)? In order for the various galaxies and other celestial bodies to form, there did have to be at least some trace irregularity in the early Universe … some "wrinkles" so to speak. There would have to be trace temperature fluctuations throughout space in the early Universe. In the regions of these miniscule variations, the formation of galaxies would be possible… otherwise the "Big Bang" model, as currently conceived, would have been in trouble. It took almost 30 years before anyone was able to develop an instrument sensitive enough to measure the proposed temperature fluctuations… to see if they did, in fact, exist. From 1965 through the early 1990's all measurements continued to find absolutely no variations in space of this background radiation. Things were looking a bit grim. Then, in 1994, George Smoot's COBE satellite hit the jackpot! With the use of the satellite, they found these elusive irregularities in space … the "wrinkles" as he called them. Dr. Smoot himself reported in his book, Wrinkles in Time, "the existence of wrinkles in time as we see them tell us that big bang theory, incorporating the effects of gravity, can explain not only the early formation of galaxies but also the aggregation within 15 billion years of massive structures we know to be present in today's Universe. This is a triumph for theory and observation."35 When asked the significance of his findings he noted that "If you're religious it's like seeing God."36 Finally, I also want to mention that the age of the Universe predicted by the Big Bang model agrees very well with the age that cosmologists have measured. These measurements have been done in a variety of ways and reveal an age that is somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years. The earth itself is about 3-5 billion years old. So just how do scientists measure the age of our Universe anyway?

Actually, there are at least a half dozen methods… all yielding the essentially the same age. For instance, recall, if you will, the fact that Edwin Hubble took painstaking measurements of the position and velocity of galaxies. Astronomers that followed have continued that work.

His "Law" has been confirmed many times over… all heavenly bodies are receding away from their distant neighbors and the speed of this recession is directly proportional to the distance separating the objects (ex. galaxies). As more and more measurements are made, a fairly accurate graphical representation can be made that relates the velocity of recession of a distant galaxy to its distance away from earth. The time that it takes for a galaxy to recede any given distance is related to the velocity at which it is travelling. Through extrapolation backwards, scientists can arrive at a figure for the age of the Universe… when all objects were "as one.”

Allowances must be made for measurement errors and for the effects of gravity on the rates of expansion of galaxies, but a reasonable estimate of the age of our Universe can be attained by these measurements.

Perhaps the most accurate technique used to measure the age of the Universe is through the study of stars themselves. By analyzing the brightness and color of a star, its age can be determined. By analyzing carefully, the data from tens of thousands of stars, the age of the oldest stars in our Universe can be estimated with a high degree of accuracy. Astrophysicists 66

also can calculate how long our Universe had to be expanding before these first stars could form.

By simply adding this figure to the age of the oldest stars, the age of our Universe can be determined.

Another area of research that yields outstanding evidence for the age of our Universe comes from the analysis of a particular type of matter. Certain radioactive heavy elements, such as uranium, can only be produced in situations that involve incredibly high energies. In nature, only supernovae are capable of supplying the energies required. Supernovae is the name given to the explosive end-stage of giant stars. Scientists have determined that almost all supernovae appeared early on in the development of our Universe. Using this fact, by determining the age of matter produced from these explosive events, they would have a good estimate of the age of our Universe. In these explosions, a variety of heavy radioactive elements are produced. As with all radioactive matter, each of these elements have unique half-lives. Some, such as uranium and thorium, have very long half-lives, in the billions of years. On the other hand, some of the radioactive elements that were produced from these supernovae would have much shorter halflives and should not be expected to be around if several billion years had passed. So, what do we see in nature? As expected from other measurements, radioactive uranium and thorium still are found in nature… but the elements with half-lives in the millions of years are non-existent. With detailed analysis of this data an age of the Universe can be determined once again. Several other measuring methods yield the same result… our Universe is not as young as many think… but, most importantly, it had a beginning in time about 10-15 billion years ago - it has not always been here!

Indeed, it is worth noting here that the age of our Universe at approximately 14 billion years old is almost universally accepted by the general scientific community. "As Cal Tech physicist and Nobel Laureate Murray Gell-Mann said it would be easier to believe in a flat earth than to believe the Universe is 6,000 years old, or anything other than about 15 billion years old."37 His point in making this statement in testimony to the Supreme Court was to refute the "young earth" Creationists contention that the earth's age could be measured in the thousands of years, not billions. On the other hand, with those same words Gell-Mann also rebuffs all of those scientists who abhor the idea that our Universe not only had a beginning but is, in fact, awfully young if their concept of evolution is to be true. We'll see how our "relatively young" Universe presents insurmountable problems to evolutionists in Section 3.

Well, it has been almost a century since Albert Einstein awoke from that incredible dream that sparked him on his way to developing two of the most amazing theories every introduce. He was responsible for a complete paradigm shift in the way the cosmos is viewed.

The special theory of relativity started this change of perspective… followed ten years later by his complex "field equations" that made up the general theory of relativity which directly led to our current concept of the Universe - which all began with a "Big Bang.” Now, as we have seen, the evidence is overwhelming in support of the fact that our Universe had a beginning in time.

Scientists have not wanted to accept this viewpoint. It was much more palatable when the Universe could be viewed as infinite in time and space. It was so much easier to exclude the 67

supernatural in such a concept. As mentioned earlier, with an infinite amount of time and space, scientists were willing to believe that virtually anything could happen (this is not true, of course, but at least it was more plausible). Now, however, a big problem existed. Most scientists recognized that a beginning implied a Beginner. Einstein spent years fighting the consequences of his theory. In fact, he once wrote in a letter to de Sitter, "This circumstance [of an expanding Universe] irritates me." But he was open-minded enough to recognize the existence of God after Hubble's observations were published. Yet, that was only the first evidence of a finite Universe.

It was also over eighty years ago! Since that time, every succeeding piece of scientific evidence has only confirmed the Big Bang theory. Our brief review of just some of this evidence has shown how several predictions made from this theory have subsequently been proven correct.

So, what do scientists have to say today?

Concerning the Big Bang as the origin of our Universe and requiring a Creator: Barrow and Tippler: “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.”38 Paul Davies: “Most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the Universe.

On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation of not only all of the matter and energy in the Universe, but also of space-time itself.”39 Quentin Smith (philosopher): noted that the Big Bang ruled out the Universe coming into existence by a natural process. He realized that it seemed to point to a supernatural beginning.

Otherwise, one would have to postulate that the Universe simply popped into existence without a cause and out of nothing.

Paul Davies: “Does this mean that the big bang was an event without a cause? If the laws of physics break down at the singularity, there can be no explanation in terms of those laws.

Therefore, if one insists on a reason for the big bang, then this reason must lie beyond physics.”143 Sir Arthur Eddington: “religion first became possible for a reasonable scientific man about the year 1927.”41 Robert Jastrow: "I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance."42 Edmund Whittaker (British physicist): "There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihlo - Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness."43 Edward Milne (British theorist): "As to the first cause of the Universe, in the context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him."44 68

John Mather (NASA's principal investigator of cosmic background radiation's spectral curve): "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can’t even state the concept."45 Richard Isaacman (COBE scientist, upon first seeing the results of the COBE probe) "I felt like I was looking God in the face"46 University of Florida Professor Thomas Emmel states... "My view on the origin of the Universe accepts the current Big bang theory as the best explanation yet for the physical order and material construction of the Universe as we see it today. Thus I believe the Universe had a beginning at a moment in time some sixteen billion years ago, that it started at a fixed point in space and exploded outwards, creating the galaxies and other space objects as we see them today. I see no incompatibility at all with the metaphysical inclusion of a Supreme Being starting the whole creation of the Universe with such a method and at such a moment and point."47 "To me the concept of God is a logical outcome of the study of the immense Universe that lies around us. My readings in science and my professional pursuit of science have simply confirmed further that there are ultimate questions that we as scientists cannot answer, but yet these questions exist and it is silly at best, and unscientific at worst, to ignore them. I feel that many scientists reach a point during their graduate student days or perhaps a little later in which they feel it is unfashionable to consider metaphysical views and so they bury their heads in the sand for the rest of their lives, not making any effort to see a perspective broader than their own immediate field. Great pioneers such as Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Max Planck have considered the concept of God and his existence very seriously, and I feel it is rewarding to pursue the same line."48 (Thomas Emmel) "A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation."49 "Modern cosmologists believe the Universe did not always exist, so that there must have been some sort of creation, thought to have occurred about fifteen billion years ago."50 Noble Prize winner and Columbia physicist, Dr. Arno Penzias notes... "Today's dogma holds that matter is eternal. The dogma comes from the intuitive belief of people (including the majority of physicists) who don't want to accept the observational evidence that the Universe was created despite the fact that the creation of the Universe is supported by all the observable data astronomy has produced so far. As a result, the people who reject the data can arguably be 69

described as having a 'religious' belief that the matter must be eternal. These people regard themselves as objective scientists. The term "Big Bang" was coined in a pejorative spirit by one of these scientific opponents (Fred Hoyle - my addition) who hoped to replace the evolutionary Universe with a steady state theory - one which said that the Universe has always looked exactly as it looks now. If the Universe hadn't always existed, science would be confronted with the need for an explanation of its existence. Since scientists prefer to operate in the belief that the Universe must be meaningless - that reality consists of nothing more than the sum of the world's tangible constituents - they cannot confront the idea of creation easily, or take it lightly."51 Arno Penzias: (co-discoverer of background radiation): "the simplest theory - the one that the astronomers normally espouse, is a creation out of nothing, the appearance out of nothing of a Universe."52 Robert Wilson (co-discoverer of background radiation): (in discussing the Big Bang with Fred Heeren): … I can't think of a better theory of the origin of the Universe to match with Genesis."53 George Smoot: "In order to make a Universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is - we're talking fifteen billion years and we're talking huge distances here - in order for it to be that big, you have to make it very perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the Universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it's actually quite a job." …. The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated."54 "The question of "the beginning" is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians"55 Robert Jastrow: "The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."56 Albert Einstein: Once he recognized the fact that the Universe had a beginning, he renewed his quest “to know how God created the Universe…the harmony of natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”57 As the above quotes clearly show, the proven veracity of the "Big Bang" model would certainly be sufficient scientific evidence alone to prove the existence of a Creator… at least it is to these world-renowned scientists. But it is important that we keep one very important fact in mind… these scientists really understand the full implications of what the Big Bang implies.

Most people do not.

It is extremely interesting to me that apparently the conclusions of the cosmologists have been totally lost on most of the general population! In recent years, I have broached the topic of 70

the Big Bang theory to many people. In the majority of cases, their responses to my questions have been fairly uniform. Most understood that the Big Bang theory was the currently accepted view of the origin of our Universe. They got that one right. Yet many, both Christian and nonChristian alike, were convinced that belief in this theory was inconsistent with belief in God! Somehow, for a great many people, creation via a "Big Bang" made belief in God obsolete. In fact, as we have seen, just the opposite is true! Why then is this error in understanding so prevalent?

Keep in mind how people come to learn about the Big Bang Theory. Typically, of course, it would be taught cursorily in a Junior High or High School science class. The mere mention of a Creator within a classroom causes shivers to run up most teacher's spines. Even if these teachers understood the full implications of this theory (and I realize that many do, of course) they would be putting their jobs on the line to share this information with their students.

Certainly, no public-school textbook can ever dare mention the obvious implications of the Big Bang… do you suppose that you will see even one of the more than twenty quotes by those eminent scientists noted above in a public-school textbook? Sure thing… when cows fly. So, we are left with all of our students being taught this theory about how our Universe sprung into existence billions of years ago. Few details are given and those only in a nebulous manner. The philosophical implications are twisted to suggest that now that we understand how the Universe got here there must be, of course, no need for God. But this should not surprise us. Given the state of our public-school system today, no other response is even logical. When, as we have seen, God is legislated out of the schools, any theory that suggests His presence (like the Big Bang), must be dealt with in very nebulous terms and an incorrect understanding of those theories is the only possibility.

Fortunately, I am not working under those constraints in this book. Therefore, the full impact of the Big Bang theory can and will be presented. The mere existence of the Big Bang, as we have seen, requires the act of a Creative Force - God. But there is so much additional evidence available! The next chapter will show a sampling of incredible "coincidences" that have occurred in nature… had they not happened; our Universe would not exist today. I will let you be the judge if they were really coincidences… or could they possibly be something else?

However, before discussing all of this, I want to mention one more difficulty to the acceptance of the Big Bang concept of the beginning of our Universe…

COBE telescope yields confirmation of Big Bang Theory: It is true that the Big Bang explanation for the origin of our cosmos has become almost universally accepted by the scientific community. The last remaining roadblock to its acceptance vanished with the discovery hailed by Stephen Hawking as "the scientific discovery of the century if not all time" (on the cover of Smoot’s Wrinkles in Time). As detailed in the previous chapter, information gained from the COBE telescope in the early 1990s, and analyzed brilliantly by a team of Berkeley scientists headed by Dr. George Smoot, led to the discovery of "wrinkles" or trace irregularities in the background radiation pattern of our Universe. Although this finding 71

may seem to be insignificant to the non-scientist, it most certainly was not. Even before this discovery, the Big Bang theory was clearly able to explain the origin and subsequent development of our Universe better than any other concept… but it required small areas of irregularities in the Universe that would serve as “seeds” for the development of galaxies. A perfectly smooth Universe would not have allowed for the "clumping" together of matter by the action of gravity that would eventually result in the clusters of galaxies that exist throughout the Universe. Look at it this way... if the Universe were perfectly homogeneous there would be no reason for matter to gravitate to one position over another… therefore all the matter in the cosmos would remain separated. Hence, there would be no galaxies. Therefore, without the discovery of these "wrinkles", there would have remained at least some doubt concerning the veracity of this theory. However, with the COBE telescope discovery, all of the pieces of the puzzle were in place. Support for the Big Bang conception of our origins was stronger than ever… few doubters remain and their doubts are more for philosophical reasons than scientific.

The acceptance of the Big Bang has a variety of fascinating implications. As we have shown in the previous chapter, a Universe that has a beginning requires a "beginner"… a Creator.

Many questions have arisen since Lemaitre first proposed his primeval atom. Some, of course, have been answered, some are being answered by gifted scientists even now, yet still others will remain unanswerable… as we will see. Now, let us take a look at just some of the amazing socalled “coincidences” of nature including the fact that the four fundamental forces of nature are set at values that are just right for our world…

72

Chapter 4:

Fundamental Forces and Fine Tuning of Nature

What came before the Big Bang?

Why did the Universe begin as it did? What was going on just before the explosion? As it turns out, we will never know! As American astronomer, James Peebles, has so aptly stated, "What the Universe was like at day minus one, before the Big Bang, one has no idea. The equations refuse to tell us, I refuse to speculate."58 George Smoot adds, that if we are "going back further still, beyond the moment of creation - what then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? Facing this, the ultimate question, challenges our faith in the power of science to find explanations of nature. The existence of a singularity - in this case the given, unique state from which the Universe emerged - is anathema to science, because it is beyond explanation. There can be no answer to why such a state existed. Is this, then, where scientific explanation breaks down and God takes over, the artificer of that singularity, that initial simplicity?”59 Robert Jastrow notes… "I am fascinated by the implications of the scientific developments of recent years. The essence of these developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning - that it began at a certain moment (yet, before time actually existed), and under circumstances that seem to make it impossible - not just now, but ever - to find out what force or forces brought the world into being at that moment. Was it, as the Apocryphal Scriptures says, “Thine all powerful hand that creates the world out of formless matter?" (Wisdom of Solomon Verse: 11:17) Robert Jastrow: “No scientist can answer that question; we can never tell whether the Prime Mover willed the world into existence or the creative agent was one of the forces of physics [of course, even if one or more of the forces of physics did result in the Universe being formed, that would only beg the question as to Who created those forces?]; for the astronomical evidence proves that the Universe was created 15 billion years ago in a fiery explosion, and in the searing heat of that first moment, all the evidence needed for a scientific study of the cause of the great explosion was melted down and destroyed."60 Jastrow continues, "Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable. It is not a matter of another year, another decade of work, another measurement, or another theory, at this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation."61 George Smoot: "What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began? Facing this, the ultimate questions, challenges our faith in the power of science to find explanations of nature. The existence of a singularity - in this case the given, unique state from which the Universe emerged - is an anathema to science, because it is beyond explanation.

There can be no answer to why such a state existed. Is this then, where scientific explanation breaks down and God takes over, the artificer of that singularity, that initial simplicity?"62 Robert Jastrow: "The scientists’ pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation"63

73

Barry Parker (physicist): "If we except the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a "creation" of some sort is forced upon us."64 As these scientists so aptly point out, we will not be able to use the scientific method to answer the question of what caused the Big Bang. Nor will we be able to scientifically understand why our Universe exploded into existence. But as we have seen in the first section of this book, there are other very valid methods of understanding truth‌ the logical analysis of information can be very revealing. I have noted in my association with many scientists over the years that the philosophical analysis of their data is not their long suit.

Certainly not all questions are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Honestly, often just using common sense and logic will tell us all we need to know on many topics. For example, are there any special characteristics required of the Big Bang explosion in order for the Universe to develop as it has over time? If so, what are they? Do we have any information at all to suggest what (or Who) may have caused the Big Bang in the first place?

When cosmologists over the last several decades analyzed the equations that describe the Big Bang and then superimposed mounting observational evidence upon this data, it turned out that an amazing number of "cosmic coincidences" were required to ultimately result in the development of our Universe. In other words, not just any Big Bang scenario would do. In fact, as we shall see, the coincidences are so incredible that they virtually defy belief‌ that is, if they are indeed just coincidences. But you can be the judge of that‌ after you see some of the facts.

In order to more fully understand the apparent fine tuning that our Universe has undergone since its inception, it is important to understand the time period immediately after it exploded into being. The first few seconds, indeed the first few split seconds, are critical to our understanding all future development of our Universe.

Although we are stymied in our scientific pursuit of information pre-Big Bang, there is a great deal that we can learn about our Universe by studying the forces involved with its design since its creation. Keep in mind that just prior to the initial explosion there simply was nothing (no space, no time and no forces). At the onset of the Big Bang, the Universe was essentially "pure potential" - there was only this singularity, an infinitely hot, infinitely dense entity that took up zero volume. Then, abruptly, incredible forces came on the scene. Through their actions over the succeeding billions of years, virtually everything that we see in our Universe has developed sequentially. I use the phrase virtually everything because there is strong evidence that other "Forces" (God) may have been at work on occasion. It is well worth our effort to study a little about the forces of nature that are involved.

Forces of Nature and GUT (Grand Unified Theory) + TOE (Theory of Everything): Physicists have identified four basic forces in nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. We will be referring to all of these forces in

74

our discussion concerning just how our Universe came into being, particularly how it was created in such a manner that life can be supported… very amazing as you shall see…

Let me take a moment to briefly describe these four forces: Gravity: the universal force between any two masses - the weakest of the four forces Strong Nuclear Force: force within the nucleus between protons and neutrons that keeps the nucleus together.

Weak Nuclear Force: results in radioactivity - the mechanism of interaction between subatomic particles that is responsible for the radioactive decay of atoms - related to proton decay Electro-magnetic Force: includes both electricity and magnetism; This force is carried by the photon and is responsible for atomic structure, chemical reactions, and the attractive and repulsive forces associated with electrical charge and magnetism.

These forces are all very disparate in our Universe today, both in regard to their actions and to their strength. However, that apparently was not always the case. Scientists have determined that these forces vary with temperature. At a time just after the initiation of the Big Bang, grand unified theories (GUT's) suggest that the incredibly high temperature at that time may have resulted in the unification of these forces. These "unification theories" are attempts to unite at least three of the four forces of nature… the two nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force. There is no experimental proof for any of these theories but they are plausible given the information we have about the early Universe. Grand unification theories are sought because they give reasonable answers to a few otherwise perplexing questions concerning our Universe.

They also are philosophically pleasing to many physicists as they have recognized that the more they know about our Universe, the more beautiful, powerful and simple the underlying laws seem to be… hence, a "theory of everything" (TOE) makes perfectly good sense to them. In fact, many are now working on what are referred to as "superstring theories" that invoke a Universe of ten dimensions to achieve a unification of all four forces of nature. The details of these theories are beyond the scope of this book. However, the fact that scientists believe that they may indeed find one underlying force that will explain all subsequent activity in our Universe is quite interesting… and not at all surprising. In reality, the search for a theory of everything (TOE), if successful, will lead to the same ultimate result that the search for what came immediately before the Big Bang… i.e. the Ultimate Force behind the creation of our Universe. This Force is God and I will reveal many different areas of evidence as we go through this book to convince the vast majority of open-minded people of this wonderful fact.

For the foreseeable future, however, the unified theories will remain conjecture. Until our Universe was 10-43 (an incredibly short time period) seconds old, conditions were such that the laws of nature that we use to describe our cosmos were uncertain. For example, Einstein's law of gravitation correctly describes the expansion of the Universe after this time period.

However, it does not hold for that first split second. This time period, where all of our laws of nature do not hold true, is called the Plank time, in honor of Max Plank, of quantum mechanics fame. The Universe was less than 0.1 mm in diameter at this time! The observable Universe contained only one millionth of a gram… but an incredible amount of energy. Our Universe was 75

built with this mass/energy combination as it was acted upon by the soon to emerge four forces of nature. Attempts at understanding the time period prior to Plank time are emerging… in the field of quantum cosmology. However, the theories advanced in this field are all very speculative. At present the most prominent "theory of everything" is the superstring theory and "it corresponds poorly with the real world, … physicists pursue it for its mathematical beauty."65 (Joseph Silk) Physicist Barry Parker when asked about this time period stated, "Unfortunately, a very critical event happened - creation itself. And without a theory to explain this event we can only guess what happened. How do we contemplate such a situation? … The only reasonable answer to this question is: we do not. Indeed, we cannot even make calculations describing it."66 John Barrow, professor of astronomy at the University of Sussex, notes, "One day we may be able to say something about the origins of our own cosmic neighborhood. But we can never know the origins of the Universe. The deepest secrets are the ones that keep themselves."67 On the other hand, scientists do feel that they have a reasonably good chance at understanding what took place after the first 10-43 seconds of the onset of the Big Bang. Soon after this time, the four fundamental forces of nature emerged as separate entities. By recognizing the size and action of each of these forces and their inter-relationships, an amazing picture emerges. It is extremely interesting to note that these forces require very specific values in order for our Universe to have developed as it has over the approximately 14 billion years (currently most cosmologist believe that our Universe is 13.8 billion years old – age of earth estimated to be 4.54 billion years old) of its existence. Evidence has been mounting for many decades that our Universe has been very finely tuned in order to prepare it for the eventual appearance of life. Without many mighty incredible "coincidences" in the nature of these forces, life would never have developed. Dozens of examples of an apparent amazing finetuning of our Universe are seen in nature. In fact, the more we understand about the development of our Universe, the less likely it becomes that it emerged through chance processes.

Our Goldilocks Universe: Fine Tuning, Inflation, Flatness, and Monopoles Expansion rate of Universe: Since the time of the Big Bang, our Universe has been expanding into (while actually creating) space. This rate of expansion depends on the initial outward thrust from the Big Bang reduced subsequently by the inward pull created by the effects of gravity (from the mass of the Universe). Since there has been no other outward thrust since the Big Bang, our Universe has continually slowed secondary to the attractive action of gravity.

The question that has intrigued scientists since the 1920's, is what force is going to eventually dominate - the initial outward expansive thrust or inward pull of gravity? Or might neither? If the two forces are perfectly "balanced" by some incredible "coincidence", the Universe will continue to expand without limit, but its rate of expansion would become closer and closer to zero as time passes. In order for this to happen, our Universe would have to have a critical density (density=mass/volume) defined as that density that would just exactly balance out the 76

velocity of expansion. In this situation, Omega, defined as the critical density/actual density of the Universe, would have a value of 1. This type of Universe is also referred to as flat. On the other hand, if the force of gravity is dominant (Omega>1), the small irregularities (wrinkles) discovered by the COBE telescope would have caused a massive clumping of matter in a relatively short period of time and this closed Universe would never have developed the galaxies and solar systems that we now see… instead, the Universe would have already collapsed into itself. As Stephen Hawking states, "If the rate of expansion after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million, million, the Universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present state."68 If the expansion rate were just one part in a million faster, the force of gravity would not have been great enough to coalesce matter into large enough bodies such as planets, stars and galaxies. This situation, where Omega is less than 1, is known as an open Universe. In other words, unlikely as it was to occur, the force of gravity was "set just right" at the outset of the Big Bang to create a Universe capable of supporting life.

There was some extremely "fine tuning" evident between the forces of nature, the total amount of mass in the Universe and the initial velocity of expansion.

Robert Jastrow states, "There is no explanation in the Big Bang theory for the seemingly fortuitous fact that the density of matter has just the right value for the evolution of a benign, life supporting Universe. Unless the density in the early Universe was extremely close to the critical density, a Universe containing stars, planets and life could not have come into being.”69 So just how close to the critical density was the Universe at its inception? There is wide-spread agreement among scientists that the actual density of mass in our Universe now is no less than 10% (Omega = 0.1) nor no greater than 200% (Omega = 2) of the critical mass. The key word in that sentence is now. If the Omega were less than 0.1, stars would not have formed. If it were greater than 2, the Universe would have already collapsed. George Smoot writes, "since the density is near the critical density now (italics added), then it must have been closer in the past.

The further back one goes toward the big bang, the closer it gets to 1. If one goes back to about three minutes after the big bang, the time when Gamow and Weinberg tell us helium and the light elements were just finished cooking, then the density of the Universe was about that of water, and Omega must have been within one hundred million millionths (10-14) of 1. At the shortest time imaginable, the Plank time (10-43 seconds) - right at the birth of the Universe - it would be within about 10-60 of 1! That is so close that reasonable people think it is not simply a matter of chance - something requires that Omega is 1 to all those decimal places."70 A recent search of the cosmological literature reveals that the current conception of our Universe is that it is actually “flat” – i.e. it will simply go on forever.

The knowledge of this undeniable fact has bothered many astrophysicists for over a half century. They don't like the implications of this classic Big Bang model (sometimes referred to as the Friedman model after the Russian mathematician of the 1920's). Virtually every sober physicist recognized the fact that the existence of a Universe requiring its mass density at one second of its existence to be accurate to better than one part in 1015 had to be more than coincidental! Think about it… the mass density had to lie between 0.999999999999999 and 77

1.000000000000001 times the critical density! There was no discrepancy between observation and the predictions of the Big Bang model either. The problem was that it was simply not plausible that this could have happened by chance… it either pointed to a Creator or something was missing here. But what?

Yes sir, astrophysicists were once again in a quandary. They abhor any reference to a Creator. But the evidence was once again pointing in that direction. Unfortunately, as previously discussed, no factual information will be forthcoming concerning "Zero Hour"… that time when the Big Bang actually began… nor even up until the Plank time (10-43 seconds).

Scientists cannot study the earliest time of the Universe - everything related to that period will be conjecture.

As the study of cosmology entered the 1970's, many astrophysicists concentrated their efforts on the study of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs). Stephen Hawking was a leader on this front. It was believed that at least three of the four forces of nature could be reduced to one "Grand Force" (gravity was the one force that was left out of these efforts at unification… for one thing, its power was negligible in comparison to the others). As mentioned earlier, many scientists believe that eventually all four forces will be reducible to one. However, the first step was to unite the two nuclear forces and electro-magnetism. Nice theoretical advances were made in this search in the late 60's and 1970's. While pursuing the answer to a problem posed by the study of these GUTs, Alan Guth (now an MIT professor) postulated an intriguing mechanism of expansion in the early Universe that also appeared to give answers to a couple of perplexing problems associated with the Friedman model. He believed that there was a period of extremely rapid expansion of our Universe occurring at 10-35 seconds into the explosion. This expansion had a doubling time of approximately 10-37 seconds and caused our Universe to grow to 1030 times its original size in only 10-35 seconds. Without going into detail here, (please see my Appendix III for a fairly detailed explanation of inflation, flatness, and monopoles. Also, please note in the bibliography at the end of this section several excellent books that will explain the inflationary model of the Big Bang) this period of inflation would automatically result in the Universe having an Omega of 1. Our Universe would just naturally come out of this inflationary epoch with a critical density of mass. This was very comforting to many scientists who now believed that it was no longer such an amazing coincidence that the Universe was flat (i.e. its density was equal to the critical density). What really had happened, if the inflationary model is correct in principle (and there are doubts surfacing about this even as I write this chapter), was that Alan Guth had just re-defined the point of the amazing "coincidence.” Now, what do I mean by that? Well it is no less a "miracle" that the laws and forces of nature were such that an inflationary event took place (if it did) that resulted in a Universe with a critical mass than it would be if the Friedman model of the Universe is true without needing to reference an inflationary period. In other words, the amazing "coincidence" in the Friedman model is that the initial conditions of our Universe were set to a degree of accuracy that resulted in its mass being within 1/1060 of the critical mass. In the various inflationary models, the coincidence is of the same magnitude… but just lies at a different point. In this model, the amazing "coincidence" is 78

that the initial force(s) of nature were set with such incredible precision that an extremely unlikely event, called inflation, resulted in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang. In either case, the likelihood that our Universe would develop as it has, was infinitesimally small… unless these initial conditions were not just coincidental. We still do not know which model is the right one, by the way. What we do know is that whatever the correct model of the Big Bang turns out to be, it is still going to be incredible that the mass of the Universe (about 1080 atoms) was set so extremely close to the value required to result in a life-supporting Universe!

Keep in mind that no one actually knows what took place in our early Universe. It is certainly possible that none of the inflationary models will prove correct. P. James Peebles, a renowned Princeton University astrophysicist, has advanced a theory of galaxy formation that does not reference an inflationary epoch. He has proposed a concept that relies on what scientists can actually see in our Universe. His theory seems to imply that we live in an open Universe (omega < 1) that will expand forever or that there may be some kind of "cosmological constant" that results in a flat Universe even though it contains less than the critical density of mass. He points out that since there is absolutely no empirical evidence for inflation, it is unwise to assume that it is the only possible mechanism to explain our Universe's development. The point that I want to stress here is that no one is yet sure about the details of our early Universe.

But there is one thing that is for certain… conditions (ex. initial mass density, initial forces, etc.), either by coincidence or design, were set with extreme precision to result in our present Universe. If the Universe was not virtually perfectly “flat,” it would have long ago either collapsed upon itself or never had been able to develop the beautiful, rich array of stars and galaxies that we see in the night sky.

OK, so we had a seemingly unbelievable "coincidence" at the onset of the Big Bang (i.e. inflation) that resulted in a Universe that would not collapse upon itself promptly after its initial formation nor expand so rapidly that no galaxies would form. That explains the existence of our Universe... but what about one that can support life? Regardless of what exactly happened in the first split second of our Universe's existence, many other astounding details relating to its subsequent development have been discovered over the past fifty years. In fact, in addition to the critical density enigma discussed in detail the paragraphs above, there are scores of additional apparent "coincidences" of nature that absolutely had to occur or none of us would be here. In order to keep this chapter of reasonable length and hopefully keep your attention, I will choose only a handful of these fortuitous events to discuss. I am sure that you will understand the point… that multiple "coincidences" like these would certainly tend to suggest that they are, in fact, not coincidences. For those who would enjoy delving more deeply into this area, several references have been noted at the end of this book (e.g. Creator and the Cosmos by Hugh Ross) that detail many more examples, in fact, scores of them.

Several of the unlikely events/coincidences of nature relate directly to the four forces: gravity, the two nuclear forces and electro-magnetism. In fact, in a very real sense, all of these events relate in some manner to these forces... our entire Universe is the result of the interactions of these forces with one another and the matter that constitutes our cosmos. As we shall see, the 79

power and relative strengths of each force are seemingly quite finely-tuned in order to produce a Universe with the specific characteristics that allow for support of living organisms. Let's take a little closer look.

The strength of nature's four forces: Just right for Life The strength of the weak nuclear force coupling constant determined the amount of hydrogen that is processed into helium in the early stages of our Universe. If this coupling constant had been just slightly stronger, little or no helium would have been produced. A Universe composed only of hydrogen would not give rise to the heavier elements that are necessary for life. On the other hand, if the weak nuclear force coupling constant had been even just slightly weaker, nearly all of the baryonic matter would have been converted into helium.

This would have resulted in a Universe without water (as hydrogen is needed) and there would be no supernovae explosions possible - both which are required for the production of the elements used in the production of living organisms.

The strong nuclear force (that binds the particles within the nucleus of an atom) also has to be fine-tuned just right in order to result in a Universe that is neither dominated by hydrogen alone nor a Universe that is devoid of this essential element. "If it were just 2% weaker or 0.3% stronger than it actually is, life would be impossible at any time and any place within the Universe."71 â&#x20AC;&#x153;This strong force is strong enough to bind a proton and neutron together to make deuterium, but is not adequate to bind two protons together to create a di-proton. The repulsion of the two positive protons just barely overcomes the strong force. Yet, if the strong force were just a few percentage points stronger, then di-protons could be created, and the results would be catastrophic. If the creation of di-protons were possible, stars would not burn in the slow and steady manner that they do in our Universe. In fact, there would be no such things as stars at all."72 (Richard Morris) "If the strong force were 5 percent weaker than it is, deuterium would not exist, and there would be nothing that could bind a neutron and proton together"73 There would be no elements in the Universe other than hydrogen. In this scenario, stars would also be nonexistent! Although cosmologists differ on the exact percentages, there is no question that the strong force needs to be within only a narrow range of values to allow our Universe to exist.

The strength of the force of gravity is also critical to the type of Universe that develops.

If the gravitational force were greater, there would be no stars small enough to support life (i.e. those stars that are similar in size to our sun). If the force of gravity were just a bit smaller, there would be no stars large enough to produce the necessary heavy elements (produced from supernovae explosions) - the building blocks for planets and organic material required for the production of life. With a slightly smaller gravitational force constant, stars would never get hot enough to result in heavy element production... the mechanism of which is described in the next chapter.

And finally, the electromagnetic force in nature is set within narrow parameters in order to allow for complex molecule formation - and without molecules, of course, there would be no life.

80

Not only are the absolute values of these four forces required to be within very narrow limits for the development of the Universe, but so are the ratios of each to one another. For example, Brandon Carter notes that the strength of gravity and the electromagnetic force must be in a delicate balance. Gravity binds stars together while the electromagnetic force results in energy radiation. "If the gravitational force were altered by even one part in 1040, we'd have a world in which all stars would be either red dwarfs or blue giants."74 No star like the sun could exist and, by extension, neither would there be life. As physicist Edward Kolb of the Fermi national Accelerator Laboratory states, "It turns out that "constants of nature," such as the strength of gravity, have exactly the values that allow stars and planets to form.... The Universe, it seems, is fine-tuned to let life and consciousness flower."75 Many other fortuitous examples exist... such as the proper ratio of protons to electrons (to an accuracy of one part in 1037!!!) to allow for galaxy and planet formation... and the requisite ratio of electron to proton mass to allow for molecular chemical bonding. Physicist Richard Morris notes that the mass of the neutron is only about 0.1 percent heavier than the proton. If, on the other hand, the proton had a mass 0.11 percent heavier than its current mass, space would be essentially filled with only neutrons - this would be an environment that could not support life.

So far, we have seen that the four forces of nature had to be set with incredible precision in order for our Universe to originate and develop in a way that was consistent with the development of galaxies - required for the support of life. As a quick summary up to this point, we have noted the absolute necessity for exacting values for the forces/mass of the cosmos.

With values that are off by amounts as low as 10-55, our Universe would long ago have ceased to exist. But it is interesting to see that these "coincidences" extend far beyond the earliest moments of creation when these forces of nature and the mass of our Universe first originated.

Indeed, as we look further into the nature of galaxies, incredible new "happy coincidences" are revealed. Let's take a look.

81

Chapter 5:

Wrinkles in Space and Solar System Creation

As discussed in the beginning of this Section, one of the more important discoveries of this century was the discovery, by George Smoot, of trace irregularities in the fabric of our Universe. For decades the weak link in the Big Bang theory was the apparent lack of any inhomogeneities in the Universe that would serve as a nidus (or seed) from which galaxies could form. Search as they might, the result was always the same - a perfectly smooth Universe.

Then, finally, Smoot's team of scientists discovered the "holy grail of science" - there were indeed the requisite wrinkles in the Universe... not too many, not too few. As is becoming a familiar refrain, there were just the right amount to allow for the growth and development of galaxies! If the Universe had been "smoother", galaxies simply would not have formed. If there had been slightly more irregularity in the early Universe, it would have long since become a collection of black holes and empty space! George Smoot notes that "the creativity of the Universe is its most potent force, forming through time the matter and structures of stars and galaxies, and ultimately, us. The wrinkles are the core of that creativity, assembling structure from homogeneity." He continues to muse, "It seems that the more we learn, the more we see how it all fits together - how there is an underlying unity to the sea of matter and stars and galaxies that surround us. ... nature is as it is not because it is the chance consequence of a random series of events; quite the opposite. More and more, the Universe appears to be as it is because it must (italics are his) be that way; its evolution was written in its beginnings - in its cosmic DNA, if you will. There is a clear order to the evolution of the Universe, moving from simplicity and symmetry to greater complexity and structure. As time passes, simple components coalesce into more sophisticated building blocks spawning a richer, more diverse environment. Einstein had the right idea: God does not play dice with the Universe..... there is an overall inevitability to the development of sophisticated complex systems."76 We have just mentioned a few of the many amazing â&#x20AC;&#x153;coincidencesâ&#x20AC;? in the values of the forces of Nature and their relationship to one another that allowed for the creation and development of our Universe.

Now let me delve into a bit more detail as to just how galaxies developed in order to result in the constituents that would eventually allow for the origination and sustenance of life.

For the Universe to be able to support life, carbon and oxygen, along with other heavy elements are needed. During the initial minutes following the Big Bang, virtually no elements heavier than lithium were produced. It is crucial that stars go through their life cycle and eventually explode. It is via this explosion that the heavy elements, such as carbon, are released into space where they have the chance to eventually come together as building blocks for life.

Without these solar explosions, called supernovae, our Universe might exist, but life could not.

When cosmologists looked into the details of these explosions, once again incredible "coincidences" of nature were found.

82

Heavy Element Production – Solar System Coincidences A big question that remained unanswered for many years was how did our Universe produce all of the heavy elements that we now see. No baryonic material was processed in the very early Universe into elements heavier than lithium (which has only three protons and four neutrons). Obviously, the fact that life exists shows that elements such as carbon had to be produced at some point after the initial stages of the Big Bang. But how? At first, scientists were pleased that early theories explained the fact that 99% of our Universe consisted of hydrogen and helium… produced just after the Big Bang explosion. But that success did not mitigate the inability to supply a satisfactory answer for where that other 1% originated.

Cosmologists knew that the answer lay somewhere in the mechanism of nucleosynthesis of helium. The most stable form of helium (helium-4) contains two protons and two neutrons in its nucleus. This nuclear configuration has been given the name "alpha particle.” The alpha particle is a very stable entity. Atoms that are made up from multiples of alpha particles are themselves very stable… with one important exception. Beryllium-8 is produced when two alpha particles collide at just the right energy. However, as opposed to carbon (atomic weight of 12) and oxygen (atomic weight of 16), this nucleus is extremely unstable and will break apart into lighter particles in 10-17 seconds! This creates a problem. How can carbon be formed in the significant quantities that we see in nature when its building block requires beryllium… and beryllium is so incredibly unstable? Some physicists speculated that carbon was formed when three helium-4 nuclei collided simultaneously inside stars. Although this may happen rarely, it does not happen often enough to account for the amount of carbon in the Universe. In 1952, Ed Salpeter, an American astrophysicist, suggested that maybe carbon was formed when an alpha particle collided with the unstable beryllium-8 nucleus. The problem was that this would have to take place within the 10-17 second lifetime of the beryllium nucleus! Was this reasonable? Sir Frederick Hoyle, of Cambridge, England, tackled this problem in the 1950's. Hoyle recognized that in order for life to exist, carbon had to be formed in significant quantities within stars. There was just no other mechanism available for its production. That being understood as a "given", Hoyle was convinced that the collision between helium-4 and berryllium-8 simply had to produce carbon-12. This could only be possible if a property known as resonance was at work.

Resonance is a descriptive term that relates to the energy states in the nucleus of atoms. When a nuclear combinate reaction takes place that results in a new nucleus that is created with exactly the energy level that corresponds to one of its own natural energy levels, resonance is said to exist. Hoyle predicted that within the nuclear furnace of stars, the carbon-12 nucleus had a previously undetected energy level that would resonate with the combined energy level of helium-4 and beryllium-8. If this were true, carbon would indeed be produced in sufficient quantities to explain its abundance in the Universe today. Hoyle went so far as to calculate the energy state that was required for this resonance to take place. His friend, physicist Willy Fowler, carried out experiments to see if this predicted value were true. In fact, the actual result was only four percent above the calculated value… the difference is accounted for by the kinetic energy of the helium and beryllium nuclei. Sir Frederick Hoyle had explained the mystery of 83

how carbon came to be in such large quantities in nature. Yet, the remarkable reason for this resonance level of carbon remains a baffling mystery. If the energy level in carbon were four percent lower (instead of higher) than the combined energy of helium-4 and beryyllium-8, carbon would not have resulted. For example, when carbon-12 and helium-4 combine, the nearest oxygen-16 resonance has one percent less energy than the combined value of helium-4 and carbon-12. Hence, there is no resultant resonanceâ&#x20AC;Ś and no oxygen formation in quantity at this stage of star formation. If the resonance level of oxygen had been only one percent lower, virtually all of the carbon made would have been converted into oxygen. Life would not exist!

Physicist Dr. Martin Rees said, "The combination of coincidences, just right for resonance in carbon-12, just wrong in oxygen-16, is indeed remarkable. There is no better evidence to support the argument that the Universe has been designed for our benefit - tailor-made for man."77 Hoyle continued, â&#x20AC;&#x153;The necessary balance between oxygen and carbon depends on the details of the origin of the chemical elements by nuclear reactions inside stars. Oxygen and carbon are like two radio receivers, each tuned to a particular wavelength. Unless the tunings are right, with the two dials set at the appropriate wavelengths, far more oxygen is produced than carbon. But, as it happens, the tunings are indeed correct, so that oxygen and carbon atoms are produced in the Universe in appropriately balanced amounts. The problem is to decide whether these apparently coincidental tunings are really accidental or not, and therefore ask whether or not life is accidental. No scientist likes to ask such a question, but it has to be asked for all that.

Could it be that the tunings are intelligently deliberate?... "The list of anthropic properties, apparent accidents of a non-biological nature without which carbon-based and hence human life could not exist, is large and impressive. Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy accidents."78 More simply put, if the carbon-12/oxygen-16 nuclear energy ratio differed be only a couple percent, there would either be too little oxygen or too little carbon to support life anywhere in the Universe - the fact that the ratio is what it is and the amazingly "lucky" resonance of carbon allowing for its production in adequate quantity for life, were the main reasons that Hoyle made the now famous remark, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

The numbers one calculates from these facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."79 How do the heavy elements that are produced within stars spread across the Universe to supply the building blocks of life? It is not a forgone conclusion that elements that are made within stars must disperse throughout the Universe. Of course, if they did not, these elements would never be in an environment where life could be supported. We could not live in the sun!

The only way that these heavy elements can be formed is within starsâ&#x20AC;Ś but then they must get out. How is this accomplished and what is unusual about this process, if anything?

Stars begin their life by burning hydrogen nuclei. This hydrogen is converted into heat and helium. As time passes, and the hydrogen is depleted, helium is burned and is converted into carbon. There is a release of energy all along the way in the burning of stars. While the star is 84

converting helium into carbon with the resultant production of energy, the star is able to stay hot enough to sustain its outer shell. However, in the majority of stars, when the helium is finally exhausted, a white dwarf is formed. A white dwarf is essentially a "dead" star. Although its mass may be approximately that of our sun, its size is more like that of earthâ&#x20AC;Ś in other words, it has a fairly great density. Unfortunately, all of the heavy elements that were produced within these stars do not escape! A little hydrogen and helium flakes off the surface, but elements such as carbon and iron are lost deep within the white-dwarf. So, we still don't have an answer to where the carbon, iron, and other heavy elements came from. The answer is found when we look to what happens in the subset of stars that are very large - many times larger than our sun. In these stars, when the helium finally burns out, the outer layers of the star are capable of compressing the inner core by their massive weight. This pressure results in an increase in temperature to beyond 600 million oK. At that temperature carbon begins to burn. Recall that due to the lack of resonance, carbon burning does not simply result in the formation of oxygen via the addition of an alpha particle. Instead, two pairs of carbon particles collide and produce either magnesium-24 or neon-20 (if an alpha particle is ejected). If the mass of the star exceeds nine solar masses, the temperature reaches above one billion degrees and neon begins to burn.

The greater the size of the star, the greater the variety of elements that are produced. Eventually, when the initial size of the star is large enough, silicon is produced. Silicon then becomes involved in hundreds of nuclear reactions that result in the end product of iron-56. It is interesting to note that although it may take millions of years for a sun to burn all of its hydrogen and then helium, by the time it has reached the stage of silicon burning, it finishes this stage in a day! With each stage, the star continues its inward collapse. When the star has reached the stage where it is essentially a ball of iron-56, there is no more energy being produced in its core.

Atomic fusion can yield no more energy at this stage. Without the support provided by nuclear burning, the inner portion of the star is now squeezed tightly together. In fact, the pressure is so great that the electrons and protons merge into a tight pack of neutronsâ&#x20AC;Ś forming what is called a neutron star. This sudden great shrinkage in size within the core of the star "sucks" surrounding material in towards the center of the star at tremendous velocity. When this material forcefully impacts this ball of neutrons, the result is an enormous explosionâ&#x20AC;Ś outward. The shock wave produced begins to move outwards through the stars matter. Of course, it begins to slow down as it encounters resistance through all of the stars matter. But something remarkable happens next. When the neutron core was hit by the infalling material, neutrinos were produced.

These neutrinos are carried outward in the explosion and are able to supply the necessary energy to blow the outer layer of the star apart. This results in a supernova, an incredibly bright object that burns for a few weeks. Many unstable heavy elements were produced in these final stages of the star. As they rush outward into the surrounding Universe, they release energy and form more stable heavy elements. These supernovae explosions produce the heavy materials that are capable of supporting life. So where is the "coincidence"? As it turns out, the step that involves the explosion of the star requires significant "fine-tuned" neutrinos. Once again this harkens back to one of the four fundamental forces of nature - the weak nuclear force. This force 85

determines the strength of the interaction of neutrinos with baryons. Any slight difference (greater of lesser), and these supernovae would not exist - nor would the heavy elements be scattered into space allowing for planet formation... and life itself.

Everything that has been discussed in this chapter up to now has been in an effort to show the amazing set of circumstances in evidence that was required to create a Universe capable of evolving over time into a system of galaxies... at least one of which had the necessary variety and quantity of elements to give rise to life (The Milky Way). Intriguing questions still remain, however, such as the likelihood of finding other planets like our own... that can support life. In other words, given the incredible "coincidences" that we have already reported, is it possible that thousands, maybe even millions, of other worlds exist that are just like our own. Maybe all that is really needed are a few billion years, a vast quantity of galaxies, and enough heavy element building blocks. What does recent cosmological research have to say about that universal question? Is there life in outer space?

To answer this question, it would behoove us to see just what conditions are necessary to support life here on earth. Then, armed with this knowledge, predictions can be made concerning the probability of finding these same circumstances elsewhere in the Universe. This will not tell us the answer concerning whether extra-terrestrial life exists, but it should shed some light on the matter. It will also be interesting to see what conditions need be met simply to sustain life on earth.

Up until this point, the discussion has centered mainly upon the forces that were introduced at the onset of the Big Bang and the evidence that our Universe was subject to some incredible "fine-tuning.â&#x20AC;? The orders of magnitude of many of these previously described "coincidences" of nature are in the order of 10-30 to 10-55! Remember, without these "anthropic coincidences", we would not have a Universe with the necessary physical and chemical make-up to support life. Now, several examples will be given in an attempt to evaluate the likelihood that any given solar system could support life.

We left our discussion of the Universe just after a typical supernova eruption. As we have seen, these events are necessary for the production of the heavy elements - such as carbon, oxygen, iron, etc. As these elements spew forth into our Universe, they eventually may come to rest on other celestial bodies. Some will go into the make-up of other stars. Some will form portions of planets such as our earth. Even these explosions have certain characteristics that must be met if they are to supply the elements to an appropriate planet with potential to support life. If supernovae are too close to a planet, the radiation will kill off any hope of life. Yet, if the eruption is too far away, significant quantities of heavy elements will not be attracted to the planet's surface. There has to be just the right number of supernovae in the vicinity of a planet and their eruptions need be at just the right times.

There are certainly marked limitations to the conditions that must be met if a solar system is to be capable of supporting life. For example, one, and only one, "sun" is required. If there were no sun, there would be insufficient heat. Yet, more than one sun would not allow for an appropriate planetary orbit. The sun, within its prospective solar system, must not be too old or 86

too young - either case eventuates in too much fluctuation in the brightness of the sun. Certainly, the color of the sun is critical as well. If it is too much at either end of the light spectrum, photosynthesis would not be adequate... hence there would not be plant life, and therefore, by extension, no animal life. Of course, the distance that the sun is from "its" planet is also critical for a variety of reasons. Obviously, the temperature of the planet is dependent on this distance... this would affect prospective life directly as well as indirectly (through disruption of the water cycle).

As we move from the solar system to the planet itself, we continue to see carefully selected aspects required for habitation by living organisms. For example, the size and age of a planet determines whether it can possibly support life. If it is too big, gravity would retain too much ammonia and methane in the atmosphere. Too small a planet will lose too much water due to its lack of gravitational pull. A young planet rotates too rapidly; if too old, the rotation is too slow. Why is this relevant? If the rotation period is too long, the diurnal temperature differences would be too great... if too short, the wind velocities would be too severe.

Certain other characteristics of the orbit of the planet around its sun must be met. The axial tilt as well as the orbital eccentricity must be within small ranges of values in order to keep the surface temperatures within a safe range for life. If the inclination of a planets orbit is too great, so would the surface temperature extremes.

The thickness of the planets crust is critical as well. If too thin, too much oxygen would enter into the crust from the atmosphere; if too thick, there would be too many volcanos and earthquakes. Many planets have too much seismic activity (earthquakes) to allow for higher life forms. Yet, some activity of this sort is useful to redistribute nutrients from the ocean floors to the planet's surface.

As blockbuster movies have portrayed, there is the ever-present danger of collision from asteroids and comets. Yet, a certain amount of collisions has to occur, at least early on in a planet's development, is order to transfer the necessary heavy elements to the planet's crust.

There is another "fine-line" here. Every planet has a magnetic field. The quantity of this field is important. If too strong, there would be a marked amount of destructive magnetic storms. If too weak, the ozone shield would become unable to protect life from the sun's radiation. The oxygen and carbon dioxide levels of a planet must lie within a narrow range in order to allow for animal and plant respiration. Too much carbon dioxide would also cause a marked "greenhouse" effect - certainly not conducive to life. Water vapor levels in the atmosphere also must be within a critical range to support higher forms of life at the very least.

Speaking of water, the chemical nature of this substance is one of the more remarkable in all of chemistry. The characteristics that the molecule H2O exhibits as it changes from liquid water to solid ice are unique and essential to the development and maintenance of life. Without getting too technical, there are a variety of bonds that are used by the elements as they combine to form various molecules. For example, many molecules are formed using very common covalent and ionic bonds. Water, on the other hand, makes use of a very unique bonding mechanism that is found within the H2O molecule - the hydrogen bond. The atypical 87

characteristic of this bond is that it results in liquid water being denser than its solid counterpart ice. So, although solid iron, solid copper, solid lead... and any other solid substances will sink when mixed with a solution of its liquid form, ice floats in water! So what you say. Well, you have to admit that it is awfully strange that this one, critically important molecule has this unusual property... especially when this property is necessary for life to exist! If ice sunk to the bottom of lakes and oceans as it formed, the earth would long ago have become one big sheet of ice - with certainly the existence of no higher forms of life possible. But fortunately, since ice floats, it acts as a thermal buffer for the liquid water beneath it... this keeps the temperature above freezing for the vast majority of water in the oceans and lakes of our planet... and hence allows for life. Another unusual property of water is its high specific heat (the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of any given quantity of water is higher than virtually all other substances). This critical property allows for the water on earth to serve to buffer the extremes of temperature that would otherwise occur. Folks who live by the ocean can appreciate this effect as they invariably have milder winters and cooler summers than their neighbors 100-200 miles inland. The fact is that this fortuitous property and the fact that the earth's surface is primarily water also allows for the climatic conditions necessary for life! Other properties, such as its unparalleled solubility, high heat of vaporization and high surface tension are all very important for cellular function. Why does the substance that covers over half our planet's surface just happen to have all these atypical chemical properties? Certainly, if earth was covered by any other liquid molecule, the result would be a very sterile world!

There are many other conditions that would be required in order for any particular solar system in our Universe to support life... however, for the sake of time and space, I will not belabor the point. As I mentioned earlier, an extensive listing of many of these fortuitous conditions can be found in books that are listed in the bibliography at the end of this book. The point has become quite evident, I would hope. Not just any solar system will have the potential to support life. Although the odds that any given system will meet any one or two of the conditions outlined above are not incredibly low, the likelihood of it meeting all of the required set of conditions is infinitesimally small. Let's take a look at how slight.

Just as a reminder, recall that the odds that our Universe would simply arise via the Big Bang with the proper inter-relationship of the four forces of nature and the capability to generate the proper quantity of life-giving heavy elements (oxygen and carbon in particular) was exceedingly low. Actually, the chances are less than 10-100 that all of these required "coincidental" events would occur together. If we assume that a Universe of this nature exists (as it obviously does), what are the odds that it will develop any (or many) life supporting planets that is, solar systems like our own? It is much more difficult to quantitate many of the parameters we discussed in the development of life-supporting solar systems. Yet, some general guidelines can be set. Physicist Hugh Ross notes that "parameters such as the parent's star mass and the planet's distance from its parent star, would eliminate 99.9 percent of all candidates"80 When all of the known â&#x20AC;&#x153;coincidentalâ&#x20AC;? characteristics are considered, one is led "safely to the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a 88

planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable Universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars, we can see that [statistically] not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life.”81 since "the Universe probably contains no more than one planet for every thousand stars.”82 Obviously, we inhabit an incredibly unusual planet.

The evidence for the apparent fine-tuning of our Universe continues to grow. Every year, more examples like those discussed above are found in nature. Virtually all cosmologists recognize that this is a situation that begs for an explanation. Literally dozens of books have been written on this topic in the last thirty-five years. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has listed over one hundred of these parameters that make it pretty obvious that our Universe, the Earth, and life itself was the plan of our omnipotent Creator. His book, The Creator and the Cosmos goes into great detail on this topic. As you will note as you look at the many “coincidences” I have already mentioned plus those in the text box on the following page, some of them relate to why our Universe is the way it is, while others specifically relate to why the earth is conducive to the development of plant, animal, and human life. In that text box, I have simply noted 15 of the 128 different parameters that Hugh Ross lists in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, that are required to be very close to the actual values that they are for life to exist on any given planet. He has conservatively assigned probability factors to each item as to the likelihood that any other planet in our Universe would have the needed value for each item. Then, after doing the fairly straightforward calculation, he determined that there is less than one chance in 10144 that even one other planet exists in the Universe with all the needed characteristics to support life. No wonder that we have never been contacted by an alien race… very likely, there is none.

89

1. Distance from sun: if farther: earth would be too cold if closer: earth would be too hot 2. Surface gravity: If stronger: atmosphere would retain too much methane and ammonia If weaker: atmosphere would lose too much water 3. Asteroid and Comet collision rate: If greater: lose too many species If less: crust would not have enough essential materials for life 4. Ozone level: If greater: surface temperature would be too low If less: too much uV radiation and heat to surface of earth 5. Carbon Dioxide in atmosphere If greater: runaway greenhouse effect If less: plants could not live 6. Magnetic Field: If stronger: E/M storms would be too severe If weaker: ozone shield inadequately protected 7. Rotation period: If longer: too great of diurnal temperature changes If shorter: wind velocity would be too great 8. Atmospheric pressure: If smaller: water would evaporate too easily If larger: water would not evaporate adequately for land life 9. Chlorine quantity in air: If smaller: erosion rates, acidity of lakes and soil, insufficient for many life forms If greater: erosion rates, acidity of lakes, soil, too high for many life forms 10. Gravitational interaction with moon: If greater: tidal effects too severe If less: big changes in climate, decrease in nutrients from sea to land, weak magnetic field 11. Jupiter Mass: If greater: unstable orbit of Earth If less: too many asteroid and comet collisions on Earth 12. Ice Age frequency: If smaller: insufficient fertile, wide, and well-watered valleys If larger: planet will experience freezing 13. Iron quantity: If smaller: if too small, no life on earth If larger: iron poisoning of advanced life forms 14. Planet age: If too young: rotate too rapidly If too old: rotate too slowly 15. Number of stars in planetary system: If zero: no heat, therefore, no life of Earth If more than one: tidal interactions would disrupt

90

Chapter 6:

A Word about Entropy

Entropy: A very interesting and important Law of thermodynamics is the Second Law. It defines the intriguing concept of entropy as the measure of a system's thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system. Unless energy is continually added to a closed system, the system will inexorably go to a more disordered state. With respect to the Universe, it will experience a 'heatdeath' if and when it reaches a state of maximum entropy. This happens when all available energy (such as from a hot source) has moved to places of less energy (such as a colder source).

Obviously, we have not reached that point… hence, our Universe must have started at one point in time (as it would have worn down by this time if it had always existed).

By the way, this is an extremely important point. For centuries, this fact was used, appropriately, by scientists to show why our Universe did not always exist. Again, since it is nowhere near a “heat death” (in fact, in many ways we see many aspects of this earth have become more ordered… not less so), there likely will be a long period of time before things wind down completely… to that infamous “heat death.”

An extremely puzzling thermodynamic property concerning our Universe has defied reasonable explanation since its discovery. Our Universe came into being with an incredibly low entropy. Remember, entropy is a measure of the amount of order in a system. The higher the entropy, the lower the order. The corollary is also true and relates to our early Universe - the low entropy implies a high degree of order just after the Big Bang. Entropy can also be looked at as the amount of unavailable energy in a closed system. So, we know that there was a large amount of available useful energy immediately after the Big Bang. Why? Physicist and author Paul Davies notes, "If the big bang was just a random event, then the probability seems overwhelming that the emerging cosmic material would be in thermodynamic equilibrium at maximum entropy with zero order. The mystery of how the Universe got into its low-entropy state has exercised the imagination of several generations of physicists and cosmologists... Given a random distribution of (gravitating) matter, it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will form a black hole than a star or a cloud of dispersed gas... The present arrangement of matter and energy, with matter spread thinly at relatively low density, in the form of stars and gas clouds would, apparently, only result from a very special choice of initial conditions. Roger Penrose has computed the odds against the observed Universe appearing by accident. He estimates a figure of 10 10(30) to one."83 What does this all mean? Many of the questions are centered around a commonly misunderstood concept... the Anthropic Principle. When properly understood, this principle can serve as a nice aid in understanding the three major explanations that scientists espouse for the observed "coincidences" in nature.

91

Chapter 7:

The Anthropic Principle

In 1973, the world's most prominent physicists gathered in Poland to commemorate the 500th birthday of Nicolaus Copernicus. Copernicus, of course, was the revolutionary Polish scientist of the Renaissance. In fact, as you will remember, it was the "Copernican revolution" that largely relegated the earth to a peripheral position in the cosmos... not only geographically, but also philosophically. No longer was the earth, and by extension man, at the center of the Universe. Instead, with his helio-centric model, many doubted the uniqueness of the earth. This new concept also created theological difficulties in the eyes of many. If there was nothing special about the earth, as most at that time believed the sun-centered solar system suggested, then maybe there was nothing special about man either. As we have seen, this was the beginning of the spilt between theology and science. It has only been since the discoveries of Einstein that these two fields of study have found common ground again.

A young astrophysicist from Cambridge University, Brandon Carter, had been attempting to understand why our Universe seemed to have been so amazingly fine-tuned for intelligent life.

His answer belongs more to the philosophical field than scientific... but has piqued the interest of innumerable scientists since that time. Carter introduced the Anthropic Principle at that historic conference in Poland. He believed this principle resulted in a basic understanding of the reason(s) that intelligent living beings find themselves inhabiting such a mysteriously compatible Universe. He defined a "weak" and "strong" form of this principle.

Weak Anthropic Principle: "Our location in the Universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers"84 Location refers not only to spatial position, but to our position in time as well. Certainly, this statement is a truism. This definition does imply, however, that there are locations that would not be conducive to our existence... for example, in the middle of a supernova (the wrong place) or two seconds after the Big Bang explosion (the wrong time).

Strong Anthropic Principle: "Our Universe must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage"85 This is another truism. Since we are here to ponder this point, our Universe had to admit intelligent life at some point in the past. Is there a possibility that a Universe would not admit the creation of observers?

Carter was saying that the basic constants seen in nature (ex. the four fundamental forces, the sizes and charges of elementary particles, etc.) simply had to be what they are if our Universe was to support life. It still remained puzzling that so many of these features had to be at such precise values. Carter in at least some sense re-instated humanities position in the Universe when he noted that our place in the Universe was "inevitably privileged to some extent"86 These definitions by Brandon Carter certainly invited much further analysis of the apparent "fine-tuning" that is seen in our Universe. His Anthropic principle has been interpreted and used in variety of ways. The scientific literature in recent decades is filled with discussions of this topic. Most of it takes one of three basic forms: 92

1. Since there is intelligent life in our Universe, the fact that the requisite conditions exist is not at all surprising. (Weak Principle) 2. God is the cause of the seeming amazing "coincidences" seen in nature 3. Infinity, the "old friend" of scientists, when applied to time, number and/or size of the Universe can be used to give a plausible explanation for the apparent design seen in the Universe (Strong Principle) There is a group of philosophers and scientists have a surprisingly (at least to me) interesting way of looking at the anthropic principle. They would be those who look at these incredibly fortuitous conditions that make life on earth possible as not being surprising at all (the first group above). They argue that it is simply not worth looking into the reasons behind our seemingly "privileged" position in the cosmos. Why? Well, it is their position that the simple fact that we exist makes our existence unremarkable. It is therefore a waste of time to pursue the issue. Let's take a closer look at that position. Admittedly it is a truism, as Brandon Carter pointed out that there had to be the appropriate conditions to support intelligent life in our Universe or we wouldn't be here. But, that is just stating a fact. It is not saying anything about whether that fact is surprising or not. A couple of analogies will show the fallacy in this group's argument - that our existence is unremarkable by the mere fact that we exist.

Let's assume that your Aunt Jenny just won six consecutive state lotteries! This will be our fact (the Universe exists). As it turns out, the odds of her doing this were 1/1036 (1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000. Her brother (Uncle Joe) was in charge of the printing of the lottery tickets... until he quit without any notice and left the country a few days ago ("coincidences")! Aunt Jenny waited until the sixth week before she came forward with her six winning tickets. As you might imagine, she was an instant celebrity. Reporters scrambled to find out everything they could about her and her family... the details about Uncle Joe were discovered. When she was questioned by a dozen or more reporters on camera about her apparent remarkable good fortune and the suspicious situation with her brother, she responded, "Listen, I am standing here with six winning lottery tickets. If I had not won them, I wouldn't be holding them now. How then can you call it remarkable?" Several policemen were standing by to pick her up for questioning... but after hearing her statement to the reporters and television audience, they realized the wisdom of her words, shook their head in admiration, and returned to their other duties..... Sure!!! The idea of anyone in her position NOT being suspected of criminal activity is absurd. Why? The coincidences surrounding her lottery winnings are just too amazing. Is it conceivable that she could have had the remarkable good fortune to have accomplished this feat by chance? Barely, but yes. Is it incredibly unlikely? You bet it is! Yet, it is much more likely for her to have honestly won those six consecutive lotteries than the scores of the so-called â&#x20AC;&#x153;coincidencesâ&#x20AC;? in nature required to enable life on earth having just appeared fortuitously without any Intelligent Designer help. No reasonable person would accept her six consecutive lottery wins without doubting that something was awfully fishy! In fact, I doubt

93

seriously whether most of the scientists and philosophers that claim that they are not surprised by the amazingly â&#x20AC;&#x153;fortuitousâ&#x20AC;? circumstances that enabled them to even be alive are telling the truth.

Remember to keep in mind that these folks are suggesting that the fact that our Universe exists automatically rules out there being anything unusual about that very existence. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Let's examine one more illustration to further expose the fallacy in their thinking - the classic "Firing Squad" example. Suppose that you and a friend were somehow forced to watch as a political prisoner was led out to a standing position only twenty yards in front of a firing squad of twenty superbly accurate marksmen! You were well aware that each one of them was deadly accurate at distances of hundreds of yards! After the prisoner donned a blindfold, you heard the commands bellowed out... ready... aim... FIRE! A cacophony of noise screamed out in virtual unison... but the prisoner remained standing!!! He had survived the hideous ordeal of the firing squad! Quickly the warden appeared, removed the prisoner's blindfold, and escorted him away. That lucky man was now free! After sitting there in amazement for a few minutes, you and your friend got up and left. That evening, while eating a local restaurant, you noticed that the former prisoner and the warden were seated together at a nearby table. Both were having a grand old time and you couldn't help but overhear much of their conversation. As it turns out, the two were brothers! Your friend remarked how that prisoner was the luckiest man he had ever seen... somehow, all twenty marksmen had missed from such a close range... an unbelievably unlikely event... but there could be no other explanation as the prisoner had indeed remained standing after the shots were fired! Somehow you were not convinced as you sat watching the two brothers toast each other at the nearby table... Of course, it is obviously incredibly more likely that the warden had arranged for his brother's safety somehow... probably by loading blanks in the marksmen's rifles.

Both of the examples above point out that the mere fact something has occurred does not say anything at all about the underlying cause behind its occurrence. Therefore, the statement, "Since there is intelligent life in our Universe, the fact that the requisite conditions exist is not at all surprising" is invalid. Yet, if details are known about certain aspects of any event (including the creation of our Universe), the likelihood that it was caused by pure chance or by design may very well be ascertained. For example, Aunt Jenny's six consecutive lottery wins and the prisoner's amazing survival does suggest that there must have been some intelligent, albeit illegal, design behind them. By analogy, certainly all of the many "fine-tuned" events that were outlined throughout this chapter give strong support to the idea of an Intelligent Designer of our Universe. One might appropriately refer to this as the cosmological model of the teleologic argument for God. Although it is true that some scientists have simply refused to consider the significance of this fine-tuning, it is indeed noteworthy that a great many scientists have come to the conclusion that somehow our Universe was a product of Design. A significantly large group, at least as represented in the literature, view these amazing set of "coincidences" with a very familiar set of feelings - those that were evoked when scientists discussed the meaning of the Big Bang about fifty to sixty years ago.

94

The word "Anthropic" is now often used as a descriptive adjective. In those instances, it usually precedes a word such as "coincidence" to suggest that our Universe was "fine-tuned" for the existence of intelligent carbon-based life. So, when many people speak of the amazing “Anthropic Coincidences” that are evident in our Universe, they are actually suggesting that God must be the cause. Hence, they are actually using this term inappropriately. I point this out just to make the reader understand this fact. As long as we know what everyone is talking or writing about when someone uses Anthropic terminology, there shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, as has been noted above, the actual definition of the weak and strong Anthropic Principle has a much different meaning.

What conclusions can we draw from this apparent fine-tuning of the Universe? There is so much evidence in the scientific study of the Universe that points to a Creator, yet, so many scientists absolutely are loathed to suggest that God actually is behind it all. There are only a finite number of ways to interpret this information. Some scientists simply refuse to speculate on this topic. They feel that any answers to this question are only going to be matters of conjecture and not verifiable. I believe that present secular cosmologists’ views concerning this apparent remarkable fine-tuning that our Universe so blatantly demonstrates, can be categorized in three basic ways: • The first group states that since we are here to talk about the phenomena, then the Universe simply had to occur, regardless of how unlikely the set of circumstances required. (Weak Anthropic Principle) • A significantly larger group, at least as represented in the literature, view these amazing set of "coincidences" with a very familiar set of feelings - those that were evoked when scientists discussed the meaning of the Big Bang about fifty to sixty years ago. The evidence points to supernatural intervention as the cause for the Universe.

• The third group are also familiar to us and certainly to be expected on the scene - those scientists who attempt to come up with altogether different concepts of our Universe's origin and development… yet, without resorting to the supernatural. (Various different ideas as to how the Universe came into being – discussed a little later in this chapter)

95

A Little More On Our Fine-Tuned Universe Quotes: Freeman Dyson said, “The more I examine the Universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find the Universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”87 Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British astronomer, eventually was really impressed at the number and significance of the “coincidences” he saw in nature allowing for our world to support life.

He said, “Such properties seem to run through the fabric of the natural world like a thread of happy coincidences. But there are so many odd coincidences essential for life that some explanation seems required to account for them.”88 Hawking said, “The odds against a Universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the Universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.”89 Cosmologists recognize the amazing “coincidences” in nature: Throughout the last couple of decades, it has become increasingly apparent to scientists that the values for the forces behind the creation and subsequent development of our Universe had to be, in essence, exactly what they are - otherwise, our Universe would not exist. I have already written about several of these “coincidences” of nature. Numerous books have been written about this topic - the majority written by secular cosmologists. Typically, allusions are made to cosmic coincidences, a super-intellect, it's like seeing the hand of God, etc. Rarely do any of these scientists actually want to reference God in actuality - this is tantamount to "scientific sacrilege” as we have seen. But when one sees a fruit that looks like a banana, tastes like a banana and feels like a banana - it is appropriate to call it a banana! If everything points to a supernatural source as the cause of these events that are impossible coincidences... our new scientific paradigm calls for reference to God! Although most scientists are loathed to refer to God when speaking in public, many have expressed their true feelings about the amazing development of our Universe and life within it when writing on the topic. Take a look at just a small sampling of what they have had to say…

"The very fact that the Universe is creative, and that the laws have permitted complex structures to emerge and develop to the point of consciousness- in other words, that the Universe has organized its own self-awareness - is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. The impression of design is overwhelming."90 (Dr. Paul Davies) Prof. Jay Roth, Purdue Univ, “There is so much in the physical nature of the Universe that we inhabit, the exact balances of everything needed to support life, the piling of coincidence on coincidence, every one of which is vitally necessary for development of a stable star with a planet that can support life. These physical properties of the Universe lead me to favor a Designer or Creator..."91 96

Ross, Hugh, physicist, “The most spectacular evidence for supernatural design of the cosmos resides in its density characteristics. For physical life to be possible, the mass density of the Universe can differ by no more than one part in 1060, and the space energy density by no more than one part in 10120,”92 Paul Davies, physicist, “Careful measurements puts the rate of expansion very close to a critical value at which the Universe will just escape its own gravity and expand forever. The explosive vigor of the Universe is this matched with almost unbelievable accuracy to its gravitating power.

The big bang, was not, evidently, just any old bang but an explosion of exquisitely arranged magnitude…. The seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design.”93 John O’Keefe, NASA Astronomer, “If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate that the Universe was made for man to live in.”94 Prof. Richard Ferriman, “Many scientists do believe in both science and God, the God of revelation, in a perfectly consistent way.”95 Prof George Snell, Harvard Univ., "I am impressed with the apparent evidence that reality is not pure accident."96 Richard Morris, “If electrical forces were much stronger than they are then no element other than hydrogen could form… But electrical repulsion cannot be too weak. If it were, protons would combine too easily and the sun would explode like a thermonuclear bomb.”97 Sandage, Alan, Astronomer, “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”98 Paul Davies, “The mystery of how the universe got into its low entropy state has exercised the imagination of several generations of physicists and cosmologists… The present arrangement of matter and energy, with matter spread thinly at relatively low density, in the form of stars and gas clouds would, apparently, only result from a very special choice of initial conditions. Roger Penrose has calculated the odds for the observed universe appearing by accident to be (1010)30 to one.”99 Dr. Lawrence Henderson, biologist, “There is, in truth, not one chance in countless millions of millions that the many unique properties of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and especially of their stable compounds water and carbonic acid, which chiefly make up the atmosphere of a new planet, should simultaneously occur in the three elements otherwise than through the operation of a natural law which somehow connects them together. These are no mere accidents.”100

97

Dr. Arno Penzias, Columbia Univ. PhD in Physics, "Astronomy leads to a unique event, a Universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;supernaturalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; plan.â&#x20AC;?101 "There are other characteristics of our Universe that seem miraculous when we consider that life could not have appeared had these characteristics been the slightest bit different."102 (Richard Morris) "Our Universe is "constructed" along very simple lines. The laws of physics are straight forward enough to be understood by human minds, and the laws we deduce from experiments here on Earth seem to apply across the Universe, at all places and at all times." Is there some deeper plan that ensure that the Universe is tailor-made for humankind?" "As soon as we begin to gain an understanding of these processes we immediately run into the puzzle of the cosmic coincidences."(Martin Rees) 103 "The architect of this design and the energy required to bring this about remain a source of mystery, awe, and wonder beyond the ken of science. Einstein asked whether God had any choice in designing the Universe. Only a small range of values - for the energy of the first quantum, the strength of its interaction, its limiting velocity and its initial angular momentum make it possible for conscious beings to evolve with the capacity to admire the simplicity and beauty of a design that gave birth to the cosmos as a spinning ring of light and allows it to exist forever." (Sternglas, Ernest) 104 "Quantitative considerations contribute strongly to a modern Design Argument. Very tiny changes in fundamental constants would have made living beings extremely unlikely."105 (Dr. John Leslie) Rozental, I. L., "that small changes in fundamental constants - force strengths, particle masses, Plank's constant, etc. - would have meant the total absence of "nuclei, atoms, stars and galaxies": not merely slight changes in the cosmic picture but rather "the destruction of its foundations.

Presumably this would imply the absence not just of observers made of carbon and water, but of absolutely all observers."106

98

Chapter 8:

Alternative Views on the Origin of Our Universe

As one can readily see, there are a great many "converts" among the secular scientific community. Admittedly, most are still loath to reference an all-powerful God, but certainly the cosmologists quoted above (and many others) are ready to recognize the undeniable evidence of a Grand Design of our Universe... of course, I would ask, how do we get a Grand Design without a Grand Designer? Are there really any other possibilities other than a Creative Force?

As surprising as it may seem, if our Universe actually originated via the Big Bang as is commonly accepted (with or without inflation) and if our Universe is all that exists (excluding God), then virtually all secular cosmologists would recognize a Creative Force - which most people refer to as God! Now that is a powerful statement, but keep in mind that I have listed two qualifiers - our Universe originated via the Big Bang and there is only one Universe. If either of these two are not true, some believe that reference to a Grand Designer may be avoided.

There are some cosmologists who are not convinced that our early Universe began with a Big Bang. Others do not limit the number of universes to one. They have come up with some unusual ideas of their own. We will now take a look at few of the more popular of these ideas.

As I noted in the last chapter, most scientists have never been pleased by the implications of the Big Bang. When we add to this the remarkable and extensive evidence of the fine-tuned Universe, they had added impetus to search for other explanations for our origins. But how could they avoid these obviously strong evidences for God? It certainly took some thought, no question... but the answer turned out to be an old friend of the scientist skeptic... their old friend "infinity" came to the rescue! You see, it is very difficult to argue with infinity, heck, anything can happen, or so their thinking goes, if given and infinite amount of time... or Universes!

Sir Frederick Hoyle has long been a proponent of the steady state theory for our Universe. In essence, this theory gives our Universe an infinite amount of time to develop its manifest characteristics while also avoiding the implications of the Big Bang. Other cosmologists have modified the age-old Hindu concept of an oscillating universe â&#x20AC;&#x201C; with no beginning, and with no ending. Stephen Hawking was one of several physicists who subscribe to a potpourri of ideas that might be labeled as multiple universe theories (the multiverse). The gist of that idea is that if there are enough universes out there, then no matter how unlikely it may be that any one of them would have all of the characteristics seen in our Universe... say, for example, only 1 in 10155 chances... if there are an infinite number of Universes, then there would still be an infinite number of Universes like ours!!!! Why? Well, even if the odds of finding a universe that could support life was only one chance in 10155 (which is about the odds), it could happen if there were an infinite number of Universesâ&#x20AC;Ś Here is the math: Infinite number of Universes / 10155 = infinite number of Universes that could support life and where pigs actually do fly.

99

We already know that our particular Universe has only been in existence for 13.8 billion years … not even close to infinity. So, the scientists who are trying to avoid reference to a creator God, go with the infinite number of Universes idea as opposed to the infinite time. The question, of course, is what evidence is there for infinite universes or infinite time? Here is a hint…….. there is none.

In the next several pages, we shall review all three of these ideas in some detail… i.e. the steady state, oscillating, and multiverse conceptions of a universe.

In the following section, I will review several of the latest ideas of various cosmologists in their desperate attempts NOT to turn to God as the Creator of the Universe. In fact, this is really a desperate attempt as they turn to the concept of infinite Universes, of which there is absolutely no evidence, nor will there ever be any evidence for them. The gist of this argument is that since it is too absurd to believe that a Universe, including the one that includes our amazingly fine-tuned earth, could have suddenly come into being with all of the necessary characteristics to support life, there must be some way to have this happen without resorting to the most obvious answer… i.e. God created it to be just the way He wanted it. That would be no problem for God. Yet, that answer cannot be used in modern day science… remember, God cannot be referenced in science any more. Therefore, since literally anything can happen (the cosmologists say) if there are an infinite amount of chances given, there must have been an infinite number of Universes… one, surely, would be just right to serve as our very own! Wow! Isn’t that just peachy. By the way, with this concept, anything goes. Certainly, there are millions of Universes where you also exist except you have three eyes and two noses, etc. etc. etc. This is the best our cosmologists have come up with to circumvent the problem of the scores of “coincidences of nature” discussed in the last section.

Throughout history very few theories have had the overall impact and acceptance as the Big Bang Theory has had since its introduction eighty plus years ago. Over the years, it has been impressive to see how new evidence has continued to mount demonstrating that the basic tenants of this theory accurately describe the origin as well as the subsequent development of our Universe. The vast majority of scientists continue to accept the Big Bang as the theory that best explains the observable facts - indeed, one of the most impressive aspects of this theory is that it not only follows mathematically so elegantly out of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but it also, and this is much more important, can be tested by collecting data. So far, as the decades since its introduction have passed and information on our cosmos has been accumulated, the Big Bang theory has only been strengthened.

Three generations of students have been indoctrinated with this concept of our Universe's origin and yet remarkably few of these same students were given the opportunity to evaluate intelligently the full implications of its message. In my discussions with a great many people, both young and old, it is a rare situation indeed when I meet someone that has heard the relationship that chronically irritates so many of the world's physicists/cosmologists. And just what is that? Simply, as we have seen from these world-renowned scientists’ own words, that 100

belief in the Big Bang is synonymous with a belief in a Creative Force - God! Paradoxically, the over-riding belief among the general population is just the opposite! The fact is that most reasonably well-informed people believe that if the Big Bang theory for the genesis of our cosmos is true then God does not exist! Why in the world is that? Where did our education system break down? Well, as you recall, we discussed this in some detail in the opening chapter of this science section. Remember, in our current society's model of science, God is simply not allowed - no matter the evidence! This is particularly true in secondary school education (and below)- in fact, in our public-school system, reference to a Creator (i.e. God) has even been legislated outâ&#x20AC;Ś as was pointed out earlier in this book. It is very sad to see how societal pressures have not allowed the full story to be told. I fervently agree with Penzias, when he states that he "hope(s) that we, as modern people, might be able to leave dogma aside and be willing to look at facts, at least the facts as we understand them today."107 We have been forced to accept an abbreviated model for our origins. Questions that are raised by inquisitive students, such as "Where did the Big Bang come from?" or "Doesn't anything that has a beginning require a beginner?" are dealt with flippantly or not at all... often the student is made to feel uncomfortable for having dared to ask such a question... the real fact is that the teachers are either uncomfortable or simply too ignorant to engage the students with forthright answers to these very appropriate questions. Teachers that do reply with thoughtful answers risk discipline by their administration! How can the truth be learned in this unfortunate learning environment?

It simply is impossible except in the rarest of situations... where one has a well informed and very daring science instructor - remember this teacher's job may well on the line!

Although the Big Bang model with inflation is the currently accepted view of our Universe's origins, we are about to spend an entire chapter discussing alternative viewpoints on the origin of our Universe! Why have these other ideas continued to emerge over the years?

There are at least two reasons. For one thing, scientists are always looking for better ways to explain the observable facts of nature. This is the very reason for doing scientific research... certainly this is very commendable. But there is at least one other reason why so much effort has been put into cosmological research in the last half century - many scientists abhor the idea that they cannot have the "last word" on knowledge. We have seen the acceptance by cosmologists, albeit a very reluctant one, that some Creative Power would necessarily have to be behind the Big Bang. Therefore, if that theory is correct... at least in the sense that our Universe had a beginning... then this Creative Force (most people call this force God) must exist. But this creates an untenable situation for many, if not most, scientists. There would have to be some knowledge that is beyond that obtainable through human pursuit. That just won't do. But wait, if an alternative view of origins can be found that does not require a Creator, mankind is once again King! BINGO! Some of you may now be thinking that I am being a bit facetious. Let me assure you, I am not. In fact, in recent decades, an all-out pursuit by some physicists for the Theory of Everything (TOE) has been underway. These folks are looking for one theory that will explain EVERYTHING (hence the name). Now that takes a measure of pride not often seen in this world. As you will soon see, one item that will be prevalent in every alternate theory of 101

origins is the concept of infinity. You will remember that our world is just too darn special to avoid a Creator... unless scientists can call on an old friend... INFINITY. The concept is that anything can happen if given an infinite quantity of time or an infinite number of universes, or an infinite .........etc., etc. You get the idea. But what evidence do they have for these new ideas?

Let's review the history of the Big Bang briefly, stopping to discuss what alternative views were being espoused at any particular time. It is intriguing to note that as the evidence for the Big Bang Theory inexorably mounted, there were always many scientists trying desperately to find another acceptable alternative. Let's see how they did.

When Albert Einstein completed his "signature" work with the publication of The General Theory of Relativity during World War I, he innocently and unknowingly set the stage for the introduction of an entirely new and revolutionary concept of cosmology. Once the full implications of this great scientist's theory were understood... and this took several years as we have seen... the "Big Bang Theory", as it was derisively dubbed by Paul Davies about thirty years later, was introduced into the lexicon of scientists. Scientists of that day, and certainly the vast majority since that time, were chagrined at the implications of Einstein's new mathematical model of our Universe. If the theory was correct, our Universe had a beginning! Of course, as we have seen, this implied a "beginner" - a Creator ... God! Although, as has been pointed out earlier, this fact has never made it down to the level of our local schools, virtually every reasonable cosmologist, from early in the 20th century right down to today, recognized clearly this point... and to many this sudden turn of events just was unacceptable! As Sir Arthur Eddington stated, "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me... I should like to find a loophole.â&#x20AC;?108There has been an uninterrupted attempt to somehow prove the Big Bang false ever since it was first introduced by Lemaitre in the early 30's. In fact, Albert Einstein himself was the first to attempt to circumvent a "beginning" for our Universe by adding his infamous "fudge factor" to his Field Equations. As was explained in an earlier chapter, he finally was honest enough to admit his foolish error and he did indeed accept the necessity for a Creator to explain the origin of the cosmos... but it took him about 15 years to do so! As we shall see, many scientists that have followed have been less "flexible.â&#x20AC;?

In those early years after the introduction of the Field Equations, there was no actual evidence to suggest that what they implied about our Universe was actually true in reality.

However, the Theory itself was passing every test to which it was subjected in an impressive fashion. The difficulty in understanding this intellectual masterpiece and the lack of any suitable method of observing what it suggested about our cosmological "roots", enabled most physicists to ignore its implications for many years. Spurred on by the findings that Vesto Slipher first made public in 1914, Edwin Hubble had begun his tireless work of mapping the heavens. By the late 1920's, the information gathered from Hubble's astronomical observations began to tell an amazing story. The first real evidence for a finite Universe had been found! In 1929 he made his revolutionary announcement that except for a few nearby neighbors, every galaxy in the Universe is increasing in distance from each other... i.e. the Universe is expanding. Now there

102

was blatant observational evidence that belied a static Universe - in fact, it was perfectly consistent with Einstein's Field equations!

Concurrent with Hubble's observational work, Alexander Friedman and Abbe' Georges Henri Lemaitre had been working on a series of solutions to the field equations... each attempting to describe in mathematical terms the origin and subsequent development of the Universe.

Lemaitre's model went through a couple of iterations, but by the early 1930's he boldly suggested that our Universe began from what he called the degeneration of a "primeval atom.â&#x20AC;? He believed that everything that we now see in our Universe was at one time a single "unique atomâ&#x20AC;? and at a given point in time, it exploded to eventually become what we see today. His teacher, the famous Sir Arthur Eddington, was not at all pleased with these results nor their interpretation that the beginning of our Universe was also the beginning of time and space. Indeed, Eddington worked diligently to find a solution to the equations that he could live with comfortably - one in which the Universe had no beginning yet still would not be inconsistent with Einstein's General Theory... which he believed (correctly from all we know even up until this day) to be valid. The essence of his view of our Universe was one in which an infinite amount of time preceded the expansion described by Lemaitre. He thought this would do the trick of eliminating any need for a Creator. Eddington's model did not stand the test of careful analysis. Although the field equations can be manipulated to arrive at this "infinite hesitation model" it had at least one fatal flaw. Galaxies, with their stars and planets, cannot "live" forever. In an infinite amount of time, they would have been made, lived through many generations, but eventually died out for lack of nuclear fuel. There may be an infinite amount of time in Eddington's model, but there is not an infinite amount of nuclear fuel available to give us the present cosmological state that exists in the Universe. Eddington's attempt to model an infinitely old Universe as well as several others in the 1930's and 40's did not convince many of their counterparts and therefore did not gain any significant support.

Late in 1940, a steady state model was proposed by two English astrophysicists, Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. Another very well-respected English scientist, Sir Frederick Hoyle added his ideas to their model and from the late 40s to early 60s this "re-born" idea seemed at least plausible to some. In the late 40s, many studies had concluded that the Big Bang had occurred only a few billion years ago (not the approximately 13.8 billion accepted today).

Since this was much too recent to allow for the origin of our own solar system, let alone the entire Universe, there were certainly many doubters of this theory as World War II came to a close. The stage was set for the introduction of the Gold-Bondi-Hoyle conception of the steadystate theory... you will recall that this was the conception of our Universe that was generally accepted before Einstein's and Hubble's revelations. All three of these men were at least philosophically convinced that any model of creation that included a "beginning" was unacceptable. As science writer Kitty Ferguson so aptly notes, "for reasons entirely apart from scientific objections, the Big Bang pill was a bitter one to swallow, and few still have it hiding behind a tooth."109

103

Bondi believed that these theories resulted in creation being "handed over to metaphysics."110 He was right, of course, but to him this made them wrong a priori... an inappropriate, yet not atypical, conclusion. England's Sir Frederick Hoyle objected to these theories as well. In fact, in the late 1940s, he attempted to minimize any acceptance of these theories with the help of a little sarcasm. He suggested that the belief that our Universe somehow came into existence from some sort of "Big Bang" (his words) was almost laughingly absurd. The fact of the matter was that Hoyle also recognized that "the big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation."111 Hoyle has often written about his contempt for any theory of origins that would inevitably lead to the conclusion that an Originator must exist. In 1975 Hoyle wrote concerning the Big Bang, "Many people are happy to accept this position ... without looking for any physical explanation of the abrupt beginning of the particles. The abrupt beginning is deliberately regarded as metaphysical - i.e., outside physics. I do not believe that an appeal to metaphysics is needed to solve any problem of which we can conceive.”112 Hoyle had another reason for rejection of the Big Bang theory. A coupling of the Big Bang theory with astronomical evidence reveals that our Universe is at most 14 billion years old. Yet, as we will see in much more detail in a later chapter, Hoyle is totally convinced that this is an impossibly short period of time for the evolution of life. Hence, the Big Bang theory must go! As with Bondi, Hoyle was not going to accept it under any circumstances.

The concept proposed by these three men suggested that the Universe was expanding as Hubble had observed... yet was still eternal! Here's how it was supposed to work. Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi adhered to the Perfect Cosmological Principle. This principle stated that the Universe essentially remains unchanged. On the large scale it looks the same in one region as it does in any other region. Although the Universe was expanding exactly as observed by Hubble and consistent with the General Theory of Relativity, this model suggested that matter was constantly being produced out of empty space to fill in the gaps created by the expansion.

Hoyle provided a mathematical model that introduced the concept of a "creation field.” This provided the theoretical basis for the steady state model introduced by Gold and Bondi. But at least one major point was not addressed - where in the world - make that Universe - did this creation field come from. In Hoyle's attempt to avoid God, he somehow was still willing to call for the creation of new matter... where did he think this came from? God only knows how this happened... well at least Gold, Bondi, and Hoyle had no ideas on this subject - it just kind of happened; they didn't want to get too bogged down in these little details. Cosmologist Paul Davies notes that these gentlemen believed that "a Universe with a physical creation field to make it "self-winding" doesn't require any divine intervention to keep it running." He continued by pointing out that their conclusion was not warranted - even if there were a steady state creation field. "The fact that the Universe might have no origin in time does not explain its existence, or why it has the form it does. It does not explain why nature possesses the relevant fields (such as the creation field) and physical principles that establish the steady-state condition.”113 In any event their proposal continued by saying that the quantity of matter created was exactly balanced out by the expansion (that was convenient) so that no "holes" would ever 104

result... even though the Universe had been expanding since infinity past. Even 500 quadrillion years from now, observers would see essentially the same galaxy formations that we view today... it is just that these galaxies would be different from those we now see... they would be composed of newly created matter. As you might imagine, this idea was fraught with problems.

Yet, it did gain some following in the 1950s and early 1960s. One important aspect of this steady state model was that it could be tested... like the Big Bang model... and unlike several that we shall discuss later in this chapter. If their model was correct, it would result in certain verifiable attributes in our Universe. Unfortunately for Hoyle and his cohorts, their idea did not do very well when lined up against observational data (i.e. the facts). Let us take a look at only a few fatal shortcomings.

Imagine for a moment what the Universe would look like in this steady state model.

Regardless of where one looked, no matter how far away from earth and in any direction, there would be a combination of extremely old, middle age, and baby galaxies - a "steady state" population. Although this is fairly obvious, Sir James Jeans first formulated this proposal in the 1920s - when scientists were in the early stages of digesting the full import of Einstein's theories and as information from Hubble's observations was trickling in. In fact, if you were to graph the number of galaxies in any given section of our cosmos against the age of the galaxies in that same section, you would get a straight-line graph. Is that what we know to be true from astronomical observation? Absolutely not! Remember that observational evidence shows that all galaxies in the Universe continue to move further apart with time. As more powerful telescopes allow astronomers to look into more distant regions (and, correspondingly, more distant ages) of our Universe, several interesting things have been discovered. First, in any given region of the Universe, the galaxies are essentially the same age. Second, essentially all galaxies are middle aged. There are few, if any, newly formed galaxies and there is no evidence at all for extinct galaxies. Third, and probably most interesting of all, through the use of radio telescopes we have been able to look back to approximately fifteen billion years in the past. No galaxies at all! There are no stars or planets. With regard to stars, no matter how far back we now can look into the past, no star older than 15 billion years has ever been found. Given the fact that some stars have the capability to shine for 80 billion years, certainly in a steady state Universe we should see some well above 20 billion years old (and there should be just as many very near to earth as anywhere else in the Universe). This is not seen. In fact, all of the above noted evidence is totally inconsistent with a steady state model. But that is not all.

There are other factors that were reported that made the steady state theory of GoldBondi-Hoyle unacceptable to virtually all cosmologists by the mid-60s. I'll mention just a couple. It has been proven observationally that our Universe is ever expanding. No one in science doubts this fact. The Big Bang theory gives an explanation for this - a primordial explosion that generates the forces required to result in the formation of our cosmos, and the energy needed for expansion. Admittedly, it does not give an answer to where this explosion originated - that is why, along with many other reasons, the existence of God is implied. On the other hand, in the steady state model, there is no reasonable explanation for a mechanism that 105

would drive the expansion of our Universe... nor any that explains the origination of the new matter that supposedly is constantly being added. It is rather "weak" to just say that new matter is constantly being added to allow for the observed expansion of our Universe... and leave it at that.

"The final nail in the coffin of the steady-state theory came in 1965 with the discovery that the Universe is bathed in heat radiation at a temperature of about three degrees above absolute zero. It is hard to understand how such a radiation bath could have arisen without the cosmic material having once been highly compressed and exceedingly hot"114 Incidentally, as we have noted before, this is believed to be strong evidence for the Big Bang. "The discovery of the remnant of the primordial fireball radiation made a deep impression on astronomers. After this discovery, support for the Steady State theory weakened although some astronomers still favored it. The clincher, which has convinced all but a few doubting Thomases, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson shows a characteristic pattern of intensities at different wavelengths and frequencies of radiation that matches the pattern of the radiation produced in an explosion."115 No steady state proponent has been able to present a plausible explanation for this background radiation in a steady state Universe. It seems impossible to credibly imagine how this amazingly uniform cosmic background radiation (remember this is seen everywhere in our observable Universe) would automatically pop into existence along with the new matter that is supposedly continually coming into existence. How would any given "new" section of Universe know at what temperature it should be created - oops, there is that word again ... creation! Son of a gun - even if all else had worked out (which it certainly did not) the steady state folks still would not have dealt satisfactorily with this obvious creation of matter and energy! Whether it is at an instant of time as in the Big Bang model or continuously, as in the steady state model of Gold-Bondi-Hoyle, it still is unexplained! And there can never be creation without a Creator - as shown earlier. Einstein and so many other great minds are convinced of this truism.

Along with the reasons mentioned above and many other reasons, scientists have almost universally abandoned any form of the steady state model. It is true that a few variations still survive - barely. For example, plasma physicist Hannes Alfen has suggested that the expanding Universe is only a local explosion in a much larger Universe - that is in an essentially steady state. Some other scientists suggest the conclusion that our Universe is undergoing expansion is just the result of "tired light" (light that loses speed and energy after travelling large distances) giving the mistaken impression of expansion. There is absolutely no evidence for either of these two proposals. They are not taken very seriously in the scientific community.

106

The fact is that very few of today's scientists buy into any of these alternative steady state ideas. Noble Laurate Arnold Penzias said it all when he told science journalist Fred Heeren, "The steady state theory turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it."116 It still remained true as the 1960's drew to a close, "the easiest way to fit the observations with the least number of parameters was one in which the Universe was created out of nothing, in an instant, and continues to expand. Physicists normally would like a model in which there are no external parameters. So, what we find - the simplest theory - the one that the astronomers normally espouse, is creation out of nothing, the appearance out of nothing of a Universe."116 • • •

• • • • •

•

The red shift seen in distant galaxies would not be seen in a steady state Universe.

The Cosmic Background Radiation makes perfect sense in a Universe that originated with a Big Bang. It would not be seen in a steady state Universe.

The helium and deuterium concentrations in our Universe is consistent with the Big Bang model. Only the initial nuclear fusion from the Big Bang explosion could make the amounts we have in the Universe… this would not be the case in a steady state Universe.

All the stars in the Universe are of similar age. In a steady state Universe, there would be a wide range of ages seen.

The planets and stars in our Universe are middle aged. Again, there would be a wide range of ages if we had a steady state Universe as they would constantly be made throughout time.

A steady state Universe would have no mechanism to drive the expansion that we see in our Universe.

Our Universe has much too great of entropy to be a steady state system.

The characteristics that are seen in galaxies and quasars at great distances (we are viewing them from the remote past) are much different than those that are nearby. This is consistent with a Big Bang Universe… not a steady state one.

The lack of old galaxies near our galaxy negates an infinite age for the Universe as the lack of very young galaxies negates continual creation.

Evidence Against a Steady State Universe Let me repeat a relevant quote from a little earlier in this section by Dennis Sciama when he realized that the steady-state theory had failed, "for me, the loss of the steady-state theory has been a cause of great sadness. The steady-state theory has a sweep and beauty that for some unaccountable reason, the architect of the Universe appears to have overlooked. The Universe is in fact a botched job, but I suppose we shall have to make the best of it."117 As the evidence against the steady state model was mounting, attempts to resurrect a very old cosmological concept was already underway. In ancient times, Hindu philosophers had introduced the idea of a cyclical Universe. This was a Universe of infinite age, but one that is “conceived as ‘pulsating’ – recurrently being destroyed and recreated, each period lasting over 4,300 million years. The world is an immense series of virtually repetitive cycles and is often depicted as being periodically absorbed into and emanated from the divine being.”118 It is 107

interesting to note that even with this model, the ancient Hindus still recognized the need for an ultimate “divine being.”

In the modern-day oscillating model, cosmologists hypothesized that if there were sufficient mass in our Universe, eventually the current expansion cycle would give way to a reverse cycle of contraction. In fact, these scientists gained confidence in this idea from one of Alexander Friedmann’s 1922 mathematical solutions to Einstein’s Field Equations. If the density of our Universe was greater than a certain critical value, the Universe would indeed eventually collapse upon itself. In 1931 de Sitter vaulted from this mathematical possibility to propose a continuous cycle of expansion and collapse – just like the ancient Hindus. He suggested an infinite number of these cycles in an effort to remove the need to contemplate our Universe’s origin. This then is the basis for the modern-day oscillating model of our Universe.

So, is this correct? What evidence do we have for or against this model?

First of all, it is important to realize that Friedmann’s mathematical solutions allow for more than one possible fate for the Universe. The Universe may one day ultimately collapse upon itself (if its density is greater than the critical density). Actually, this can further be broken down as there can be collapse with or without a subsequent re-expansion. Yet, if the density of our Universe is less than or equal to the critical density, our Universe will go on expanding forever… whereby discussion of an oscillating model of the Universe becomes a moot point.

Obviously, it would be very beneficial to know what the density of the Universe actually is.

Unfortunately, no one knows for sure. Current best estimates strongly suggest that we live in a Universe that is essentially “flat.” If this is, in fact, true, the oscillating Universe theory is dead.

But let’s just assume for the moment that the Universe does have enough mass to eventually collapse upon itself. There is still another problem that would keep the Universe from oscillating in a rhythmic, symmetric, cyclical pattern. In order to understand why, we must digress for a moment to gain at least a basic understanding of one of nature’s most intriguing laws. It behooves us once again to recognize that our Universe does indeed abide by certain physical laws. For example, we have spent a significant amount of time in previous chapters outlining the four basic forces of nature. The development of our Universe rests on these four forces. Yet, there are other physical laws that have been discovered. These laws are not the same as those made by man. Although we all recognize that societal laws are, at times, ignored, these laws of nature are inviolable. One of these “constants” is referred to as the second law of thermodynamics. This law states that in any spontaneous process, there is always a net increase in entropy in the Universe. As our Universe ages (with or without oscillations), there are innumerable spontaneous processes occurring… so the entropy of the Universe is always increasing. So, what, you say. Well, as it turns out, this actually is very important. But we better take a moment to remember and understand the concept of entropy defined earlier. In a closed system, nature tends to move spontaneously from more ordered to more random states.

In other words, any system when not acted upon by an outside force, over time, will change to a more disordered state. For example, take my garage… please. Every so often my wife and I brave the Florida heat and humidity, put forth a valiant effort, and somewhat succeed 108

in making it reasonably neat. For a time, we can actually walk through it without turning sideways and can even get to some of the back-storage cabinets to see what we had placed in them years earlier. However, this condition does not last forever… unfortunately. Why? The second law of thermodynamics! If an outside force (my wife and I in this example) does not act upon it, the garage is “doomed to disorder” as time passes… that is, entropy increases inexorably in this or any other closed system.

Now let’s return to the oscillating Universe theory. The second law of thermodynamics places certain restrictions on the type of oscillations possible if, indeed, any actually could occur.

Richard Tolman recognized in the early 1930’s that the Universe (assuming that it is not acted upon by an outside force) is a closed system. Therefore, it must have an ever-increasing entropy as it ages. In the case of an oscillating Universe, it is generally agreed that this increasing entropy from one cycle to the next, requires that the cycles progressively grow bigger and last longer and longer. But what does this imply? We have to step back a moment to evaluate this carefully. Remember that we are assuming that we now exist in an oscillating Universe.

Therefore, obviously, we must be currently within one of its cycles. But we also know by the second law of thermodynamics that the previous cycle was smaller and lasted for a shorter period of time. The one just before that was even smaller yet - in both size and cycle length. In fact, if we carry this back to its logical conclusion, we can state that entropy considerations require that an oscillating Universe had to initially be of infinitely small size and cycle length. Therefore, in fact, an oscillating Universe, although it does not absolutely require an end by the laws of physics, it does require a beginning! Son of a gun, back to that Creator again!

Of course, as you would expect, this would not sit too well with proponents of this theory.

In the 1960s, astronomer Thomas Gold came up with quite an idea to circumvent this seemingly insurmountable problem. He suggested that perhaps in the contracting phase of the Universe, the laws of thermodynamics reversed as well. In other words, maybe things would progress towards a more ordered state over time… that is entropy would decrease in the contracting phase of the Universe over time. Maybe all I would have to do is wait a little while and my garage would straighten itself up. Time would flow backwards! Gold believed that everything in the Universe would be affected by this reversal. We would “remember the future.” The past would be the future and the future the past. Another scientist, John Wheeler, delved deeply into this timesymmetric Universe concept as well. He came up with a lot of fanciful ideas… the stuff from which blockbuster summer movies are made. Yeah, but is there any reason to believe that Gold and Wheeler are on the right track? Not according to Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose.

They believe that there is no reason to believe that the arrow of entropy would change in the contracting phase – entropy would continue to increase. Cosmologist Paul Davies notes that “beguiling though the time-symmetric universe may be, it is very hard to argue for it plausibly.

Statistically, the overwhelming majority of possible initial states of the universe will not produce reversal, so only if the universe is selected to belong to a very peculiar and special set will the ‘tide turn.’ The situation can be compared to a bomb exploding in a steel container: it is possible to imagine all the fragments rebounding in unison from the walls of the container and coming 109

back together to reconstitute the bomb. That sort of conspiratorial behavior is not strictly impossible, but it requires an incredibly contrived set of circumstances.”113 So, as Kitty Ferguson writes, “although with a pulsating universe we may have circumvented our own particular singularity, we haven’t necessarily erased the notion that somewhere, perhaps several pulses back, there might have been a beginning that is still waiting to be explained.”119 Then in the early 1980’s, American cosmologists Alan Guth, Sidney Bludman and Marc Sher wrote a paper entitled “The Impossibility of a Bouncing Universe.” As the title suggests, the scientists found that even if the universe had enough mass to eventually enter into a contracting phase, the end result would not be another cycle… but instead, eventually the universe would just collapse and end in a big splat! Earlier, two Russian physicists, Igor Novikov and Yakob Zel’dovich, had come to the same conclusion using a different mathematical approach. In recent years, some physicists have turned to quantum theory in an effort to revive the concept of an oscillating Universe. “However, as authors Arnold Sikkema and Werner Israel admit, no consistent quantum theory of gravity exists, and the revised theory yields an oscillating universe with only a sharply limited, finite number of bounces.”120 Russian physicist Andre Linde has demonstrated that all reasonable inflationary models of our Universe require at least one portion of the Universe to resist collapse. In other words, our most viable current models for our Universe (which include an inflationary stage) do not allow for oscillation. Also, very importantly, Alexander Vilenkin has recently established that any viable inflationary model requires a beginning of time and space.

In summary, there have been repeated attempts to engage the idea of an oscillating universe to explain away the need for a beginning. Even Stephen Hawking tried his hand at one model of it (see Appendix II). Others are sure to follow. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence at all that our Universe has ever undergone a contracting phase. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that it ever will. The table below summarizes the evidence against the oscillating model.

No table is given for the evidence in favor… as there is none.

1. If our Universe did ever enter a contracting phase, it would eventually end in a final “splat” – not a bounce.

2. There is no known physical mechanism to allow for a bounce at the end of the contracting phase.

3. There are no known physics to explain how a collapsing universe could bounce back.

4. All current data suggests that our Universe does not have enough mass to result in a contracting phase.

5. Even if an oscillating universe was granted, the second law of thermodynamics requires that it have a beginning… implying a “Beginner.”

Evidence Against an Oscillating Universe

110

So as Robert Jastrow notes, “The facts indicate that the Universe will expand forever. We still come across pieces of mass here and there in the Universe, and someday we may find the missing matter, the consensus at the moment is that it will not be found. But according to the available evidence, the end will come in darkness.”122 Or as Arno Penzias explains when discussing the search for the “missing mass” (the dark matter) of our Universe, “we infer the mass of the Universe from the motion of the galaxies themselves. Those motions point to a Universe which will fly apart indefinitely – not one which will someday collapse to a point.

Thus, observations also contradict the notion that our Big Bang is just one of a series of such events.”121 Dr. Sten Odenwald writes, “I would have to rate the likelihood of finding more mass than the critical density as pretty remote. An oscillating Universe is not even a possibility even if the Universe were to re-collapse under the best of conditions anyway.”123 In other words, we do not live in an oscillating Universe.

As the 1960’s drew to a close, the final piece of the puzzle that cemented the Big Bang as the accepted theory for our Universe’s origins was found… at least until recent decades. Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and George Ellis concluded an extensive study that extended Einstein’s equations of general relativity to include space and time. In fact, they showed that not only did energy and matter have an origin (as had been known for decades) but so did the dimensions of time and space. By 1970, Hawking and Penrose were able to show that if the equations in general relativity are correct, any reasonable model of the Universe must start with a singularity.

In Hawking’s own words, “if general relativity is correct, any reasonable model of the Universe must start with a singularity.”124 “Everything we would ever be able to observe in the Universe had at one specific time in the past been compressed, not to the sphere Lemaitre envisioned, but to infinite density – a point singularity. Space-time curvature at the singularity would be infinite.

The distance between all objects in the Universe (though calling them objects at this point would be inaccurate) would be zero.”125 Simply put, these findings added firm evidence that our Universe did indeed begin from a singularity – in a Big Bang. Since that time, enormous observational evidence has continued to mount to prove the veracity of Einstein’s Field equations. If there were a few doubters in the early 1970’s of Einstein’s seminal work, certainly no one seriously doubted its validity as the century came to a close.

As we entered the eighth decade of the last century, the Big Bang theory for the origin of our Universe had finally gained wide acceptance. It was being taught in high schools and colleges alike as the accepted cosmology – and it still is today… for very good scientific reasons as we have seen. Scientists were a little uneasy with the implications of a beginning – no doubt – but generally, were able to sidestep it fairly adroitly by their lock-step reference to it as a philosophical/religious issue – beyond the purview of science.

That seemed to work fine for a several years. Public high school physics teachers rarely broached intriguing concepts such as: What caused the beginning? or Doesn’t the fact that our Universe had a beginning suggest a beginner? For one thing, doing so would actually have put their job in jeopardy (just as it would today). For another, some had been essentially brainwashed during their college education into not even considering the implications of the Big 111

Bang. College professors and astronomers typically remained silent about the religious overtones, while ostensibly at least, relegating the issue to the realm of mysticism (in effect a put-down to those who dared to suggest otherwise). But theirs was a tenuous position and most were uneasy with the mounting evidence for the Big Bang. â&#x20AC;˘ Robert Jastrow: "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."126 â&#x20AC;˘ George Smoot: "Cosmologists have long struggled to avoid this bad dream by seeking explanations of the Universe that avoid the necessity of a beginning. Einstein, remember, refused to believe the implications of his own equations - that the Universe is expanding and therefore must have a beginning - and invented the cosmological constant to avoid it. Only when Einstein saw Hubble's observations of an expanding Universe could he bring himself to believe his equations.â&#x20AC;?127

112

Chapter 9:

Multiple Universes

As they continued to stack up, those remarkable “coincidences of nature” eventually began to upset the cosmologist’s apple-cart. Although it was not particularly difficult for scientists at all levels to ignore the Big Bang’s implications of a beginning, it was an increasing annoyance to deal with the seemingly unbelievable fortuitous circumstances of nature’s laws and make-up that would come to be known as the anthropic coincidences of nature. As you will recall, one incredible finding related to the critical density of the Universe. If our Universe had been more or less dense by a factor of 10-55, we would not be here! The likelihood our Universe would have a “livable” density was:1 chance in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The likelihood that this strongly suggested a Creator was behind the creation of our Universe was not lost on scientists. And this bothered them more than the fact that our Universe required a beginning. Why? Well, I believe that while it was fairly effortless to dispense with the discussion of a Creative Force it was not so easy to brush off the need for a Designer for when the Universe showed blatant evidence of design. Although the need for a Creator is just as great, logically speaking, when you see something that has come into existence from out of nowhere… it seems to be more esoteric to people than the necessity for a Designer required by the overwhelming evidence of design. That apparently must be the main reason so many people in the general population do not recognize that the Big Bang points directly to a Creator. Maybe there are other reasons, but whatever the case, cosmologists really got busy in the early 70’s looking for other ways to explain the evidences of design. Alan Guth came through with his theory of the inflationary Universe in the late 70’s that gave a reasonable and acceptable reason for the density of our Universe being so close to the critical density.

But then, more and more anthropic coincidences kept being discovered as the 20th century drew to a close – they just kept coming! As we reviewed carefully in the last chapter, there are now scores of inexplicable evidences of design in our Universe. At least they are not explainable using current principles of classical physics and logic. But wait… it is unacceptable to most scientists to accept any reference to a Creative Force to explain our Universe… in fact it is not allowed under the current paradigm of science. So, it was time to get back to work and come up with some other ideas... ideas that would need to accomplish at least two things: eliminate the beginning that was such a sticking point in the Big Bang theory AND explain the apparent design of nature.

But how??? Well, it is always a good idea to look to their good friend, infinity. For example, very good evidence can be given to suggest that the likelihood of all of the fortuitous coincidences of nature having happened by pure chance was less than one out of 10120. The solution to this seemingly insoluble problem? Let there be 10+121 chances for this Universe to occur… or better yet, how about an infinite number of chances (i.e. an infinite number of universes)! BINGO! Could they come up with a plausible theory that would do this? These folks are brilliant scientists and given enough time and the obvious necessity for an answer that would avoid a Creator/Designer, they were bound to come up with something. It would take 113

some imagination and significant stretching of a few modern theories but…they would do it!

And what about the problem of beginnings? Well, maybe they would continue to gloss over this one a bit. Let’s take a look.

Most of the “coincidences of nature” that we reviewed in the last chapter have been recognized over the last fifty years. It is interesting to note that as these coincidences mounted, obviously suggesting a “designer” Universe, many cosmologists became more and more unsettled. Although the inflationary Universe concept was able to explain away a few of those coincidences (for example, the amazing closeness of the Universe’s density to its critical density) - at least to most scientists’ satisfaction - as more and more of these “coincidences” were discovered, the necessity of a Creator was becoming painfully more evident. The evidence for a beginning plus the multitude of amazingly fined tuned aspects of the Universe that were required for human life, was a very disturbing combination. Astronomers were in a quandary.

Robert Jastrow put it this way, “I am an agnostic in religious matters. However, I am fascinated by some strange developments going on in astronomy – partly because of their religious implications and partly because of the peculiar reactions of my colleagues…

Theologians are generally delighted with the proof that the Universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind – when evidence is uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.”128 So, what exactly did scientists do in their effort to arrive at a cosmology that would not necessarily point to a Creator? Obviously, the Big Bang as an explanation was simply unacceptable! Well, what do you think they did? Where could they find an answer? As we have already said… they will look toward infinity? If it is simply much too difficult to believe that one Universe (our Universe) could have simply popped onto the scene with the amazing array of features that enable it to support human life, cosmologists would see if they could find a way to suggest that our Universe was just one of an infinity of Universes… then, basically, anything could happen!

Every one of the modern-day theories that will be reviewed in the last portion of this chapter, have their basis in the field of Quantum Mechanics. Obviously, in order to understand the explanations currently considered as “reasonable” (or better, questionable) alternatives to the Big Bang, we must gain at least a rudimentary understanding of this relatively new field of physics.

So, let us take a look at this interesting and somewhat strange way of looking at the Universe we live in.

Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics that deals with subatomic particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. It was developed early in this century by some great names in science… Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Born, Einstein, Bohr, Planck, and Dirac to name a few.

Quantum mechanics has revolutionized the way scientists describe certain characteristics of sub114

atomic particles. Classical Newtonian mechanics, which is still the best way to describe the motion of large bodies, such as planets, satellites, cars and planes, was found to be inadequate to describe the motion and position of subatomic particles. When physicists or engineers analyze large bodies in motion, they are confident that if given adequate information concerning its position and momentum, they will be able to track the future position and speed of that body.

For example, that is how orbital motion and position are predicted days in advance for our space shuttles. In order to accomplish this, of course, precise initial position and momentum are required. Surprisingly, this information is not attainable on the sub-atomic level! Certainly, no attempt will be made to explain in detail the field of quantum mechanics in this book on apologetics. However, in order to understand the reasons cosmologists have turned to this twentieth century theory in their attempts to usurp the Big Bang theory for our origins, four concepts of quantum theory will be briefly described. These are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the idea of “probability waves”, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and quantum levels.

With a basic understanding of these four aspects of Quantum Mechanics, we will be able to see why and how many late-twentieth and twenty-first century physicists have attempted to use this complex, non-intuitive explanation of the sub-microscopic world to explain the very origin of our Universe!

Quantum Theory has been described by Paul Davies as a “strange world… where intuition deserts us, and seemingly absurd or miraculous events can occur.”133 Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, discovered one of these “seemingly absurd” principals of subatomic particles that makes absolutely no common sense at all… seriously. However, almost all physicists believe it to be true, yet do not understand how it possibly can be! This remarkable property of quantum mechanics is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It states that there are theoretical limitations (not just practical measurement limitations, although these exist as well) on the ability to ascertain the properties of two subatomic variables that affect one another. One example concerns the two physical properties of energy and time. The example used most often relates to the position and momentum of a particle. Heisenberg showed mathematically that it was not only impossible to measure accurately both the position and momentum of a particle at the same instant of time, but – and here is the incredible part – according to quantum mechanics a subatomic particle actually NEVER even has a definite position and a definite momentum at the same time. For example, no matter how delicate a measuring system we possess, we cannot ever determine both an electron’s position and momentum at an instant of time. Stated another way, the respected science writer Dr. Paul Davis notes, “the uncertainty is apparently an inherent property of the microworld.”129 Here is the way Kitty Ferguson puts it, “If you look for an atom’s position, that’s what you get, an atom in a definite place – with a blur as to its motion. If you look for an atom’s motion, that’s what you get, an atom moving in a definite manner – with a blur as to its location. A very predictable little fellow, this atom. But what happens when you aren’t measuring anything at all about it? It seems that when an atom isn’t being observed it lapses into a state that can be described as ghostlike, with no actual concrete reality to it at all.

Only under observation does it resolve itself into either an atom with a location or an atom with a 115

definite momentum, and which atom it will be depends entirely upon what the observer is trying to measure. To put it bluntly, the observer seems to create reality by observing it.”130 Paul Davies looks at it this way, “Matter is allowed to roam more or less at random, subject to certain pressures, such as the reluctance to engage in too much activity. While no definite statement can be made about any particular motion, certain paths of behavior are more probable than others, so that statistically we can predict accurately how a large collection of similar systems will behave.”131 Although Davies admits that these “strange features are only pronounced on the atomic scale”, he believes that the uncertainties are not merely a result of our ignorance of initial conditions, as was once thought, but an inherent property of nature.”132 He also seconds Ferguson’s conclusion that “In the quantum version [of reality] there is an inherent indeterminism, and the particular reality only appears within the context of a particular type of measurement or observation.”134 He and many others believe that the Universe seemingly “is in a sort of suspended state of schizophrenia until someone undertakes an observation, when it “collapses” suddenly into reality.”135 Davies continues to suggest that “quantum physics has undermined the commonsense notion of objective reality and has placed the observer and his experiments in a central position in the definition of any proper concept of a real world ‘out there’.”136 Keep in mind what these folks are saying. Their point is that reality as viewed by Quantum Theory is totally dependent upon the observation of a system by some observer! Now this was a hard pill to swallow and many great physicists did not accept this concept. Albert Einstein and Erwin Schrodinger refused to believe this principle. Einstein, in fact, went to his grave believing that this principle would eventually be proven wrong. His famous retort to his cohorts when they attempted to convince him of the veracity of their beliefs was that “God does not play dice.” Yet, as this century draws to a close, it is now widely (yet not universally) accepted as “amazing but true.” There are still some physicists who refuse to believe this seemingly absurd dictum and hope that future advances in our understanding will yield a more logical answer… that is, we should be able to measure both position and momentum of particles concurrently given the right apparatus and skills – and, most importantly, regardless of these measurement difficulties, we will recognize that our act of measurement/observation does not, in fact, “create reality.” Just because we may not know… or even cannot know, certain attributes about a sub-microscopic particle does NOT, in any way, imply that the particle lacks existence! Yet this is what many physicists would have us accept.

Over the last century, physicists have continued to develop this branch of physics and it has been an invaluable tool in understanding our world. In addition to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, another unusual characteristic of quantum theory is the notion that subatomic particles are endowed with mysterious “probability wave” properties. Although we cannot know the precise behavior of subatomic particles (secondary to the Uncertainty Principle), it is possible to describe it in terms of a “probability” cloud or wave. The probability path that an electron may take is analogous to a wave – it spreads out like the ripples created after a pebble is thrown into a pond. The electron itself is not a wave, but it moves like a wave… that is a wave of probability.

Today, as many reading this book will recall (from high school Physics), the motion of electrons 116

around the nucleus in atoms is currently pictured as an “electron cloud”, not simply as a “dot” coming off of a spoke from the central nucleus. It is true that where the wave effect is the strongest, the electron is most likely to be found at any given instant… but it could be found anywhere within this “cloud.”

Is there any evidence that electrons actually behave in this wave-like fashion? As it turns out there is! In a classic “two-slit” experiment, a pinhole of light (or stream of electrons) is emitted toward an opaque screen (i.e. screen ‘B’). Just in front of this screen, another opaque screen (screen ‘A’) is placed with only two parallel slits allowing the light to pass through and illuminate screen ‘B.’ Initially only one slit is open and a smooth scatter pattern is seen on screen ‘B.’ An unexpected finding is seen when both slits are opened. Instead of seeing a superimposition (a purely additive effect) of the waves from the entrance of the photons (or electrons) through each slit, a wave-interference pattern is seen. There are alternating peaks and troughs corresponding to whether the particles of waves from each light source reinforced or cancelled one another. A further modification of this experiment yields an even more striking result. Even if only one electron at a time is allowed to pass through a slit, the same interference pattern is seen! That is, if the production of the beam of electrons is set to allow only one electron to approach the screen at a time, obviously this electron will have to choose only one slit through which to pass. When this electron strikes the second screen, its arrival point and intensity is recorded using a photographic plate. So far this is making good, common sense. But wait… if we send hundreds of electrons towards the two-slit screen in this same fashion, one at a time, an incredible distribution pattern emerges on the second screen. The pattern is the same as when the electrons bombarded the screens all at once… that is, there is an interference pattern formed! In other words, a single electron passing through one of the two slits in some odd sense “knows” what path it would have taken if it had chosen the other slit and the interference pattern that appears on the screen reflects this fact. In fact, if hundreds of these two-slit experiments are set up throughout the world, and only one electron reading per experiment is collected, a similar result occurs. When all of the hundreds of photographic plates (from different parts of the globe) are collected and then overlapped, the same interference pattern is seen! Hard to believe, but true!

It is as if there is some magical communication between these electrons… but how? In some completely unknown way, the paths that a sub-atomic particle might have taken, but did not, do still influence the behavior of the actual path taken. This is a mystery… but the important point is that behavior of this sort is typical of waves and is strong evidence that subatomic particles do have probability waves. In this aforementioned example, every individual electron has a greater likelihood of colliding on a bright fringe area on the second screen than a dark fringe area.

Somehow it recognizes its “location probability wave.”

Frankly, this entire concept of Quantum Mechanics is truly puzzling and goes against common sense. The important thing to understand though is the following: What we call "particles", such as electrons, somehow combine characteristics of particles and characteristics of waves. That's the famous wave particle duality of quantum mechanics. It also suggests that the act of observing, of measuring, a quantum system has a profound effect on the system. The 117

question of exactly how that happens constitutes the measurement problem of quantum mechanics. It really is a mystery… it really bothered Albert Einstein throughout his life. If he couldn’t understand it, I don’t think we need be bothered if we can’t either.

Paul Davies, in his book Other Worlds, does a nice job of describing other experiments that all suggest an unexpected conclusion: in the quantum world of sub-microscopic particles, there exists an inherent indeterminism… where the observer plays a role in the outcome of certain events. The big question is if this affects the macroscopic world in which we live.

We see very little evidence of this in our everyday life.

A third characteristic of the Quantum World is the effect that does not allow two electrons to occupy the same state at the same time. This is called the Pauli Exclusion principle in honor of Wolfgang Pauli who described this property in 1925. Experimental and mathematical models have demonstrated a type of repulsion between electrons that leads to impressive explanations for certain macroscopic effects. For example, the well-known orbits of the “electron clouds” around the nuclear core of atoms is required as electrons are not allowed to get too close to each other due to this Pauli Exclusion principle. This property also explains in large part the resistance to complete collapse of stars due to the force of gravity. Although gravity causes tremendous shrinkage of stars under their own weight, eventually the star reaches a density requiring the Pauli principle to become active. The mutual electron repulsion works against gravity and ultimately results in a structural alteration from a large, cool red star into a hot, blue giant. Then, over eons of time, this blue giant will further shrink to a size that reflects the size predicted by the Pauli Exclusion principle.

Finally, Quantum Theory requires subatomic particles be confined to certain specific energy levels that are multiples of basic units. In other words, these particles do not come in a continuous range of energy.

The properties of Quantum Theory help us understand many important aspects of our everyday environment - only a few such examples are mentioned in the paragraphs above. There is no argument that the discovery of quantum mechanics in the early twentieth century and its subsequent development has added immeasurably to our ability to understand how submicroscopic particles act. By extension, scientists are able to understand certain macroscopic events, such as the natural life cycle of certain stars noted above. At other times, it is much more useful and practical to use Newtonian Mechanics to describe physical systems as the quantum effects, including its inherent uncertainty, average out to zero. In fact, at times, attempting to apply quantum theory to macroscopic events can result in absurd situations. Should the reader want to take a look at how using this theory can yield absurd results when it is applied to the real, macroscopic world, please refer to appendix I. The classic example known as “Schroedinger’s Cat” is presented.

Quantum mechanics has proven to be successful in accurately predicting or describing various aspects of the Universe in which we live. It is important to recognize, that some of the examples given are confined entirely to the sub-atomic world (ex. the two-split experiment). Yet 118

other phenomena, such as the creation of white dwarfs, shows how the quantum level activities can, at least sometimes, have their effects reflected in macro level events. A perplexing, yet important, question is exactly when can we use quantum theoretical ideas to successfully describe macro level events? This is open to great debate… no one really knows.

This would all be very intriguing - but irrelevant to our discussion - if these attributes of microparticles could not be extrapolated to the field of cosmology. Can this stuff be used for cosmology? Some physicists believe that they can. Time will tell. But at least currently, as we shall see, many cosmologists reference this principle in the development of new ideas for the origin of our Universe.

So, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, many cosmologists believe that quantum theory allows for infinite chances of Universes, a way to study the early microseconds appropriately as well. That is why I broached this confusing topic … the submicroscopic Quantum World is where the majority if today’s secular, atheist cosmologists have congregated to develop a theory for the origin if our Universe that they suggest does not require a Creator. There have been many different theories using quantum physics to suggest how our Universe came into existence. A few of the more famous will be presented below.

Given the fact that scientists cannot study anything about the Universe using classical physics prior to Planck time (i.e. 10-43 seconds after the Big Bang singularity), they introduced quantum physics to explain the sudden appearance of the Universe. Remember, we just reviewed several strange properties of this quantum world. Quantum physicists believe these incredible properties include the possibility of things just popping into existence from no apparent source.

Every one of these quantum theories are grounded in the idea that an infinite number of Universes can and will suddenly appear… one of them will be the one we all live in.

1. Vacuum Fluctuation Model: In 1973, American physicist Edward Tyron suggested that a theory of quantum gravity… a joining of relativity and quantum mechanics, could be a mechanism whereby our Universe would appear out of nothing. He proposed that a quantum fluctuation in the primordial “vacuum” created the Universe. The vacuum is saturated with quantum fields and subject to fundamental fluctuations (predicted by quantum physics). The energy field may appear briefly and grow from a size smaller than a proton to the size of a softball in the first 1030 seconds of time. All this takes place while the nascent Universe is still in a vacuum. After this incredibly brief time period, the rapid expansion slows as the latent energy is released as particles and antiparticles. They cancel each other out, releasing even more energy that results in what we know as the “Big Bang.” Our Universe is just one of the potentially infinite number of Universes that may be produced via these vacuum fluctuations. Some say that it can be pictured as multiple bubbles being released into existence… millions upon millions. Each one can have different properties so that anything that can happen will happen in at least one of them.

Several other scientists thought this idea had a lot of merit. Alan Guth, the man who posited the idea of inflation was one in this group. He noted that this idea did away with 119

the Big Bang singularity. He put it this way, “I have often heard that there is no such thing as a free lunch. It now appears that the Universe itself is a free lunch.”137 However, he also noted that “such ideas are speculation squared.” It is also true that this theory and similar ones do not eliminate the need for an explanation for the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy.

2. In 1984, Steven Hawking and James Hartle introduced their own version of how the Universe suddenly appeared due to a quantum fluctuation. The mathematical presentation of their model eliminates the singularity described in the Big Bang. It does require the introduction of the use of imaginary numbers to accomplish that task. Hawking is quoted as saying that his model of the Universe “would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the Universe.”138 If one converts Hawking’s imaginary numbers back into real numbers, the Big Bang singularity reappears. In fact, even he admits, “Only if we could picture the Universe in terms of imaginary time [which we can’t] would there be no singularities… when one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still be singularities.”139 “In real time, the Universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down.”140 3. Quantum Tunneling: Virtual particles can pop into existence from nothing via a process called quantum tunneling. This is where quantum mechanical particles will penetrate barriers that would be impenetrable to normal objects. Several decades ago, cosmologist Paul Davies suggested that our Universe may have simply popped into existence from nothing. This would have taken place when the Universe was less than 10-43 seconds old.

This theory was extremely speculative and has very few adherents any longer.

1. String Cosmology (M theory): This is a relatively recent theory used in another attempt to avoid the classic Big Bang model. These models suggest that the building blocks of the Universe are small, vibrating strings of energy. These strings are like vibrating strands of elastic. They are stretched out at the high temperatures of the early Universe, then, when the Universe cools, they become smaller than a proton. As long as scientists treated the fundamental particles of nature as points, they were unable to unify the four forces.

Models that treated the particles as points resulted in markedly incorrect results at the high temperatures near the beginning of the cosmos. The first superstring revolution came in 1984; many physicists turned to string theory as a unified theory of particle physics and quantum gravity. First, the weak nuclear force was unified with the electro-magnetic force. Then, in the early 1990s, new, powerful particle accelerators allowed for the discovery of dozens of fundamental particles. This theory is considered the favorite candidate to one day unite gravity with the electroweak and strong nuclear forces; gravity is the most difficult force of nature to bring into the illusive TOE. These strings provide for six additional space dimensions that add to our original three plus one for the time dimension. However, these ‘new’ dimensions only manifest in the initial split 120

second of the Universe. Then, at 10-43 seconds into the creation event, they stop expanding and remain curled up in a tiny ball. The other three dimensions plus time (the four that we understand well) continue to develop into our observable Universe. No one seemed to know why the six new dimensions no longer seemed to be involved with the development of the Universe. The difficulty of the mathematical equations to answer that question, at least in part, was extremely daunting. In the Christmas season of 1994, physicists Ed Witten and Nathan Seiberg were able to solve these equations and it only took an additional few months to develop a workable theory… what has been given the moniker, M-Theory. There is a lot more to the story of how a bunch of brilliant scientists worked very hard to develop this very impressive theory. For those who are interested in reading about some of the interesting details, take a look at the bibliography at the end of this chapter. However, much additional knowledge is needed to be able to adequately explain how these things all work together. What is important to us is that this M-theory was able to unite the physics of the microworld with the physics of the massive Universe.

Although it has been twenty-five years since M-theory was introduced, it still is looked upon by cosmologists as playing a major role in explaining some of the mysteries of our Universe. For example, no theory was able unify in any way gravity with quantum field theories. String theory is a quantum theory that demands the operation of gravity. It is able to explain the properties of all of the known fundamental particles, quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, and the four forces of nature… plus, it can be used to describe the creation event of the Universe. This M-theory pictures a multitude of parallel universes that “pop” into existence, one of which is our Universe. This multiverse theory, therefore, ends up presenting the same basic idea for the creation of our Universe as the previous three mentioned above. One last point to mention, along with the five additional dimensions that superstring theory brought to this theory, there was one additional spatial dimension added when the final form of M-theory was described. Hence, there are a total of ten spatial dimensions and one-time dimension from where the vast variety of parallel universes arise.

Why do scientists believe in other universes when we cannot possibly experience them directly? John Leslie, in his excellent book entitled Universes suggests that there are two fairly strong excuses for believing in multiple universes. The first excuse is that simplicity demands are better satisfied by believing that if a quantum fluctuation was the author of our particular universe, it is only reasonable to believe that other quantum fluctuations would have had to occur in the same fashion throughout eternity past resulting in a multitude of universes. Secondly, and probably most important, is that if it were not for these modern-day multi-universe proposals, the incredible life-supporting coincidences seen in our Universe could only point to a Designer – God! Remember that all of the other alternative proposals (e.g. steady state, oscillating Universe) have been soundly discredited. The belief is that with an infinite number of universes, any apparent design within our Universe can instead be attributed to chance. But why consider 121

theories for the origin of our Universe that have no possible means of verification and little possibility of falsification? Isn’t that the exact same reason that scientists give for refusing to consider the possibility of God as Creator? Well, yes, it is, but the “shoe is now on the other foot.” Apparently, there is a corollary to that edict - that is, it is all right to pursue non-verifiable “scientific” arguments – and still consider it “good science” as long as they do not result in the conclusion that God may exist. Not very consistent, I would say.

Paul Davies asks why should there be the production of so many universes that are relegated to ghost worlds. Good question. If that actually were the case he goes on to state, “we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible. Life is then indeed chancy – more chancy than we could ever conceive.”141 (Other Worlds, p. 14) His point is that it is almost assuredly not the case.

“The history of opposition to the Big Bang theory is, however, one of the reasons it is so convincing today. When a theory has to fight its way against skepticism and opposition within the scientific community and when there is a serious competing theory, it is far more likely to satisfy Popper’s requirement that it be tested for as many as possible of the predictions that would disprove it, and the evidence favoring it must be extremely convincing. ……. A large portion of the scientific community was reluctantly won over to the Big Bang theory by data they didn’t much care to find.”142 (Kitty Ferguson, Fire in the Equations, p. 75-76) So, does this mean that the controversy was over? Of course not! If pigs had aerodynamically designed wings, they could fly. But there is no evidence to suggest that they do… just as there is no evidence that suggests that the multi-universe theory is true. On the other hand, secular cosmologists (and most cosmologists are purely secular and will not allow for a Creator) will “fight to the death” to avoid referencing the God of all creation. That is simply the way it is in our world today. As we have seen, they will freely talk amongst their colleagues about how all the evidence in nature all points to an omnipotent Creator… but, they will never mention a word of this fact to the general public.

Additional Quotes on the Big Bang and the Origin of the Universe Professor John Fornaess, Princeton, "I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the Universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies."144 (ibid, p. 41) “Why is there something rather than nothing? What forces filled the Universe with energy fifteen billion years ago? These are questions of metaphysics – or theology – not physics, but they are interesting.” Professor Robert Jastrow, Columbia Univ.”145 "This religious faith of scientists is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications - in science this is known as "refusing to speculate" - or 122

trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."146 (Robert Jastrow) Einstein spent the last forty years of his life pursuing an ultimate truth… “I want to know how God created this world… I want to know His thoughts…the rest are details.”147 Hawking, Steve, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a Universe for them to describe?”… “Why does the Universe go to all the bother of existing?”148 Heinz Pagels, “The nothingness before the creation of the Universe is the most complete void that we can imagine – no space, time, or matter existed. It is a world without place, without duration or eternity, without number – it is what the mathematicians call ‘empty set.’ Yet this unthinkable void converts itself into the plenum of existence – a necessary consequence of physical laws. Where are these laws written into that void? What tells the void that it is pregnant with a possible Universe? It would seem that even the void is subject to law, a logic that exists prior to space and time.”149 Paul Stoeger,“If there really are multiple Universes, it seems very difficult to see how we would ever find out about the others observationally. But having multiple Universes does not begin to deal with the ultimate questions of why they exist to begin with and why as a collection or ensemble they have the order and potentiality they have for at least one of them to become a Universe like ours. It merely postpones these ultimate questions to a previous step.”150 Professor Charles Townes, “It is true that physicists hope to look behind the ‘big bang’ and possibly explain the origin of the Universe as, for example, a type of fluctuation. But then, of what is a fluctuation and how did this begin to exist?... I believe there is a need for some religious or metaphysical explanation if we are to have one.”151 Einstein, “This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”152 Conclusion: A great deal of information on the creation of the Universe has been discussed in this section on cosmology… some of it can be difficult to understand. Therefore, I now want to review the major points in a very straightforward manner. These six points are the keys to understanding this section: • The discovery of the creation of our Universe via a sudden Big Bang event rocked the scientific world. Scientists from Einstein to Eddington to Hawking all realized that this required a creative force (i.e. God). That bothered them very much.

• There was more bad news for the atheistic/agnostic cosmologist. Over the past few decades, more than 100 incredibly “coincidental” items in the natural world (such as; forces of nature, the elemental make-up of our solar system and Universe, etc.) were 123

•

•

•

•

discovered. These “coincidences” baffled these scientists as there was no way that all of these features of the Universe could have actually coincidentally been available to allow our Universe to grow, exist, and support a planet like Earth, a planet that could support plants, animals, and man. Instead, they all pointed to a Creator, as did the Big Bang.

Not wanting to admit to the public the obvious… that God was behind all creation, many of the group kept working to come up with an idea concerning creation that allowed for a naturalistic beginning for the Universe. Several ideas failed pretty quickly, including the steady state and oscillating universe theories.

Finally, about thirty-five years ago, the researchers arrived at a theory that they knew would work for them --- infinity. Although there is zero evidence of this theory being true (nor will there ever be), the concept of the multiverse (i.e. an infinite number of universes) was hatched. The thought here is that if there are an infinite number of universes, one would end up being able to support life – the one we live in.

There still was the sticky problem of how and who was responsible for the beginning of this multiverse. They are not anxious to answer that question as there can be only one correct answer… an uncaused Cause (i.e. God) Typically, they suggest that these infinite number of never to be seen universes just “pop” into existence via a quantum event. But, who caused this event?

So, for the final point, the discoveries of the past one hundred years concerning our Universe all point to the existence of God. As we shall see in the next section, there is a great deal additional evidence for God’s creative work when the evidence (or lack of it) for evolution is thoroughly discussed.

124

Footnotes: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

Durant, Will, Our Oriental Heritage, 1977. p. 641 Ross, Hugh, Fingerprint of God, 1991. pp. 20-21 Durant, Will and Ariel, Age of Reason, 1977. p.

606 Johnson, Philip, Darwin on Trial, 1993. P. 164 Ibid, p. 163 Moreland, J.P., Creation Hypothesis ,1994. p 132 Ibid, p. 133 Brian, Denis, Einstein, 1996. p.61p Ibid, p.64 Ibid, p.64 Johnson, Philip, Darwin on Trial, 1993. p.9 Ross, Hugh, Fingerprint of God, 1991. p.5 Ibid, p. 5 Brian, Denis, Einstein, 1996. p.92 Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p. 130 Brian, Denis, Einstein, 1996. P.99 Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. p. 3637) Ibid, p.57 Ibid, p.54 Eddington, Sir Arthur, Nature Magazine, vol.

127, The End of the World: From the standpoint of Mathematical Physics, 1931. P. 450 Eddington, Sir Arthur, On the Instability of Einstein's Spherical World, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 90, 1930. p.672 Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. p.104 ibid, p. 104 Davies, Paul, The Cosmic Blueprint., 1987. p.122 Margenau & Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. p. 5 Davies, Paul, The Mind of God, 1992. p. 57 Margenau & Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997, p. 4563 ibid, p. 104 ibid, p. 104 Birth of the Universe, p.140 Gribbin, J. and Rees, Martin, Cosmic Coincidences, 1991. p. 22 Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. P. 236 Ross, Hugh, Creator and the Cosmos, 2001. p.

73) Heeren Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p.135) Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. p. 86 ibid, p.286 ibid, p.289 Ross, Hugh, Creation and Time, 1994. p.101 Paul Copan and William Craig, Creation out of Nothing, 2004. p. 223 ibid, p. 222 Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. P.289 Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. P. 84 Jastrow, R., God and the Astronomers, 1978. p. 9 ibid, p.103

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

125

ibid, p.104 ibid, p.93-94 Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p.133 Margenau & Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. p.167-168 ibid, p.171 Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. p.106 Davies, Paul, Other Worlds. 1990. P.25 Margenau & Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. p.79-80 ibid, p.156 ibid, p.157 ibid, p.168 ibid, p.176 Jastrow, Robert, God and The Astronomers, 1978 p. 14 Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p.110, 92 Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. p. 89 Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. p. 291 Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978.

P.10-11 ibid, p.107 Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. p. 291 Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. p.106 Heeren, Fred, Show me God, 1997. p.108 Silk, Joseph, The Big Bang, 1980. p.119 Heeren, Fred, Show Me God,1997. p. 91 Barrow, John, The Origin of the Universe, 1994.

74p. 137 Hawking, Stephen, Brief History of Time, 1988. p. 122-123 Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. p. 92-93 Smoot, George, Wrinkles of Time, 1993. p.161162 Ross, Hugh, Creator and the Cosmos, 2001. p.112-113 Morris, Richard, Cosmic Questions, 1993. p.169 ibid, p.169 Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p. 210 ibid, p.210 Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. p. 295296 Rees, Martin, Cosmic Coincidences, p. 247 Hoyle, Fred,The Intelligent Universe, 1983. p.218-220 Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p.179 Moreland, J., The Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p.169 ibid, p.169-170 ibid, p.170 Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p.185 Leslie, John, Universes, 2002. p.128)

85.

86.

87.

88.

ibid, p.128 Glynn, Patrick, God: The Evidence, 1997. p.25 Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. p. 293 Dembski, M. & Kushiner, Signs off Intelligence, 2001. p. 168 89. Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p.212 90. Davies, Paul, The Cosmic Blueprint, 1987. p. 203 91. ibid, p.197 92. Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. p. 91 93. ibid, p.90-91 94. ibid, p.88 95. ibid, p.232 96. ibid, p. 211 97. Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p. 208 98. Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. P.124 99. Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p. 211 100. Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. p.131 101. Dembski and Kushiner, Signs of Intelligence, 2001. p.168 102. Morris, Richard, Cosmic Questions, 1993. p.167 103. Martin Rees, Cosmic Coincidences, p. 3,4,5 104. Sternglas, Ernest, “Before the Big Bang – The Origins of the Universe,”(MIT Physics Professor Emeritus) Four Walls Eight Windows, NY, p.262 105. Leslie, John, Universes, 2002. p.51 106. Ibid, p.52 107. Margenau & Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. p. 80 108. Ross, Hugh, Fingerprint of God, 1991.p.66 109. Ferguson, Kitty, Fire in Equations, 1994. p. 75 110. Moreland, J., Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p.146 111. Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p.152 112. Ross, Hugh, Fingerprint of God, 1991. p. 76-77 113. Davies, Paul, The Mind of God, 1992. p.56, p.53-54 114. ibid, p. 57 115. Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. p.70 116. Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997, p.156 117. Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. p.86 118. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. 4, p. 3 119. Ferguson, Kitty, The Fire in the Equations, 1994. p. 122

120. Moreland, J.,The Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p.149 121. Margenau & Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. p.83 122. Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. p.123 123. NASA contribution from the Internet, 1997 124. The Origin of the Universe, lecture by Hawking at ‘Three Hundred Years of Gravity Conference,’ Cambridge, 1987 125. Ferguson, Kitty, The Fire in the Equations, 1994. p.101 126. Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. P.107 127. Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993. P.127 128. Ferguson, Kitty, The Fire in the Equations, 1994. p.75 129. Davies, Paul, Other Worlds, 1990. p.62 130. Ferguson, Kitty, The Fire in the Equations, 1994. p.27 131. Davies, Paul, Other Worlds, 1990. P.33 132. ibid, p.33-34 133. ibid, p.75 134. ibid, p.123 135. ibid, p.124 136. ibid, p.128 137. Eerguson, Kitty, Fire in the Equations, 1994.

P.123 138. Copan, Paul and Craig, W., Creation Out of Nothing, 2004. p. 235 139. ibid, p. 236 140. Ross, Hugh, The Fingerprint of God, 1991. p.14 141. Davies, Paul, Other Worlds, 1990. p.14 142. Ferguson, Kitty, Fire in the Equations, 1994. p.75-76 143. Davies, Paul, The Mind of God, 1992. p. 57 144. Margenau & Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. p.41 145. ibid, 49 146. Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. p105 147. Margenau and Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. p.2 148. Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. p.223 149. Margenau and Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. p.9 150. ibid, p.10 151. ibid, p.11 152. ibid, p.11

126

Section 3 – Evolutiom – What is the Evidence?

This third section of the book is entirely about the topic of evolution. Ever since Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species in 1859, this conception of the origin of life has dominated the minds of multiple millions of people. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists have bought into this theory, now labelled Neo-Darwinism, hook, line, and sinker. It truly is amazing how this theory has dominated world culture and affected the spiritual lives of countless millions of people. Although there are many Christians that believe that God simply used evolution as His tool for the creation of life and its further development, the reality is that the biblical account of our Universe’s creation and the origin of life (i.e. plant, animal, and mankind) is not actually consistent with ideas behind evolution.

Sadly, and inappropriately, scientists around the world “preach” to the masses that evolution is no longer just a theory, but should be considered a fact. They literally have taken other scientists and teachers to court to stop anyone from teaching students about the many fallacious arguments in their theory of evolution… and the courts, sadly, have been on the side of the evolutionists. Legally, professors and teachers are not allowed to teach their students about the incredible shortcomings in Darwin’s theory. This is really ridiculous as this theory would fall very quickly if the evidence against it was not kept from the general population. The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that macroevolution has ever occurred… and this would be required for Neo-Darwinism to be a valid theory.

I have written this book to share with the reader much of the recent excellent information that has relegated the theory of evolution to the scrapheap of history… hopefully, those reading this book will share the information within with their friends and family. Somehow, the truth needs to be revealed to the masses.

127

Chapter 10:

Origin of Life

I believe that a careful reading of the previous section of this book will have convinced most open-minded people that our Universe was supernaturally created. More than that, however, is the fact that in order for the earth to support life, far too many “lucky” events took place for them all to be merely coincidental. No, a supernatural force was required to direct the development of our world so that life (including human life) could be supported. Of course, for most of human history, the vast majority of people attributed the origin of all life to be from the creative hand of God. After Charles Darwin introduced his theory of evolution in his seminal book, The Origin of the Species in 1859, many scientists began to wonder how life may have begun abiotically (i.e. non-living physical and chemical factors eventually yielding living cells).

A very detailed discussion of Darwin’s theory of evolution will be undertaken after the conclusion of this chapter.

In the 1920s, a famous Russian biochemist, A. I Oparin, postulated that the primitive earth’s atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. He believed that these four chemicals reacted with other chemicals on the earth’s surface or in the seas, and, after millions or billions of years, a living cell was produced. That cell, according to Darwin’s theory, was all that would be needed to eventually populate the earth with all that we now see in it. In 1929, a British scientist, J.B.S. Haldane independently published an article where he postulated that organic molecules were synthesized in the early earth’s reducing atmosphere and were dissolved in the primitive oceans forming what he termed a “hot, dilute soup.” From this soup, life evolved… he said.

In 1950, a young graduate student, Stanley Miller, attended a lecture given by Nobel laureate Harold Urey concerning the origin of the solar system. Urey alluded to Oparin’s idea of the early earth’s atmosphere, and wondered what would happen if energy was passed through this mixture of gases. Miller really liked this idea and by 1953 he was working under Urey as a graduate student. He set up the needed equipment and chemicals. He had a heat source, water in a small boiling flask, and a simulated atmosphere of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor plus a water trap that would collect any products that were produced after an electric spark was applied to the circulating gases. In a rough way, this apparatus simulated the purported early earth’s environment. The spark was to simulate lightning. The water trap simulated the pools, oceans, or lakes where the first life supposedly made its appearance. In his second attempt, Miller was able to find evidence of the simplest amino acid having been produced. On his third attempt, with more vigorous boiling of the water, he noticed the solution looked pink the following morning. At the end of the week, he ran a two-dimensional chromatogram on the contents. Seven purple spots appeared after he sprayed the area with ninhydrin indicating more amino acids had formed! Three were able to be identified as glycine, alpha-alanine and betaalanine. Success! Over the decades, Miller and many other investigators have run and re-run this same type of experiment many times and have been able to produce many additional amino acids by varying the initial conditions. In all cases, however, the experiments excluded oxygen. To 128

produce the amino acids, a reducing (no oxygen) atmosphere was a must. Of course, Miller became very famous and his 1953 experiment is still featured in every textbook that deals with life’s origin. Astronomer Harlow Shapley noted in 1959 that these results “assure us of what we had suspected for a long time: that one can bridge the gap between the inanimate and the animate and that the appearance of life is essentially an automatic biochemical development that comes along naturally when physical conditions are right.”1 Also, the making of a few amino acids is a long way from producing a living cell! Not only that, but it must be pointed out that not long after the Miller experiment, many scientists pointed out that the primitive earth’s atmosphere almost certainly was not reducing in nature. For example, in 1962, Heinrich Holland, a Princeton geochemist, wrote, “There seems little question now that the constituents of the Earth’s atmosphere have been largely, if not wholly, evolved from the interior of the Earth.” He believed that volcanic gases were ejected into the air yielding a reducing atmosphere rich in hydrogen.

The hydrogen would quickly escape into space. Geophysicist, Philip Abelson, agreed with Holland and felt that the primitive atmosphere consisted of hydrogen, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. He felt that there was no evidence at all that the early atmosphere had a mixture of methane and ammonia. For one thing, any ammonia in it would have been destroyed by ultraviolet radiation in a relatively short time. Also, all around the globe, rocks of antiquity (e.g. the “dawn rocks” in Western Greenland) have been evaluated for several decades and have revealed no evidence of a significant amount of carbon or even a trace amount of any abiotically formed organic materials. Of course, that should not be the case if there actually were a biotically produced compound in earth’s earliest environment. That should also not be the case if methane made up a significant portion of the early environment.

By 1975, Belgium biochemist Marcel Florkin wrote that the “concept of a reducing primitive atmosphere has been abandoned.” “The Miller-Urey experiment is “not now considered geologically adequate.”2 Finally, biochemists Sidney Fox and Klaus Dose wrote that a reducing atmosphere “did not seem to be geologically realistic.”3 Miller tried for many years to get the production of a significant number of amino acids in a reducing atmosphere… but, was not able to do so. Without methane included, only the simplest amino acid, glycine, could be produced. Physicist, Freeman Dyson wrote in 1999, “Miller’s beguiling picture of a pond full of dissolved amino acids under a reducing atmosphere has been discredited.” “His experiment was supposed to be a true simulation of prebiotic chemistry on the primitive Earth. But now, nobody believes this anymore.”4 This may be a good place to outline a current likely viewpoint on when and how the surface of the Earth became habitable about four billion years ago.

Fully formed cells have been found in fossil form as far back as 3.5 billion years ago.

Limestone, with the remnants of organisms, has been dated all the way back to 3.8 billion years ago. In fact, carbon dating reveals that there was a significant amount of life on earth between 3.5 and 3.86 billion years ago. Given that the Earth’s surface remained molten and was unable to support life until 3.9 billion years ago, there was only 40 million years (3.90 - 3.86 billion) between the cooling of our Earth and the first known evidence of life. That is really very little time geologically speaking. Relatively recent research has revealed that the Earth was 129

subject to heavy bombardment by comets, asteroids, and meteors during its early history. No life would have been able to survive most of those impacts. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross states that during the 400 million years from 3.9 to 3.5 billion years ago, there were “at least 30 life exterminating impacts.”5 Therefore, there was really only a very short period of time available to those scientists who were convinced that it should take billions of years for life to evolve from inorganic matter (i.e. without supernatural input). However, another blow to that idea came when it was discovered that the radiation released from the decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium40 in the primitive Earth’s surface resulted in the dissociation of some of the water in the oceans into hydrogen and oxygen. So, once the molten Earth’s surface cooled adequately, the atmosphere became oxidizing. Hence, essentially no amino acids nor any nucleotides would be produced. Thorough analysis of carbon isotopes in primitive rock sediments, revealed that all of the carbonaceous material was post-biotic. That is, there was no evidence of any prebiotic soup as there was no trace of it in the ancient rocks.

Although the evidence now points to the almost certain fact that there never was an adequate pre-biotic soup that existed to give rise to the earliest life form, scientists are not about to give up on their attempts to be the first to create life… so, these inert, lifeless, chemical experiments like Stanley Miller’s continue to this day. Biochemists travel around the globe in search of intriguing chemically-rich pools of water and work every day in elaborate laboratories trying to simulate the production of the first living cell. No luck, so far. As we shall now see, even if an adequate supply of amino acids were produced in that early environment, there were far too many other obstacles to overcome for life to make its appearance simply by chance. Take a look at the many incredible obstacles that need be overcome for pure chance to have been the cause of first life. Let me first point out that living systems distinguish themselves from nonliving chemical systems in that they can process energy, store information for use, and selfreplicate.

1. Proteins are found in living cells. These proteins consist of long strings of amino acids, usually chains of at least 300 them. The interesting thing about amino acids is that they can appear in L-form (left-handed) or D-form (right-handed). In all of the Miller type experiments, the amino acids produced are racemic – that is, they appear equally as Lform and D-form. However, for whatever reason, in proteins, they always appear in the L-form! All amino acids must be joined together in a protein by a particular type off bond – a peptide bond. Yet, in prebiotic experiments, the bonds that are formed are only 50% peptide, and 50% of another type. Without the L-form of each amino acid and the proper peptide bonds from one amino acid to the next, the resultant protein would not be viable.

Given the fact that there are twenty different amino acids that can be chosen at any given spot in a protein chain, the odds of picking all L-amino acids in a 100 amino acid protein is: (½)100 = roughly 1 chance in 1030 and then having them all form peptide bonds throughout the same chain of 100 amino acids is: 1 chance in 1030. But that is not all that has to be considered in chance’s quest to form a viable protein for life. Not just any series of amino acids will work. A viable protein must have the correct sequence of amino acids 130

2.

3.

4.

5.

in order to be functional. Since there are twenty biological amino acids available for use, there would be just one chance in twenty that the correct one would land in any given spot. Now, it is true that some sites can tolerate more than one amino acid and still yield a protein that will be serviceable. However, the chance that a 100 long amino acid protein chain formed by the chance placement of amino acids is ludicrously small… estimated to be no more than one chance in 10125. So, to simply arrive at just one chance viable protein, the odds are (1 chance in 1030) (1 chance in 1030) (1 chance in 10125). Folks, that is never going to happen. No way! That protein will never be built by chance… never.

However, that is only the beginning. That would only result in a single protein. Keep in mind, that to have even the simplest living organism, there would need be at least 100 complex proteins and DNA and RNA. Another problem with amino acids that might form in the primitive earth environment that would interfere with the likelihood of them linking up with appropriate other amino acids is the fact that there would be cumbersome masses of cross-reactions with other chemicals. In fact, no significant biopolymers have ever been found in Miller type experiments – primarily, only the occasional amino acid. Also, studies have shown that there are no bonding preferences of note that would play a significant role in the proper sequencing of amino acids in any given protein. The same is true for the sequencing tendencies of DNA. Chemical bonding forces have minimal effect on the alignment of nucleotides in a polynucleotide.

There have been reports of racemic sugars being produced at times… but, only racemic sugars (equal amounts of left and right-handed sugars). Yet, only right-handed sugars are found in living material.

American biochemist, Harold Morowitz suggested what would be the absolute minimum requirements to arrive at a self-replicating cell. It would absolutely require a cell membrane – this should be the classic bi-layered lipid membrane seen in all cells today.

At least five proteins would be needed to make this membrane, eight more for energy metabolism, and another ten or so for nucleotide production. For all the various cellular functions (e.g. mRNA, ribosomes, etc.), he suggested that a total of at least eighty proteins would be required. This type of cell would not be forthcoming from any kind of prebiotic pool of chemicals… even if they did exist.

For all of the above reasons, Sir Frederick Hoyle has been quoted as saying that the odds of life forming spontaneously is comparable to the odds of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and producing a finished Boeing 747 aircraft – as I said, it is not going to happen.

Be that as it may, scientists may never give up on trying to be the first to demonstrate that life can come from non-living chemicals. However, since the 1980s, most origin of life researchers have accepted that fact. So, they have been concentrating on finding material that they refer to as protocells. It is their hope, that these cells will represent the link between the synthesis of macromolecules and an actual living cell. These cells would be a string of amino acids that 131

would, hopefully, have some of the characteristics of actual proteins and might eventually selfreplicate and, via some nebulous biochemical evolutionary process, develop into an actual living cell. In other words, once these protocells were produced, natural selection would take over and eventually lead to a living cell… and, then, one day, to all life. Keep in mind, that origin of life scientists will not ever choose a supernatural creative source as the cause of the first life on earth no matter how obvious that choice is to a person with common sense. Remember, the current definition of science forbids this possibility.

Many different ideas have been proposed for these protocells. An excellent book, Mystery of Life’s Origin by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen goes into great detail on this topic. In fact, they detail nine different possibilities that have been studied by scientists to look into how life began via a protocell. They all have basically the same theme so I will review one of the more popular ideas. Sidney Fox used a thermal synthesis of polypeptides and called the products proteinoids. He heated only L-form amino acids at 160-180 degrees C for 6-7 hours in a nitrogen atmosphere. After eliminating the water in the mixture via vaporization, a chain of polypeptides of up to 200 units long was produced. When these amino acid chains cooled, they formed microspheres. These small spherical “cells” did have some similar properties to an actual living cell. These proteinoids were a collection of amino acids but they did not adequately resemble proteins. Let us take a look at several properties of these microspheres and compare them to an actual cell: • Fox artificially chose only L-form amino acids and only those amino acids that actually form into proteins in the real world. This would certainly not have been possible in the early Earth environment. Instead, there would be a 50-50 mixture of L and D form amino acids trying to form into a chain and much interference from cross-reactions in the “soup.”

• Their amino acid sequence was of no more value than a random sequence of amino acids (and had only a small amount of catalytic activity).

• The heat used to form these proteinoids would have actually broken them down well before they could have amounted to anything in the early Earth environment.

• They would be stainable – but, that is no big deal.

• They could have a form of propagation. However, this would only be by “budding” – a breaking up of the microsphere due to heat or a change in the pH. • They could grow via physical force of attraction… not, via any actual replication as in a living cell.

• They would tend to have a small amount of catalytic activity… due primarily to the amino acids in the chain and not because of any “teamwork” from the collection of amino acids in the chain.

• There would be a small amount of selective passage of substances due to the boundary of the microsphere. Mainly, however, this boundary would serve more as an impermeable cell wall. This cell membrane would not contain lipids nor carry out any of the normal functions of an actual real cell wall.

132

•

•

Most significantly, these microspheres would not carry any information content, have no energy system, have no real enzymatic functionality, no DNA, RNA, nor genetic code.

Another problem with this set-up was that it was totally unrealistic to assume that a large collection of pure, dry amino acids would be available in the primitive earth. So, the reality is that these proteinoids were just a collection of random polymers and should not have been used to simulate protein formation in the early earth environment.

Other investigators have used direct photochemical (ultraviolet) polymerization to form polypeptides. Still others, began with energy rich precursors like HCN, and others have used a form of mineral catalysts. All of these scientists have been trying to simulate their idea of a reasonable early earth environment in their attempt to form polypeptides. The prebiotic plausibility of all of these experiments was highly questionable. A very large measure of the credit for any proteinoid formed needs to go to the investigator’s original set-up… but, even so, very little progress has been made by any of the investigators since the original Miller experiment of 1953. There has been a reasonable amount of success in synthesizing amino acids, but an abysmal failure in synthesizing any DNA or proteins. Frankly, amino acids are extremely simple structures compared to the other two. The fact is that the closest scientists have come to producing anything resembling something that conceivably could eventually go on to form a living entity, was the proteinoid.

Scientist William Day, was not impressed with any of the forms of protocells. In fact, he said, “No matter how you look at it, this is scientific nonsense.” He concluded with, “These pseudo-cellular models,… have neither the mechanism nor the potential of becoming anything beyond what they are… But the most serious fault from particles held together by ionic forces is that they would have been periled with dissolution. … Their existence in Archean lakes or oceans would have been short-lived.”6 A similar comment by D. Green and R. Goldberg reads as follows, “The macromolecule [protocell]-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions…

The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.”

By the way, there are some scientists that have been willing to recognize the blatant evidence that life on earth cannot have come about as the result of pure chance events. Now, that is an intelligent conclusion. However, they still will not recognize the only obvious cause of life’s origin… i.e. God. Instead, they actually suggest that life first appeared on earth because it was brought here from another planet in the Universe. Somehow, they don’t seem to recognize the obvious fact that this just puts back the question of origins to another planet and another time.

The question would still be the same. Hence, I will say no more on this topic which is referred to as panspermia.

The bottom line to remember is that living cells are made up of an incredible information-filled molecular system of specified complexity. As has been shown, the concept that pure “chance” is responsible for the origin of life and the incredibly complex, and specific 133

information system that all living organisms display has been deemed to be very inadequate. The probability that “chance” alone could bring all the necessary chemical components and have them react with one another is, in essence, statistically “zero.” Belgium physical chemistry Noble laureate, Ilya Prigogine, said that it was “vanishingly small… even on the scale of… billions of years.” Douglas Axe contributed one additional probability statistic that will re-enforce what was said a couple of pages ago. He pointed out in a paper he wrote in 2004 that the probability of chance leading to a 150-amino acid protein is one chance in 10164! For those of you not familiar with this kind of notation, that is one chance out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,………,000,000 all the way up to 164 zeros! Truly, that protein is not being made!

Researchers were not willing to give up in their search for abiogenesis. The idea of the “primordial soup” supplying the necessary compounds that would lead to a living cell was looking pretty grim to say the least. But, it was all they had to work with… except for passing the buck with the silly idea of panspermia. So, researchers began looking for self-organizational laws of nature that would automatically lead the molecules on the primordial Earth’s surface, wherever they were, into the necessary complex specified information found in DNA and proteins. Scientists in the origin of life field were pinning their hopes on the idea that somehow there was something about the whole primordial set-up that required self-organization. Somehow it was inevitable that amino acids and other chemicals would come together in just the correct order, form proteins, DNA, RNA, etc. It just had to be that way since pure chance was no longer a possibility, supernatural intervention was not to be considered, so, self-organization was, literally, all that was left. Dean Kenyon was a leading proponent of this idea in the 1970s.

However, by the mid-80s, he recognized the error in this thinking and has spent much of these last 35 years writing and speaking against this idea. The fact is that although there are some minor affinities between certain amino acids that may help them form linkages easier with one amino acid than another, these organizational affinities are really rather insignificant. The same is true when looking at DNA. For instance, there are no noteworthy affinities between any of the four bases and binding sites along the sugar-phosphate backbone of the DNA molecule. The same is true for the RNA molecule. Simply put, there are no “hidden” self-organizing aspects that would help in the generation of any nucleic acid molecule. That is, there is nothing unusual about the forces of attraction between any of the constituent parts of a DNA or RNA molecule (or protein molecule) that would lead to their sequence specificity. They get this somewhere else… as it is not there by chance, and not by self-organization. The properties of the components of nucleic acids and amino acids do not have any appreciable effect on their ultimate arrangement in the living cell.

There is one last topic to cover before wrapping up this chapter on life’s origins. That is the idea of the RNA World scenario as the method that nature used to initiate life on Earth. This RNA World, as it is referred to, was proposed to suggest that RNA would be able to perform both the enzymatic functions of proteins and information-storage function of DNA. RNA, as it turns out, does have some limited enzymatic capabilities that can mimic proteins in a very limited way. These molecules also are loaded with information. The hope was that RNA would 134

perform these two important functions until the first cell was produced… then, the typical DNA, RNA, protein system would take over. However, there were many problems with this system.

For instance: • For somewhat complicated reasons, it has been demonstrated that there would not be an adequate supply of three critical components of RNA formation – ribose, cytosine, and polyphosphates. Origin of life researcher, Leslie Orgel stated in a lecture in 2002 that, “It would be a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth.” He said this in part because of the lack of the three components just mentioned above.

• There were many different elements in the primordial oceans that would lead to a breakdown of RNA molecules. For example, cerium, glutamate, histidine, and mineral surfaces that contain lead or calcium.

• Although researchers have been able to make RNA enzymes that can do some enzymatic work, they have yet to figure out how to give it self-replicating power.

• RNA-world advocates offer no reasonable explanation for the transition from RNA-based RNA synthesis to RNA-based protein synthesis nor to the beautiful DNA, RNA, protein system cells employ today.

• Most problematic is the fact that no explanation of how the proper RNA specified complex sequence of amino acids would be formed has been offered. Without that, this whole idea collapses.

• A few recent studies initially demonstrated some interesting results until it was recognized that “investigator interference” (i.e. the researchers added too many things to help the experiment along) was actually the reason for the ostensible success of the study.

In conclusion, the laboratory work done these last thirty-five years in RNA-World research has not appreciably advanced our knowledge of non-supernatural causes for the origin of life.

The same is true for those concentrating on protocell research.

Summary: Unfortunately, secular scientists always attempt to find non-miraculous reasons for events in our Universe that required God’s miraculous intervention. That is not unreasonable to a point… but, after recognizing that any given event could not realistically have occurred by chance, it is really too bad that scientists do not allow themselves to recognize God must have intervened in our world. We just completed a chapter showing many reasons that the origin of life was not simply an incredible natural event. A bullet point summary of just a few of the multitude of reasons that show that the origin of life was not simply a “chance” occurrence follows: 1. The famous Miller-Urey (1953) experiment was not carried out using realistic environmental conditions that would mimic the actual primordial conditions that were in place at the time of life’s origin. The actual atmosphere was not reducing in nature which was required for the production of amino acids.

135

2. There is no evidence in the early Earth’s rock formations that there ever was any “primordial soup.”

3. Only L-form of amino acids will be used in protein formation – both L and D forms appear with equal frequency in nature. Only peptide bonds are used in amino acid protein formation. Many other bonds are formed with amino acids in the real world.

4. Even the simplest protein will have 100-150 amino acids.

5. When one considers the probability of choosing the correct type of amino acid, using only peptide bonds to create a protein chain, and picking the proper amino acid for each position out of twenty possible choices for each position, the odds that it will be done correctly is, literally, virtually zero. For a protein of 150 amino acid length, the odds of this appearing by chance have been calculated to be one chance in 10164.

6. At least 80-100 proteins would need to be created somehow to have a functioning cell.

7. If somehow a primordial soup did exist, massive cross-reactions would seriously interfere with protein formation.

8. There does not appear to be any mechanism that would allow for the production of a cell membrane.

9. Protocells have not shown any appreciable promise in researcher’s quest to find the precursor to the first living cell. In fact, never has anyone come close to producing life in a laboratory.

10. Using RNA as the first molecular precursor due to it can exhibit limited enzyme activity plus it does have information-storage capability as well. It has not proven particularly useful. This is referred to as the RNA World.

The bottom line, therefore is: “If you look at the early Earth as a possible site for manufacturing life, it turns out that the case is non-existent, I would say for such a thing happening on the Earth… All that I am sure about is that life could not have happened on the Earth spontaneously.”7 (Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe) Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner, “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.”8 Sir Francis Crick, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going.”9 Frank Salisbury, Utah State University, “… the chances of this one tiny DNA molecule’s coming into existence over 4 billion years ago, with conditions just right [are] just one chance in 10415.”

M. Denton, “Rocks of great antiquity have been examined over the past two decades and in none of them has any trace of a biotically produced compound been found. Most notably of these rocks are the “dawn rocks” of western Greenland, the earlies dated rocks on the planet, 136

considered to be approaching 3.9 billion years old. … There is absolutely no positive evidence for its (the prebiotic soup) existence.”10 Walter ReMine, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability. A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.”11 Conclusion: It has become extremely obvious to any reasonable scientist that life on earth did not arrive abiotically. Folks have been trying very hard now for seventy years to make just a little headway… but, to no avail. As has been shown above, it is never going to happen. The odds are simply much too low… ridiculously low. It is just so very sad that High School and College biology textbooks still present this topic as having been essentially accomplished and herald the “incredible” Miller experiment of 1953. That is just so wrong. I hope more and more teachers will begin to teach the truth on this subject and others in this book. Now, on to the major topic of evolution.

137

Chapter 11:

Evolution

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) was a British naturalist who developed a theory of evolution by natural selection (definitions to be given a little later). His father was a physician, Dr. Robert Darwin, and his paternal grandfather was Dr. Erasmus Darwin, who, interestingly, wrote a book on the subject of evolution. Charles’s mother died when Charles was a boy of eight years old. When he was in his mid-teens, his father, concerned because of his son’s apparent lack of interest in academic matters, enrolled him at Edinburgh University to study medicine – to continue the family tradition. He learned a lot about biology, zoology, and botany while in college there. He also was exposed to some radical thinkers who were questioning the standard views of that time concerning topics such as theology and the origin of life. He was a strong believer in God prior to his entrance at Edinburgh, but he definitely developed doubts with respect to these views during his time at school. Sadly, similar problems befall our youth these days during their college years… left-wing brainwashing is a terrible, but almost always present concern at most all U. S. colleges (public or private). A radical evolutionist, Robert Grant, became Charles’ mentor during those early years. Eventually, his father arranged for his son to continue his education at Christ’s College in Cambridge. He did well there and graduated in the top 10% of his class in 1931. He continued gaining important knowledge in the fields of botany, zoology and geology under the tutelage of Reverend John Henslow and Reverend Adam Sedgwick. His big break came that same year, in 1931, when he was invited to go as a selffinanced companion on a five-year voyage to Tierra Del Fuego at the southern tip of South America. Robert Fitzroy was the 26-year old captain of the HMS Beagle. Darwin was only 22 years old when the ship sailed away on what was to become a most famous journey.

During this five-year voyage, Darwin was able to spend 3 ½ years exploring various places on land. He explored the jungles of Brazil, the Andes Mountains, and, of course, the Galapagos Islands. He kept voluminous notes on the various animals he encountered… such living creatures as caterpillars, flatworms, wasps, spiders, a wide variety of fossils, bones of extinct mammals, rhinoceroses, mastodons, giant armadillos and giant sloths. During his fiveyear trip, he lived through an earthquake and a volcanic eruption. Also, during this time period, he noted that the mainland of South America had apparently risen a small amount. In fact, he found fossilized trees in sandstone, 7,000 feet above sea-level.

In 1835, the HMS Beagle began its return trip to England. On the way, it stopped off in the Galapagos Islands (600 miles west of South America). Iguanas, tortoises, and a variety of birds were their company. They even brought the turtles and iguanas onto the ship as pets. The islands were occupied by a strange collection of birds and animals. Darwin collected numerous finches and other birds. In fact, he collected 14 different species of finches. He was convinced that they all must have evolved from a single original type. He figured that somehow a few finches got over to these islands from the mainland and, through natural selection and a great deal of time, various different species of this finch type became manifest depending on the specific habitat that the finches found themselves living in. The beaks of these finches varied depending on the food that they found to eat.

138

The ship returned to Britain by way of Tahiti, New Zealand, and Australia. Darwin correctly came to the conclusion that coral reefs grew on sinking mountain rims. The coral built up to compensate for the sinking land mass.

When the trip was complete, Darwin had written a 770-page diary along with an additional 1,750 pages of notes. He also had painstakingly drawn up 12 catalogs of his over 5,000 specimens of bones, skins, and carcasses. He arrived back home with a massive amount of experience, much information, and all sorts of questions to think about as the years passed. He no longer was certain that his fundamentalist Christian belief that he had at the onset of his voyage in 1931 was the correct way of looking at the creation account. He had studied Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology while on the voyage. That knowledge was in addition to all of the information he gained through his study of fossils and the various animals along the way, and his sure knowledge that the Andes Mountains had risen up over the course of many millions of years. He was now beginning to formulate his ideas on evolution… ideas that would soon affect an incredible change in the way so many people viewed the world… and how they viewed God. In March 1937, after a conversation with John Gould, Darwin considered himself to be an evolutionist. After reading the works of Malthus on population, he was able to say, “Here at last I had got a theory by which to work.” He also wrote his theory as it stood at that time, “As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in a manner profitably to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principles of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.”

By 1842, Darwin had completed a rough draft of his theory on natural selection (that he updated in 1844). He was actually somewhat afraid of what would happen if he should publish this treatise at that time. The response that proponents of evolution got in the 1940s was not pleasant. In fact, Darwin at one point said that “believing in evolution was like confessing a murder.” So, during those years, he simply instructed his wife to publish his treatise if he should die… he could get any future glory for having come up with the theory, but not have to worry about the immediate consequences… as he would already be dead.

By the time the mid-50s came, he was really well off financially and had gained a great deal of prestige in the study of various species. He wrote four important monographs on his study of barnacles. He was really becoming known for his scientific work and it was not going to be too long before he had the nerve to publish his greatest work on the Origin of the Species. As 1860 approached, he got word of the fact that Alfred Russel Wallace was about to publish an abstract that covered the same ground as Darwin’s book. So, Darwin, wanting to make sure that he was properly credited with his ideas on natural selection and survival of the fittest, allowed Lyell and Hooker to present his extract along with Wallace’s work at a Linnean Society meeting on July 1, 1858. Charles had to miss the meeting as he was still mourning the death of his young son from scarlet fever.

139

In November 1859, Darwin published his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Although he was still very concerned that his book would cause a big uproar, Thomas Huxley, by now a good friend, helped him present the book to the scientific community and soon Darwin was heralded as a very forward-thinking scientist… a man that had made a very important contribution to science. Yes, it was true that some religious leaders were upset at the implication this theory suggested about the need (or lack thereof) for God in the entire topic of origins and some newspapers also wrote about how this theory suggests that man evolved from the apes… actually, man evolved from a one-celled organism. Darwin really wanted to avoid that topic… but, there it was, right in the newspapers! Oh well.

Darwin was a pretty sickly man during much of the 1860s. Yet, he was still able to eventually write another important book, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871). By all accounts, Darwin was a very gentle and nice man. He was surrounded by people who wanted to protect him and his legacy. These included Thomas Huxley and Joseph Hooker.

He completed his autobiography just before he died… it was a biography that was meant only for his grandchildren. He died in 1881. Arguably, Charles Darwin was the most significant scientist of the last 150 years. His theory of evolution has had a profound effect on the eternal souls of countless millions of people. So, let us take a look at that theory and see what it purports to be true… then, we will see if it is true.

140

Chapter 12:

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution:

Living organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable or behavioral traits.

Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment can help it survive and have more offspring. All life on earth is connected, one to another. This diversity of life came about because of modifications in population driven by natural selection. Natural selection is often looked at as survival of the fittest – that is, selecting out the organism that is best able to survive and reproduce. There is no doubt that natural selection can result in small changes to living organisms such as changes in color or size. This type of change is called microevolution. Darwin believed that given enough time and the proper environment, microevolutionary changes could and would one day lead to macroevolutionary changes. These large changes have occurred throughout the history of our world, according to Darwin, and have resulted in taking the smallest, one-celled organism from billions of years ago, and eventually, after thousands of microevolutionary changes, leading to all the many life forms that have existed since time and our world began. For example, Darwin believed that human beings evolved from a one-celled animal after a massive series of mutations was followed by the inevitable consequences of natural selection.

Unfortunately, Darwin’s theory of evolution has had an incredible impact on society.

Prior to this theory, almost everyone believed that an Almighty God was behind the creation of all life, including mankind. Darwin’s new idea really changed the minds of millions of people… so many people were now questioning their faith. For example, Stephen Gould, a famous Harvard evolutionist, noted, “No vital forces propel evolutionary change. Whatever we think of God, His existence is not manifest in the products of nature.”12 American philosopher, Daniel Dennett wrote that “Darwin was offering a skeptical world a scheme for creating Design out of Chaos without the aid of Mind [God]”13 Dennett went on to say that now instead of the Universe’s matter being a product of the Mind, the minds in our Universe are actually only the product of matter. They are the result of an undirected, mindless, purposeless process. Richard Dawkins, a famous evolutionist, added, “Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind, and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future.” Dawkins claims that nothing is needed for life except the laws of physics. In other words, this theory of evolution had and continues to have the impact of an earthquake on mankind’s search for significance in this world. According to this theory, we are all no more significant than a cockroach. That thought and similar thoughts like it are not good… Darwin’s new theory has caused a lot of misery over the last 160 years.

Pertinent Definitions: •

Microevolution: changes in allele frequency that can be observed within a population.

These changes can come through mutation, gene drift, and gene flow. Mutation is the only source of new alleles that theoretically allows for an increase in genetic diversity.

141

•

•

• • •

• • • • • • •

•

Typically, the vast majority of mutations are harmful to the organism and are not carried on to the next generation. Rarely, there will be an advantageous mutation and this organism may well be selected to continue via natural selection. Massive numbers of this kind of evolutionary change supposedly leads to macroevolutionary changes and new types of organisms.

Macroevolution: evolution that is guided by selection among interspecific variation, as opposed to selection among intraspecific variation as seen in microevolution. This modern definition differs from the original concept, which referred macroevolution to the evolution of taxa above the species level (genera, families, orders etc.). Many biologists simply believe that macroevolution is caused by the same changes to an organism as seen in microevolution… it is just that the time scale is massively greater in macroevolution… even into the multiple millions of years. Macroevolution describes patterns on the tree of life at a grand scale across vast time periods including stability, gradual change, rapid change, adaptive radiations, extinctions, the co-evolution of two or more species, and convergent evolution in traits between species. Macroevolutionary studies tend to draw heavily from the fossil record.

Gene: a distinct sequence of nucleotides forming part of a chromosome, the order of which determines the order of monomers in a polypeptide or nucleic acid molecule which a cell (or virus) may synthesize.

Allele: one of two or more alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and are found at the same place on a chromosome.

Uniformitarianism: the belief that the origin and development of all things can be explained exclusively in terms of the same natural laws and processes operating today.

Neo-Darwinism: the synthesis between Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and modern population genetics (based on Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics) and the assumption that the variations on which selection acts are produced primarily by gene mutations. The term "Neo-Darwinism" marks the combination of natural selection and genetics, as has been variously modified since it was first proposed.

Gene Pool: all the genes of all of the individuals in the population Adaption: how an organism is fine-tuned for its environment Speciation: the arrival of a new species Phylogeny: the history of the evolution of a species or group, especially in reference to lines of descent and relationships among broad groups of organisms.

Disparity: major differences in form that separate higher level taxonomic categories Diversity: minor differences seen in organisms within species or genera Mutation: A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene. Mutations range in size; they can affect anywhere from a single DNA building block (base pair) to a large segment of a chromosome that includes multiple genes Morphology: form and structure of organism

142

• • • • •

•

•

Vestigial Organs: organs that likely were useful in ancestral species, but are now of no significant value Biogeography: the study of the geographical distribution of organisms around the globe Paleontologist: one who studies prehistoric life typically through the study of fossils.

Saltation: a large leap in evolution from one organism to another Stasis: organisms in a certain species or family do not change during their time on earth.

These organisms appear in the fossil record looking much the same when they first appear and when they last appear.

Homology: similarity of the structure, physiology, molecular traits, or development of different species of organisms based upon their descent from a common evolutionary ancestor.

Convergence: similar organs, structures, and colors exist in unrelated organisms. For example, bats and porpoises have very similar sonar systems, yet they are not related genetically. Another example relates to the lateral sense organs of the Capitellidae and the Vertebrates. They demonstrate amazing convergence but no homology. This is what one would expect from an Intelligent Designer… not expected from evolution.

If Darwin’s theory of macroevolution is true, certain things should be expected as follows: •

•

• • • •

•

There should be a long and continuous series of fossil evidence showing the changes in living organisms as they evolve from one living species to another… and as they continue on to yield different families and classes, etc.

We should be able to fill out the “tree of life” as the fossil evidence is discovered. The “gaps” in the fossil record should be filled in. There should be thousands of transitional forms of life seen in the fossil record.

We should see relatively frequent evidence of microevolutionary changes in nature.

We should also see examples of macroevolutionary changes and be able to see multiple transition/intermediate organisms… either in life or in the fossil record.

Possibly, one might be able to create a laboratory situation that simulates the primitive earth’s environment and see if life can be created.

One would not expect to see much in the way of stasis in the fossil record. Instead, we should see a very slow, but notable change in the fossil record as the years go by… by the millions.

We should not see the sudden appearance of organisms… this would suggest a Creator, not evolution.

Literally, each any one of the upcoming chapters that you are about to read should present you with all of the evidence that you should need to reject macroevolution as a reasonable possibility for all of the life that you see on earth today. Instead, it will become obvious that an

143

Intelligent Designer, God, was required to bring life into existence in the first place and to be intimately involved with the continued presence of life throughout the ages.

In each of the remaining chapters in this section, I will present a particular topic in some detail that gives important evidence against Darwin’s theory of evolution. Frankly, I believe that any one of the chapters would suffice to convince an open-minded person that Neo-Darwinian macroevolution is not responsible for the vast variety of organism seen in our world today. Small changes via microevolution do happen… however, large changes never occur… never.

Before getting started with the main subject matter in this section, i.e. reviewing, one after another, the various evidences that show that macroevolution does not happen in our world… I want to have the reader look at a selection of quotes by eminent scientists as they comment on their opinion on the veracity of evolution… the aspect of biological sciences that they all support vociferously. Let me start with some general comments on the subject…

Scientists comment on Evolution: •

•

•

•

•

•

(Professor Wolfgang Smith, faculty @ MIT, UCLA) – “I am opposed to Darwinism… I am convinced that Darwinism, in whatever form, is not in fact a scientific theory, but a pseudo-metaphysical hypothesis decked out in scientific garb. In reality, the theory derives its support not from empirical data or logical deductions of a scientific kind but from the circumstance that it happens to be the only doctrine of scientific origins that can be conceived with the constricted weltanschauung (worldview) to which a majority of scientists no doubt subscribe.”14 (Sir Fred Hoyle), “Well, as common sense would suggest, the Darwinian theory is correct in the small, but not in the large. Rabbits come from other slightly different rabbits not from either [primeval] soup or potatoes. Where they come from in the first place is a problem still to be solved, like much else of a cosmic scale.”15 (Dr. Robert Wesson), “Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea if any may be in progress. There is no good fossil evidence of any.”16 (Ken Hsu, Professor of Evolution, Zurich) – “We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is about time we cry, ‘The Emperor has no clothes.’”17 (Ernest Chain, Nobel Prize winner), “To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time by so many scientists without a murmur of protest,”18 (Paul Lemoine, former president of French Geological Society), “The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty. The zoologist or botanist, 144

•

•

•

• • •

• •

•

• •

• •

•

ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate… it results from this summary, that the theory of evolution is impossible.”19 (Dr. R. Merle d’Aubigne, Orthopedic Dept., University of Paris), “I cannot be satisfied by the idea that fortuitous mutation… can explain the complex and rational organization of the brain, but also of the lungs, heart, kidneys, and even joints and muscles. How is it possible to escape the idea of some intelligent and organizing force?”20 (Howard Byington PhD, Physics Dept., Augustana College), His research and calculations concerning evolution led him to say… “far beyond any reasonable doubt, that this theory is nothing more than physical and mathematical nonsense.”21 (Dr. Clyde McCone, Prof. of Anthropology, Cal State, Long Beach), “As an anthropologist, I object to evolution on the anthropological grounds that I have presented.

There are no data for evolution.”22 (Roger Haines, Jr., J.D.) “The arguments for macroevolution fail at every significant level when confronted with the facts.”23 (William Dawson, Canadian geologist), “the record of the rocks (fossils) is decidedly against the evolutionists.”24 (Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize winner and evolutionist), “The pathetic thing is that we still have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist can ever prove.”25 (Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular Biology, Univ. Cal. at Berkeley), “Life, even in bacteria, is too complex to have occurred by chance (via evolution).”26 (Sir John Eccles, Noble prize winner in physiology/medicine), “One of its [evolution] weak points is that it does not have any recognizable way in which conscious life could have emerged.”27 (Dr. Albert Fleishmann, zoologist, Erlangen University), “The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with current scientific knowledge.”28 Arthur Keith, evolutionist, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.”29 Malcolm Muggeridge, philosopher, “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”30 Prof. T. L. Moor, “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone,”31 Science Digest Article, “Scientists who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities…. Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.”32 Prof. L.T. More, “The reasonable view was to believe in evolution; for the only alternative, is to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third 145

•

possibility. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation [evolution] as a “philosophical necessity,”33 Wysong, R.L., “Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause. ‘Chance,’ ‘time,’ and ‘nature’ are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet, these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause, and, therefore is only a magical explanation for the existence of life.”34

As you can see, these scientists do not give a ringing endorsement to the topic of evolution.

Why not? Well, for one important reason, they are very disturbed that there is a massive lack of fossil evidence to back up the theory… Take a look…

Missing fossils: ➢ (Niles Eldridge, PhD), “We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradual adaptive change, knowing all the while it does not.”35 ➢ (Dr. Mark Ridley, Oxford zoologist), “The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record.

In fact, it can rarely be seen. In 1859, Darwin could not site a single example.”36 ➢ David Raup of the Field Museum of National History, noted, “We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation has not changed much.

The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky, and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.”37 ➢ (Dr. Colin Patterson, London National History Museum paleontologist), “I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil which is ancestral or transitional for which one could make a watertight argument.” [In other words, he is saying that there is no evidence of an ancestral fossil to any living organism in the world today… not even one]. ➢ (Prof. N Heribert-Nilsson, Lund University, Sweden), “The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional material cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”38 It is interesting to note that there is even fewer number of transitional forms in the fossil collection than there was 100 years ago. Why? This is because some of the fossils that used to be looked at as transitional forms of life have now been discarded. ➢ (Charles Darwin), “As by this theory [evolution] innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is all of nature not in confusion instead of being as we see them, well-defined species? Geologic research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required by the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be argued against it. The explanation lies in the imperfection of the geological 146

record.”39 Darwin thought that when the fossil record was much more complete, his theory would be proven correct… he was wrong in this belief. ➢ (George Neville), “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unimaginably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record, nevertheless, continues to be composed mostly of gaps.”40 ➢ (Steven Stanley, Johns Hopkins), “despite the detailed study of the Pleistocene mammals of Europe, not a single valid example is known of phyletic (gradual) transition from one genus to another.”41 ➢ (Harold Bold, morphologist), “At this time there are no known living or fossil forms which unequivocally links any two of the proposed divisions.”42 Bold wrote this about the plant kingdom and its missing links.

So, one might think that the scientists (biologist, chemists, etc.) involved in this field would tell the truth about their present thoughts on evolution. Wouldn’t it make sense if high school and college biology textbooks made it clear that there were major problems with the whole concept of Neo-Darwinism? Well, instead, what has happened is that all but a select few brave men and women continue to regurgitate the lies that have been passed down since the time of Darwin himself. Those, that take a stand and tell it “like it really is” typically have their careers ruined by the close-minded power-brokers that currently rule over the establishment. The lemmings in this world must follow their leaders: Intelligent Design is an anathema – it must never be mentioned… simply ignore the massive evidence against evolution while highlighting the same old stuff that has been preached for generations. And remember, as I explained in the beginning of this book, it is now against the law to suggest that the origin of life and/or the origin of species could be helped by an Intelligent Designer. A teacher can only use “scientific” arguments when teaching about these things… and anything considered supernatural (e.g. God) is currently not considered to be in the field of science.

By following the rules, the applecart will not be upset and the grant money will continue to flow as more and more worthless research projects are undertaken. So, let me start by simply reporting here a few of the ridiculous lies that have been spouted by scientists in this field as they try hard to keep a straight face while telling the world that evolution (including macroevolution) is no longer a theory… no, it is a now considered a fact! Ha ha.

Bias Against Intelligent Design: •

(Tom Bethel, Hoover Institute of California), Even though, “there is no evidence to support it, evolution is perhaps the most jealously guarded dogma of the American public philosophy. Any sign of serious resistance to it has encountered fierce hostility in the past, and it will not be abandoned without a tremendous fight… Darwinism will be defended to the bitter end.”43

147

•

•

•

•

•

•

(A.E. Wilder-Smith), “… any scientist expressing doubts about evolutionary theory is rapidly silenced. Sir Fred Hoyle was well on his way to being nominated for the Nobel Prize. However, after the appearance of his books expressing mathematically based doubts as to Darwinism, he was rapidly eliminated. His books were negatively reviewed and no more was heard about his Noble Prize.”44 After Robert Gentry wrote about his halo dating methods which suggested that the earth is not as old as Darwinists would like it to be (they need very long time periods for macroevolution to have an opportunity to take place), he lost his research grants and his job.

The very respected biophysicist, Dr. Dean Kenyon (Stanford), was a leading evolutionist in the 1960s and 1970s. Interestingly, he eventually took note of all of the information that was being gained in microbiology and chemistry in the 50s through the 70s, and rejected the idea of macroevolution by the mid-1980s. He decided to teach a little on the subject of origins in his introductory biology class as San Francisco State. He was scolded by the head of the department and that class was taken away from him.

Unfortunately, Dr. Kenyon’s case is only one of many similar cases where college professors lost their position, tenure and/or job because they simply might have suggested that the theory of evolution was not an absolute fact. Dr. Jerry Bergman has compiled a list of over 1000 cases of scientists discriminated against because of their leaning toward Intelligent Design as the cause for life on this earth. He interviewed over 100 scientists who believed in an Intelligent Design being behind the Universe and life, and noted, “All, without exception, reported that they had experienced some discrimination… some cases were tragic in the extent, blatancy, and consequences of the discrimination. For example, 12% of those interviewed stated that they had received death threats, highly emotional feedback, or irrational verbalizations against them. Many persons who were denied degrees or lost jobs were forced to move to another community and start over.”45 One professor of a large university was denied tenure because of his creationist views.

Although he had over 100 publications in very impressive journals (more than any other professors at the institution), he even had his PhD rescinded six years after he was granted it. Amazing!

Dr, David Warriner, a PhD recipient from Cornell, was a professor at Michigan State.

Four years after he began teaching there, he was being offered tenure by his department head… until, the dean noted his allegiance to the idea of creation. That quickly resulted in his dismissal from the university because he had “damaged the image of science.”

Unreal!

Paul Oles, an astronomer and program director at Buhl Planetarium in Pittsburgh, was censored because of his creationist ideas and he lost a column that he had been writing for Popular Science when his views were made public.

Dr. Erville Clark was denied his PhD in biology from Stanford simply because he was a person who believed in creation.

148

• •

George Mulfinger, a straight A student at Greenville, South Carolina and summa cum laude in all of his graduate work was denied a PhD because of his belief in a Creator.

To summarize, it is important that I emphasize just how very absurd it has been for several scores of years now that professors and students cannot feel free to voice their own opinions about the evolution/creation controversy. Professors will likely lose their opportunity for advancement, if not their job. Students may well be punished with poor grades and/or lack of advancement (e.g. withhold a PhD) John Ankerberg and John Weldon noted in their book, Darwin’s Leap of Faith, “Indoctrination occurs when a teacher attempts to inculcate into the minds of his pupils his own beliefs and attitudes, and also ideas which are by no means certain without the suggestion of possible alternatives.” “Indoctrination in schools and universities is particularly effective because of the influence of the teacher, the peer group, and the text.”46

Scientists State that Evolution is a “Fact:” •

• •

•

•

•

(Julian Huxley), “The first point to make about Darwin’s theory of evolution is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun.”47 (Prof. George Simpson), “Darwin finally and definitely established evolution as a fact.”48 “One hundred million fossils identified and dated in the world’s museums constitute one hundred million facts that prove evolution beyond any doubt.” (American Association for the Advancement of Science, spokesman) (Pierre-P. Grasse, French biologist), “Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology, i.e., the fossil history of the living world…”49 When Stanley Ulam suggested that it looked highly improbable that evolution played a role in the development of the eye, Sir Peter Medawar, biologist, said “I think the way that you have treated this is a curious inversion of what would be a scientific process of reasoning. It is, indeed, a fact that the eye has evolved; and that, as Waddington says, shows that this formulation is a mistaken one.”50 In other words, the facts of your research do not matter… you must come up with the conclusion that macroevolution works.

“The scientific establishment vigorously resists abandoning the unintelligent evolution paradigm. … it will never accept the concept that some form of intelligent designer must exist to explain some of the data we observe.”51 (Edward Sisson)

Unfortunately, Darwinism has brought a terrible cost to our nation and world. It has influenced people such as Hitler to pursue horrendous “projects” that have resulted in millions of murderous deaths in the 20th century. It has engendered a morally bankrupt worldview that has 149

led to an increase in worldwide atheism, depression, suicide, abortion, and anxiety. Remember, Darwinism strongly suggests to most people that there is no God. If God does not exist, there is no logical reason for morality. Who is to say what is good or bad? I may not agree with your opinion. Many people have commented over the years on this terrible downside to Darwinism.

For example…

Cultural Problems from Evolution: •

• •

(Cornell biologist, William Provine), “Consistent Darwinism implies, ‘No life after death; No ultimate foundation for ethics; No ultimate meaning for life; No free will.’”52 He went on to say that the only reason some people still believe in these things is that they have yet to realize the full implications of Darwinism.

(John Wiester, Chairman of Science Education Commission of the American Scientific Affiliation), “Darwinism is naturalistic philosophy masquerading as science.”53 (Richard Dawkins), “The Universe that we observe has precisely the properties that we would expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.”54

I do think it is worthwhile to point out that our world was not always filled with such narrowminded people in the world of science. Take a look at these great and famous scientists… all strong Christians…

Christian Scientists: Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Samuel Morris, Lord Kelvin, James Maxwell I realize that there may be many readers that wonder why all of these secular scientists are so adamant about hanging onto macroevolution as the cause of all living organisms (including the actual origin of life itself), that they are willing to overlook all of the theory’s deficiencies… and there are many. The answer is quite simple. There are only two possibilities for the origin of life and the development of all living organisms. Either evolution is true (at least some form of it) or God was behind it all. They will not allow themselves to acknowledge God as the cause… therefore, they all must fight to the bitter end for evolution.

Let me quote a famous astronomer as he spoke of the quest for knowledge about our origins… Robert Jastrow…

(Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies), “A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what it is.

The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible. In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth. At this moment, it seems as though 150

science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak, as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted there by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”55

Current State of the Theory of Evolution: Charles Darwin was certainly well aware of how his theory of evolution was supposed to work in nature to eventuate in the actual origin of life itself, followed by the very, very slow, but continuous development of more advanced life forms… eventually, leading up to the evolution of a human being. In the next several chapters, I will present his conception of how evolution should have left its mark in the world, and compare that to what is actually seen in nature. Since realistically, the results of macroevolution change cannot manifest within a person’s lifespan, the fossil record will be our primary tool used for comparing what Darwin expected scientists should be seeing over a century after he came up with his new theory vs. what these scientists actually found in the fossil record. Importantly, there have also been extraordinary genetic and biochemistry advances that have markedly helped shed light onto the likelihood of macroevolutionary changes leading to all of life forms that we see in the world today. Let us see if evolution could have been the ultimate and only undirected cause of non-organic material leading to all the living organisms seen today and all that have ever existed.

Remember that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was based on the concept of a universal common ancestry for all living organisms and the idea that natural selection would lead to all of the increasing complexity that is seen in the plant and animal kingdoms over time.

In fact, he concluded his famous treatise, Origin of the Species, with the comment, “all the organic beings which have ever lived on the earth have descended from one primordial form.”56 Most everyone who has ever had high school biology will have seen his famous illustration of a branching tree. The trunk, as it comes out of the ground, represents the first organism, the many branches represent the new forms of life that are constantly evolving over hundreds of millions of years. So, as one organism after another is born (or germinates), the process of natural selection is used by nature along with the random variations that are bound to occur (e.g. due to mutations) to select out certain organisms over others and, therefore, generate change over time.

A century before Darwin came along, Carolus Linnaeus created a system whereby organisms were grouped on the basis of similarities. In general, this system is still used today.

The groupings, from lowest level to highest is as follows: species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and, finally, kingdom. For example, for human beings, the names for each level go as follows: Sapiens (species), Homo (genus), Hominids (family), Primate (order), Mammals (class), Chordates (phylum), and Animal (kingdom). Keep in mind that according to Darwin, humans and all other animals (e.g. fruit flies) shared a common ancestor. At some point millions of years ago, a particular organism branched off into two slightly different species… and, after that 151

branching, more and more organisms were born, more branching occurred and eventually, after hundreds or thousands of transitional species, humans came along, as did the fruit fly. Along the way, different families, orders, classes, and phylums branched out to yield more specific nomenclature for all of the various organisms in the animal kingdom that have ever existed… past and present.

Darwin summarized his theory by stating, “As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps.”57 So, after millions of years, Darwin pictured the original organism branching a multitude number of times as it successively produced new species, genera, then families, then orders, etc. He envisioned thousands of transitional organisms along the way. It is important to understand that evolutionists were convinced that “Natural selection is the only acceptable theory of the genesis of adaption.”58 Without the idea of natural selection, scientists would be left without any recourse other than reference to God for all the different organisms seen in our world. Note this comment by the famous neo-Darwinian Harvard zoologist Ernst Mayr, “The real core of Darwinism… is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaption, the ‘design’ of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine interventions.”59 Hence natural selection is at the very heart of the theory of evolution.

The bottom line of Darwin’s argument was that even though the incredibly complex designs seen in the plant and animal kingdoms strongly suggested the likelihood of a Creator, Charles Darwin had come up with an amazing mechanism, natural selection acting on minor variations in organisms resulting in all of the incredible diversity of organisms seen in the world today. Put another way, now chance had replaced God as the foundation of all life.

So, Darwin was convinced that there once existed a massive number of transitional intermediate forms of organisms linking all of the different plants and animals that had ever existed. This linkage would have come about through macroevolution. Since scores of millions of years would be required to have enough time to allow for the necessary number of natural selections, the evidence required to confirm or reject this theory would have to come after evaluating the fossil record… it certainly could not be seen in a person’s lifetime. Darwin and his followers were convinced that they would see blatant evidence of the slow but progressive development of each and every species (or genus, family, etc.) in the fossil record. The hope was that they would see one animal lead into another… all the way from the smallest of creatures up to a large animal, like the elephant. There were a reasonable number of fossils to evaluate in Darwin’s time… nothing like the number we have today. However, the fossil evidence in his time was so discouraging to Darwin that he lamented, “Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms.”60 He went on to say, “Since innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be 152

urged against my theory… Why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? … the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great.”61 American biochemist, Duane Gish, noted, “There should not be the slightest difficulty in finding transitional forms. Hundreds of transitional forms should fill museum collections. If we find fossils at all [and we do] we ought to find transitional forms.”62 It is then quite apparent that a great many fossils were expected to be found to corroborate this new theory of evolution… but, they were not found in Darwin’s time.

Darwin did willingly acknowledge the problem with his theory. He did, however, remain optimistic that as the decades went by more and more fossils would be discovered and confirmation of his theory would be forthcoming. Darwin’s theory predicted that great numbers of transitional fossils would be seen and that these fossils would reveal continual changes over time with intermittent scattering of extinctions of various species. These extinctions should show evidence of being gradual as better adapted descendants are selected out over their ancestors.

Those ancestors would slowly die out.

Other paleontologists have expressed similar doubts in Neo-Darwinism due to the significant evidence provided by the missing transitional fossils. Here are just a few examples: •

• •

•

•

•

Stephen Gould, Harvard – “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change… All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forts; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”63 Dr. Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist) – “The regular absence of transitional forms is an almost universal phenomenon.”64 Derek Ager (paleontologist) – “if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”65 Dr. Duane Gish – “Flowering plants burst upon the scene in bewildering variety. Fortythree families of the angiosperms (e.g. flowering plants, trees, shrubs) abruptly appear with no trace of ancestors or intermediate forms.”66 Dr. Robert Barnes (expert on invertebrates) – “The fossil record tells us almost nothing about the evolutionary origin of phyla and classes. Intermediate forms are non-existent, undiscovered, or not recognized.”67 Dr. A. Thompson, “Rather than supporting evolution, the breaks in the known fossil record support the creation of major groups with the possibility of some limited variation within each group.”68

153

Punctuated Equilibrium (Punk Eek!): It is worth mentioning one other mechanism of evolution that was introduced for consideration by two well-known scientists in the early 1970s. Steven Gould of Harvard and Niles Eldridge a Columbia University professor, teamed up to present this new way to look at the evolutionary process as they had come to the realization that the classic neo-Darwinian approach was not capable of leading to macroevolution. Both Gould and Eldridge continued to see only stasis in organisms as they assiduously studied the fossil record for many years. Gould commented on this absence of change when he noted that the pattern for most species was that “during their geological history, [they] either do not change in any appreciable way or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology.”69 He said that this stasis in the fossil record was the “paleontology’s trade secret – an embarrassing one at that.”70 They both rejected the gradual approach that was classic neo-Darwinism.

They called their new idea, “Punctuated Equilibrium.” The idea was that evolution took place at such a fast pace that transitional forms were not likely to be found in much quantity.

They said that this took place because of an evolutionary mechanism termed “allopatric speciation.” The thought was that natural selection worked at a higher level and selected out certain favored species instead of just at the organism level. Natural selection worked on the various species in certain select environments. These environments were conducive to this higher-level selection process because the number of organisms in these geographic areas was small. These two scientists suggested that sometimes a small population of organisms becomes geographically isolated by some happenstance in nature – e.g. a major hurricane, a change in the flow of a river, earthquakes, asteroid collisions, changes in tectonic plates yielding isolated areas around the globe, etc. When this smaller group of organisms and smaller number of species continued their development, any new genetic traits that happened to arrive had a much better chance to become fixated as they would have to spread this new trait to fewer organisms. They pointed out that the probability of fixing a genetic trait increases with decreasing size of the population. They believed that new species would appear in these relatively isolated areas and have an excellent chance to take hold (be fixed). They also believed that evolutionary changes tended to happen in intermittent jumps – therefore, they felt that this explained the relative dearth in the fossil record. Instead of seeing numerous new organisms arrive within the various species, they believed that many new species would arrive from natural selection at the species level because of many small, isolated populations that had been created by nature. The lack of fossil evidence of intermediate forms was no longer an issue according to Gould and Eldridge. The species competed for survival and therefore became the main selection consideration in macroevolution – not the individual organism. As it turns out, this theory had many scientists argue against it soon after it was introduced… and, now it has been pretty much retired as a likely consideration for macroevolution. For one thing, their new theory still had no reasonable answer as to why all the new organisms that came with the Cambrian Explosion were so different that they were able to be classified by phyla and class… and not just by species and family. There also were virtually no species of organisms from the pre-Cambrian time period for 154

natural selection to work on in the Cambrian epoch. This was still a problem for those folks who liked this new Punk-Eek idea. In 1987, two well respected paleontologists, Douglas Erwin and James Valentine published an impressive paper that was very negative against both neoDarwinism and Punctuated Equilibrium.

As the years went by, Gould became the main scientist pushing Punk Eek on the public and in the scientific establishment. In fact, he became famous from his books and debates and lectures on the topic. As the 1990s were coming to a close, Gould and a statistical paleontologist, Michael Foote, questioned whether the fossil record had enough transitional forms to satisfy the relatively small, but still present, requirements of Punk Eek. Foote concluded that this would be true only if they could find a mechanism “of unusual speed and flexibility” for producing new evolutionary species. They both decided that allopatric speciation would not produce the necessary mechanism that they were looking for. They were not able to come up with an answer that satisfied anyone. Near the end of his life, Gould admitted that “the origin of anatomical traits themselves result from good, old-fashioned natural selection acting on random mutation and variations -that is from the neo-Darwinian mechanism acting over long periods of time on large relatively stable populations…. Like allopatric speciation, species selection does not qualify as the kind of rapid and flexible mechanism that Gould elsewhere insisted his theory must have in order to explain the abrupt appearance of animal forms in the fossil record.”71 Punctuated Equilibrium also could not explain the origin of all of the new phyla seen in the fossil record in the Cambrian epoch. Even if Gould’s idea of allopatric speciation was correct in being the cause of many new species, it could not explain how all of the new classes and phyla arose in that ancient epoch. Interestingly, in 2002, the year Gould died, he finally decided that his thirty-year old idea did not have the answer… he noted, “I recognize that we know no mechanism for the origin of such organismal features other than conventional natural selection at the organismic level.”72 Most biologists today do not view punctuated equilibrium as an adequate answer for what took place during the Cambrian Explosion. That theory has been pretty much put to sleep.

Eventually, there were found one or two organisms that scientists were willing to credit as transitional forms for various animals. These will be discussed a little later. However, instead of finding hundreds or thousands of obvious transitional fossils, at best, only a couple of questionable intermediate forms were found. But, given the fact that the scientific community of that time (and that of today) was not about to reference a Creator as the cause of all living organisms, even this paucity of fossil evidence was sufficient to keep the hopes up that more significant fossil evidence was to come in the future. Unfortunately for those proponents of evolution, we are now 160 years after the publication of Darwin’s famous book. Today, over 250 million fossils of 250,000 species have been collected and cataloged. The gaps have not been filled. Instead, the fossils that have been found yield revelations that make macroevolution highly unlikely. Let’s take a look…

155

Chapter 13:

The Cambrian Explosion

Although Darwin was perplexed by the lack of fossil evidence for his new theory, he still was optimistic that this situation would work itself out over the following decades. As it turns out, he was wrong as the quotes above point out. On the other hand, Darwin still was left with a problem in the fossil record of his time, that really bothered him. There was a period of time in that fossil record, currently referred to as the Cambrian period where a great number of animals suddenly made their appearance. There was no trace of these animals prior to their appearance at this time nor was there any evidence of any transitional animals in the period just prior to their appearance. These fossils were of very complex animals and were found in the sedimentary layers of the geological column. This period of time became known as the Cambrian Explosion.

Darwin noted, “The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the Silurian [Cambrian] epoch, is very great.”73 Darwin decided to ask the opinion of arguably the most prominent paleontologist in the world at that time, Harvard’s Louis Agassiz. He was hoping that Louis would be able to think of something that would explain how this unusual fossil record was still consistent with macroevolution. However, Agassiz concluded that there was no way that Darwin’s theory of evolution could be true given what was seen in the fossil record… specifically, the Cambrian Explosion. This would not have happened if living organisms evolved as Darwin believed they did. That was a “kick in the head.” Of course, that opinion would not bring the curtain down on this new theory. Far too many other scientists had jumped on Darwin’s bandwagon within just a few years after its introduction. Therefore, no one was going to “pull the plug” on this idea even if it had run into some problems. It is worth itemizing the information that came out of analyzing the fossils from the Cambrian era and comparing that information to what Darwin had expected to find.

• The abrupt appearance of animals with complex anatomical designs suddenly appeared in the Cambrian period. This was absolutely not expected to occur as a result of evolution.

Instead, there should have been hundreds or thousands of ancestral animals in the fossil record leading up to the animals seen in this Cambrian epoch. The evolutionary mechanism to arrive at a world with complex anatomical animals via random variation with natural selection of ancestral animals would require millions of years.

• Phyla and classes appear right at the start of the Cambrian Explosion. Darwin’s theory would require that only after a very long period of time (millions of years) and a history of divergence from species, genera, then families, and orders, would classes and phyla eventually emerge. This is referred to as a ‘bottom-up’ order of the fossils and was definitely not what was seen in the fossil record.

• Agassiz was quick to point out that only many small changes over millions of years could, theoretically, result in significant changes in animals. He noted that “extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile, like monstrosities they die out.”74 A frustrated Darwin was still able to be honest about the problem. He wrote, “If my theory 156

•

•

•

is true, it is indisputable that before the lowest [Cambrian] stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as or probably longer than, the whole interval from the [Cambrian] age to the present day, and that during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures.”75 The problem was that there was absolutely no evidence that any of these expected transitional animals ever existed.

The Cambrian Period of time, when all of these animals were making their appearance, took place during a remarkably short period of time (geologically speaking). Experts now believe that all of this activity took place within the period of about 10 million years.

During this time, roughly 30 different phyla made their appearance into the world. It is between the phyla that major differences in body architecture is found.

Further evaluation of the fossils in geological columns during that time period and the Devonian epoch that came after the Cambrian revealed that sudden extinctions were seen to occur. As the epochs continued, many novel animals, such as dinosaurs (Triassic and Jurassic periods) suddenly appeared as other phyla suddenly became extinct. Harvard paleontologist, Stephen Gould, summarized what was actually seen in the fossil record nicely, “The history of life is not a continuum of development, but a record punctuated by brief, sometimes geologically instantaneous, episodes of mass extinctions and subsequent diversification.”76 “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”77 (Dr. Steven Stanley, paleontologist) So, Darwin had a serious problem with this theory in that the fossil record was not at all consistent with his theory. Again, he understood this, “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists – for instance Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick – as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of the species. If numerous species of the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”78 Frankly, that is the way things did look in Darwin’s day. Darwin continued to hold onto the hope that the complete fossil record would someday prove his theory right. Unfortunately, it has not done so. Even in his day, the great Agassiz recognized that there was a sufficient geological record to prove Darwin’s theory wrong, “However broken the geological record may be, there is a complete sequence in many parts of it, from which the character of the succession may be ascertained. Since the most exquisitely delicate structures, as well as embryonic phases of growth of the most perishable nature, have been preserved from very early deposits, we have no right to infer the disappearance of types because their absence disproves some favorite [i.e. Darwinian] theory.”79 In other words, even in Darwin’s time, there already was plenty of fossil evidence to realize that there never were any transitional forms of animals to find… they never existed.

157

Many more fossil beds of the Precambrian and Cambrian epochs have been discovered since Darwin’s day. These include large finds in Canada, Greenland, China.

In Africa and Australia, three billion-year-old sediments have produced fossils of onecelled organisms and photosynthetic bacteria referred to as “stromatolites.” The first multicellular organisms came just prior to the Cambrian epoch in the Ediacaran Hills in South Australia. There is not much else to see in the fossil record, even today. There still is absolutely no evidence of any gradual divergence of animal forms that would be required by Darwin’s theory of evolution. There have been other finds that add more fossils from the Cambrian Explosion period… but, no finds shed any additional positive light on Darwin’s theory. So even today, paleontologists James Valentine and Douglas Erwin conclude, “The sections of Cambrian rocks that we do have (and we have many) are essentially as complete as sections of equivalent time duration from similar depositional environments” in more recent rocks. Ancestors are unknown for any of the phyla or classes that appeared in the Cambrian explosion. They conclude that the “explosion is real; it is too big to be masked by flaws in the fossil record.”80 The Cambrian period began about 544 million years ago. About fourteen million years into this epoch, the “explosion” occurred. From about 530 million years ago to about 520-525 million years ago (a period of only 5-10 million years), the amazing proliferation of animal life took place. Most all of the animal phyla in the world today are the result of that short time period. The group of paleontologist, James Valentine, Stan Awramik, Philip Signor, and Peter Sadler are quoted as saying, “The single most spectacular phenomenon in the fossil record is the abrupt appearance and diversification of many living and extinct phyla near the beginning of the Cambrian.

Many animal body plans ranked as phyla and classes first evolved at that time, during an interval that may have lasted no more than a few million years.”81 Let us take a look at the way paleontologists and evolutionists have tried their level best to save Darwin’s Theory of Evolution over the last one hundred years or so.

First of all, it should be noted that the major fossil find called the Burgess Shale discovery took place in 1909… over one hundred years ago. Charles Walcott led a team of scientists near a small town named Field in British Columbia. Over the course of the next few years, they collected almost 70,000 specimens – these specimens were excellent in quality. At that time, about twenty of the known twenty-seven phyla were discovered – i.e. appeared in fossil form for the first time. Many very unique animal forms arrived during that epoch along with some very complex body forms. Both soft and hard body parts were found in fossil form. Again, it is important to recognize that there was: •

The sudden appearance of complex and novel body forms at the taxonomic level of phyla. Of course, we know that if Darwinian theory was at work, we would expect gradual changes beginning at the species level. The phyla level changes would arrive via many, many microevolutionary changes over millions of years.

158

• •

•

There was no evidence of transitional fossils found.

The fossils were of at the level of phyla; no small-scale changes at the species or family level were noted. It was a top-bottom distribution of fossils. Higher taxa certainly did not arrive via small scale changes in lower levels of taxa (i.e. changes in a species, then genera, then family, etc…)

Never were any sedimentary strata found in Walcott’s time, or today, showing evidence of small-scale changes leading up to a sequence of intermediate forms… and, eventually ending in a major new animal or plant class or phyla. These new forms have always just suddenly appeared.

Walcott, a committed evolutionist, looked desperately for a way to save Darwinian evolution and a mechanism to explain the fossil record. He proposed the following geological solution: He was aware that during the Precambrian period there was a time of significant continental uplift. He suggested that the ancestors of the Cambrian Explosion period first came on the world scene during a time when the oceans had receded from the land masses.

When the Cambrian epoch began, the seas rose again and covered those same land masses.

So, his theory continued as he thought that many of the Cambrian animals were deposited offshore in what would become deep-sea sediments. If that idea of his was true, fossil evidence of animals that were intermediate forms of the Cambrian animals would not be discovered as they were too far removed to be recoverable via the normal fossil hunting techniques. Of course, some day, when the ability to drill deep into the geological columns of the earth, this “artifact hypothesis” (that is what his idea was called) could be truly tested.

Time magazine ran a story in 1995 about a Chinese discovery of an even larger collection of Cambrian fossils in southern China. Their lead paleontologist, J.Y. Chen was invited to give a lecture about this massive discovery and his opinion of the Cambrian Explosion at the University of Washington. When he noted how this discovery did not jive with what one would expect if Darwin’s theory was correct, he was gently chided by an American professor about presenting an opinion that this revered theory might be wrong… was he not worried that this might brand him as a heretic? His answer was both amusing and revealing, “In China, we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”82 By the 1960s, excellent off-shore drilling capabilities allowed for the drilling for fossil samples through sedimentary rock. Of course, the paleontologists were looking for the expected Precambrian fossils that had been missing since Darwin’s time. They were not there. Even though this finding was a big disappointment to the committed Darwinian evolutionists, they still held on to their belief in evolution. Now, however, the newest suggestion was either that more sampling was all that would be needed or that the fossils simply were no longer in the ground. For whatever the reason, they had disappeared over time. The first idea, that more sampling was needed, was rejected by almost all paleontologists. So very many areas in the world had been explored… no one thought that 159

there was a place still needing to be explored. So, that brought scientists like Walcott to one final possibility… there no longer was any Precambrian material to find as it had all been destroyed somehow. No one had a reasonable explanation as to why there would be no Precambrian fossils that were ancestral to the Cambrian animals in the earth at this time. Yet, they either had to have been destroyed sometime since that actual epoch occurred or they never existed in the first place. That last possibility was not going to be considered as that would have meant God was responsible for the Cambrian Explosion.

Maybe the fossils were too small or soft to still be around in fossil form. The belief was that these Precambrian fossil precursors to the Cambrian Explosion animals were very small and soft bodied. Unfortunately for those who held this opinion, it turns out that microfossils of bacteria that are over three billion years old have been found in rocks. Not only that but fossilized single-celled algae have also been found. In other words, organisms that were just as small and/or just as soft have been documented to be fossilized. But the appropriate Precambrian fossils have not been found. In 1984, a Chinese paleontologist named XianGuang Hou discovered the fossilized remains of a great many soft bodied organisms in southern China. He also noted some hard body parts fossilized as well. His main find was that of sponge embryos. These sponges were soft bodied organisms and they showed up very nicely in the fossil record. The point is, however, that he showed conclusively that sedimentary rocks were able to fossilize soft bodied animals. In their book, The Cambrian Explosion, Dog Erwin and James Valentine wrote that some late Precambrian environments had better settings for the preservation of fossils than the environment found in the actual Cambrian Epoch. So, if there had been the expected significant number of transitional organisms in the Precambrian era that just preceded the animals in the Cambrian explosion, certainly at least some should have been found. Any soft bodied or hard skeletal transitional animals should have been found in Precambrian sedimentary columns if they had existed.

Since they have never been found, they almost assuredly never were there.

The fossil finds in southern China had similar significance, with respect to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, as those found at Field, British Columbia. Both sites had fossils that had significant body-plan level disparity arising first and all of a sudden… i.e. no evidence of any transitional animal fossils. Animals appeared at the phyla level… only later was there any evidence of diversification into lower taxonomic categories, such as; families, genera, and species. This is the opposite of what Darwin would have predicted would be found.

One more point… it is interesting to note that George Gaylord posed the question of why and how did the animals of the Cambrian epoch get their hard body parts? There were no transitional organisms found in the epoch just preceding it. Scientists were forced to deal with the fact that only phyla burst onto the world scene during that amazing 5-10-year period of the Cambrian Explosion. Although they were desperate to find many transitional forms in the Precambrian period they simply were not there to find. Michael Foote, University of Chicago paleontologist noted when asked, “whether we have a representative sample of morphological diversity and therefore can rely on patterns documented in the fossil record.”83 160

He said the answer was, “yes.” In other words, he was convinced that the fossil record was essentially complete.

Let me review the dating of this Cambrian time period for completeness: • •

• •

• •

The start of the Cambrian period was 544 million years ago.

The explosion of animal forms went from 530 to 520 million years ago… however, most of the animal forms came onto the scene from 530 to 524/525 million years ago (i.e. over a 5 million-year period of time).

Five million years is only 0.11% (i.e. 0.0011) of all of earth’s history.

Paleontologist say that approximately 30 new phyla appeared during the five or six-year period from 530 to 524/525 million years ago. About 40-50 classes also appeared.

The Cambrian Explosion included the fossils found in southern China and those in Field, British Columbia.

Ediacaran fauna appeared – during the late Precambrian epoch - 570-565 million years ago and last appeared around 543 million years ago. This included animals such as sponges. Importance noted in the following few paragraphs.

The Ediacaran Fauna: Approximately 565 million years ago, a group of organisms lived in southern Australia… a place called the Ediacaran Hills. Many evolutionists have latched on to this fossil find as showing that there actually were transitional forms of animals that led into the Cambrian Explosion about 35 million years later. The first appearance of these fossils has been dated at 570-565 million years ago… the last appearance of the fossils of these creatures was 543 million years ago. Therefore, the evidence (543 – 530 = 13) shows that the Ediacaran animals had become extinct about 13 million years prior to the amazing Cambrian Explosion. Even so, it is still worth looking at this fossil find more closely and to evaluate its significance to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

All of the fossils found from the Precambrian period are dated from 570 to 543 million years ago (a twenty-seven-year period of time). These fossils included: sponges, a few softbodied organisms unique to that period, trace fossilized remains from ancient worms, and primitive mollusks. The question is whether this collection of fossils is adequate to be considered as evidence of an appropriate transitional group of animals to the Cambrian Explosion animals.

Frankly, the answer is an easy one. None of the fossils from the Ediacaran period resemble, in any way, the animals that appear during the Cambrian Explosion. Hence, they cannot be considered as transitional in nature. They are simply unique organisms in their own right. As a matter of fact, many paleontologists do not believe that the animals represented by the fossils are even members of the animal kingdom. They are, at least, one step up from the singlecelled organisms and simple algae that was all that made up the fossil record prior to this 161

Precambrian Epoch. In any case, almost all paleontologists do not believe that the Cambrian animals descended from these creatures.

In summary, the time period from the first appearance of any life form from the beginning of the Ediacaran period until the conclusion of the Cambrian Explosion was only (570-520 = 50 million years). Although 50 million years is a long time, geologically speaking, it is a very short time period. There is no way that neo-Darwinian evolution could yield all those novel phyla forms in that short a period of time. More will be explained on this topic later (in Chapters 16 & 17). Also, do not forget that the organisms of the Ediacaran period became extinct a full 13 million years prior to the onset of the Cambrian Explosion. Obviously, that, in itself, eliminates them as transitional animals to those animals in the Cambrian Epoch. Scientists Graham Budd and Soren Jensen concluded, “The known fossil record [Precambrian/Cambrian] has not been misunderstood, and there are no convincing bilateral candidates known from the fossil record until just before the beginning of the Cambrian epoch (c. 543 mya) even though there are plentiful sediments older than this that should reveal them. The expected Darwinian pattern of a deep fossil history, potentially showing their gradual development, stretching hundreds of millions of years into the Precambrian, has singularly failed to materialize.”84 Yet, the die-hard evolutionists were still not about to give up…

Julian Huxley added, “If it could be shown that this fact [that are gaps between these phyla] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution.”85 E.J. Corner, botany dept., Cambridge University, “I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.”86 Molecular Clock: Phylogeny is the study of the evolutionary history of a group of organisms. Fossils have been used for over a century to evaluate the similarities of all of the organisms found in nature over the centuries. Of course, paleontologists can glean a great deal of information by studying the gross structure of fossils. However, our current knowledge of DNA and the structure of a typical cell has given biologists and chemists much greater insight into the relationship of one organism to another and, therefore, the possibility that macroevolution may have played a role in the development of various organisms. One area where this knowledge was applied, was to use the information gained from a molecular analysis of various animals in the Cambrian and Precambrian epochs to see just how close they were related. Remember, scientists that were looking high and low for any kind of evidence that life could have evolved as per the evolutionary mechanism proposed by Darwin.

Two famous scientists, Emile Zuckerkandl and Luis Pauling believed that if the DNA structure and the protein products that resulted from the DNA sequences were compared in any 162

two organisms, how close each organism was in those two areas would be a good estimate as to how close they were to each other in time (i.e. in terms of evolutionary time). Darwin’s theory says that a succession of beneficial mutations followed by the “blind” but critically important manifestation of natural selection, would cause one organism to evolve slowly, but continuously, into the next. The number of differences between two organisms’ DNA or protein structure would be in direct proportion to the number of years since they shared a common ancestor.

Attempting to estimate the relationship between two organisms by looking at their molecular structure is referred to as a “molecular clock” analysis.

The difficulty with this molecular clock idea is that there is no really objective method to determine how long ago it was when two animals diverged… i.e. split off from a common ancestor. As a matter of fact, it is only by “secular faith” that one would think that this divergence actually occurred. If macroevolution does not happen, then this molecular clock evaluation is a waste of time. However, let us continue and learn basically how the dates needed for this “clock” are determined. Evolutionary biologists estimate mutation rates and combine that information with the dating of the strata where the presumed fossil ancestors are found. With this information, they attempt to calculate when any given pair of animals (that they are convinced have a common ancestor) diverged from one another. This can be done by comparing amino acid sequences and RNA molecules (e.g. ribosomal RNA). Varying research groups have their own particular methods of calculating these estimates. Unfortunately, the variance in the molecular clock estimates are massive. For example, Gregory Wray’s team came up with an estimate of 1.2 billion years ago as the date when the split occurred from the common ancestor of animals in the Cambrian epoch. By the way, since the Cambrian epoch was approximately 525 million years ago, this proposed split would have happened 675 million years before the fossil record showed up in the Cambrian epoch. Douglas Erwin’s team of researchers came up with a figure of 800 million years ago as the date of the last common ancestor of all living animals. There is a difference of 400 million years (1200 – 800) between Erwin’s and Wray’s estimate for when the split occurred… that is far too much to be of any value as an evaluation tool. Just to conclude on this point, there are many other studies concerning this “molecular clock” dating for these fossils.

The overall range of values is from as low as 100 million years to as high as 1.5 billion years.

My word! One study by Dan Grau and William Martin claimed to be sure that their estimate was 95% accurate. That sounded good until they revealed that their divergence date for some animals fell within a 14.2 billion-year range. That is three times the age of the earth. They could have come up with that figure without doing any calculations at all. The bottom line was well said by Andrew Smith and Keven Peterson, “The idea that there is a universal molecular clock ticking away has long since been discredited.”87 Douglas Erwin added, “Attempts to date those branchings from a common Precambrian ancestor by using molecular clocks have disagreed widely.”88

163

Summation: Let me now summarize the main points concerning the fossil evidence of the Cambrian Explosion: • Almost all of the known animal phyla (over 95%) are known to have first appeared within a very short (5-10 million years) geological period of time. Remember that phyla are major groups of living organisms. Twenty to thirty-five phyla came into the fossil record during this “explosive,” extremely short, period of time. As opposed to what one would expect via evolution, the number of phyla has decreased since this epoch due to occasional extinctions. There are various estimates of the current number of phyla – thirty-six is the average number of most of these estimates.

• As opposed to what macroevolutionary mechanisms would predict should happen, after the appearance of all of these new groups of plants and animals, they persisted essentially unchanged (this is referred to as stasis) until the present day or until they became extinct.

• These plants and animals are fully formed and functioning as soon as they make their sudden appearance in the fossil record. They were all in distinct groups from their onset.

• The classic Darwinian “tree” was turned upside down. Instead of it starting out with one or a couple of fossils of species level organisms that would lead upward through branching to the phyla level, the entire fossil find begins at the fossil level… and, eventually works its way down.

• There is no evidence of any transitional fossils. There are just major gaps that have puzzled evolutionist since the time of Darwin. Instead, there should be tens of thousands of transitional fossils… there are actually none. (this will be discussed more in Chapters 14 &18) Remember what Darwin said, “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory… the number of intermediate and transitional links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great.”89 Also, it should be noted that the fossil record “fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”90 (W. R. Bird, Origin of Species Revisited) ➢ There are no transitional fossils showing the proposed series of horses from the small horse to today’s Clydesdale. No transitional fossils showing how land animals evolved into whales, nor fish to amphibians, nor amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals, etc. This was true in 1859 and is still true 160 years later.

Darwin’s great hope that they would be found did not come to fruition. ➢ Stephen Gould, Harvard paleontologist stated, “The extreme rarity in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”91

164

•

•

➢ Steven Stanley, John Hopkins paleontologist, added, “Despite the detailed study of the Pleistocene mammals of Europe, not a single valid example is known of [gradual] transition from one genus to another.”92 ➢ Harold Bold, a morphologist, commented that there is zero evidence of a linkage in the fossil record of one plant division to another. ➢ Donald Johanson said “Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday.”93 ➢ E. White, an authority on lungfish, lamented, “Whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lungfish, like every other major group of fish that I know, have their origins firmly based on nothing.”94 New phyla stop appearing after this time. No new phyla have come into being over the past 500 million years. Of course, this is inconsistent with evolution, but very consistent with Intelligent Design. There was a significant drop off in new classes of organisms as well. Almost all of the classes had made their appearance by the conclusion of the Ordovician epoch (485-444 million years ago).

Attempts to mitigate the markedly disappointing fossil evidence by referring to molecular evidence (molecular clock data) failed as those results were wildly disparate.

Stephen Gould, “New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region.”95 Stephen Gould, “We view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study,”96 David Raup, Curator of Field Museum of National History, “Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery; commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms.”97 So, in conclusion, it is really quite evident that the only thing that can explain the shocking Cambrian Explosion is that a Creator intervened in our world during those years to carry out His plan for humanity. All of the bullet points above make perfectly good sense if one attributes them to a loving Creator. One day, the words of Soren Lovtrup will come true, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?”98 However, we still must deal with otherwise intelligent people, who are so blinded they say things like, “One only has to concede the magnitude of the task to concede the possibility of the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are – as a result, I believe of spontaneous generation. What this boils down to is a personal choice – faith, if you will – to believe in what one freely admits is impossible, rather than to believe in creation by intelligent design.”99 How very sad for these scientists.

165

Chapter 14:

Taxonomy, Homology, Analogy

Taxonomy is the branch of bioscience concerned with classification of organisms. The goal of the evolutionist is to be able to arrange animals and plants into a sequential pattern grouping the various organisms by their similarities and their differences. There must be a clear and continuous sequence to be a convincing pattern for the theory of evolution. We found out in the last chapter that, unfortunately for those scientists who espouse evolution as the method that produced all living organisms, the fossil record does not show this sequential pattern. There is no fossil evidence showing a single celled organism slowly evolving to become the complex plethora of organisms that are seen in the world today.

However, plants and animals can be organized by similarities in their morphology (the branch of biology that deals with the form of living organisms, and with relationships between their structures). In this chapter, we will take a look at how all organisms can be classified in that manner and broken up into several different categories, specifically into the following: Kingdom, Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Let me use the human race as an example of each of these categories: Kingdom (Animal) – Phyla (Chordate) – Class (Mammal) - Order (Primate) – Family (Hominids) – Genus (Homo) – Species (Homo Sapiens). The fact is that every plant, animal, and fungus can be categorized using this same system. The fact that all organisms can be classified in this manner does show that people do indeed see similarities and a possible sequential pattern in them. The question remains as to whether this is because of macroevolution… or, is it because God designed them that way? Frankly, pretty much everyone agrees that it is one of these two mechanisms. Chance or God. But which one is it?

Prior to Darwin’s book on the theory of evolution, virtually all of the leading biologists of that time… and the previous one hundred years, looked at living organisms with a philosophy of nature referred to as typological. This model of living things simply looked at each member of a class of organisms as being equally representative of that class. Certainly, in this view of nature, no organism had evolved from any other organism. Each plant or animal could be placed into a specific class (e.g. birds, mammals, or fish…), but there was an absolute discontinuity between the various classes of organisms. This was antithetical to the idea that Darwin proposed in 1859.

This typological model recognized that some variation would occur in organisms, but it would always be limited. Never would it lead to one class of animal (or plant) becoming another class.

All the famous biologist adhered to this model of nature. Harvard’s Louis Agassiz and Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist who founded modern taxonomy in 1735, were typologists. So were Georges Cuvier, the man who basically founded vertebrate paleontology and comparative anatomy, and Richard Owen, the British anatomist who set up a system to classify reptiles and coined the term, dinosaur. One more great scientist who believed in this typological system of nature was Charles Lyell. Charles was arguably the greatest geologist of that era. I point out these great scientists because so many of the biologists of that time… in fact, almost every one of them, held the belief that the nature of living things was made up of isolated and unique organisms that were not connected by any transitional organisms. Keep in mind, their view was supported by the fossil record of their day… and of our day as well. The very famous Harvard 166

biologist and Darwin’s nemesis, Louis Agassiz, said that he believed that those jumping on the evolutionary bandwagon were “chasing a phantom.”100 The fact was that these scientists recognized the constancy of type for all organisms. Not one of them had ever seen one iota of evidence for macroevolution (still none seen today), so they were only believing the facts as they saw them… macroevolution did not occur. Hence, they would stick to their typological way of looking at nature. Here is one more quote from Cuvier, “if the species has gradually changed, we must find traces of these gradual modifications; that between the palaeotheria and the present species we should have discovered some intermediate formation; but, in the present time none of these have appeared. Why have not the bowels of the earth preserved the monuments of so remarkable a genealogy, unless it be that the species of former ages were as constant as our own.”101 In other words, species tend to stay stable for as long as they are on the earth. Many will become extinct over time. A rare one or two may even evolve into a very similar species… but, none will ever evolve any further. That is what Cuvier was saying.

Francois Pictet, a well-known paleontologist, was intrigued by Darwin’s theory, but he also was bothered by the fossil record. He asked, “Why don’t we find these gradations in the fossil record, and why, instead of collecting thousands of identical individuals, do we not find more intermediary forms? To this Mr. Darwin replies that we have only a few incomplete pages in the great book of nature and the transitions have been in the pages which we lack. But why then and by what peculiar rules of probability does it happen that the species which we find most frequently and most abundantly in all the newly discovered beds are in the immense majority of the cases species which we already have in our collections?”102 Now, here we are over 150 years later and the fossil record still lacks the vast number of intermediate fossil finds that have always been expected if macroevolution actually took place to produce all of the living organisms seen today. In fact, some biologists believe that there have been no truly intermediate fossils discovered.

Typologists note that each class of organism possess a number of characteristic features that are unique to that class. An excellent example is the mammal. Mammals have the following unique features: hair, mammary glands, sweat glands, a four-chambered heart, a unique type of kidney, a large cerebral cortex, a unique hearing system using three ear ossicles, and a diaphragm used for breathing. All mammals have these features. Other classes of animals have none of these features. Of course, each class has their own unique characteristics (e.g. a very obvious example is that the class of birds have feathers). Again, each class is unique with no evidence of there having been any transition from one to another.

There are a handful of animals that some biologists consider as intermediate organisms.

However, these animals do not actually demonstrate any features, whatsoever, that show evidence of being transitional between two animals. Let me explain what I am alluding to. Some scientists suggest that the lungfish is intermediate between the fish class of organisms and amphibians. But there are actually no parts of the lungfish where one can see a particular structure of that creature that is in a transitional state between a fish and an amphibian. It is true that a lungfish has many features of a true fish (e.g. fins, gills, etc.), and it has another set of 167

features that are completely of the amphibian class (e.g. lungs, heart, and a larval stage of the typical amphibian). The duck billed platypus has a few features that are 100% mammalian (e.g. hair, hearing apparatus, mammary glands) and others that are 100% reptilian (they lay eggs like a classic reptile). So, in one sense they are intermediate. However, they do not show that any portion of their body was actually slowly, and sequentially transitioning from one type of organism to another… and that should be seen in thousands and thousands of fossils as evidence of the millions of true transitional animals that have existed… if macroevolution has taken place in nature. However, not only are these real intermediate forms missing, there are only a few of the other type – i.e. that have complete parts of two classes of animals - that I noted above (i.e. the platypus and the lungfish). It is difficult to build an entire theory of evolution on such scanty evidence… but, biologists surely do try!

It is true that evolutionists do point to a few classic sequences that they see in nature… they assume that these sequences of animals demonstrate a true macroevolutionary series. The most common sequence mentioned is that of the vertebrate series: jawless fish > placoderms > cartilaginous fish > bony fish > amphibia > reptiles > mammals. This order seems to make sense when one considers the gross morphology of these animal types. Michael Denton, an Australian molecular biologist, points out, however, that when these animal types are looked at carefully, there really is no reason to believe that they did actually evolve in the manner described. There are certainly many other sequences that biologist have suggested appear to be due to evolution, but none provide any evidence for believing that one of the organisms in any of these series was ever a transitional animal for the next one in the proposed series. The fact is that the typological model that states that classes are distinct and all of the members of each class, be they plant or animal, have unique characteristics. These characteristics remain stable over time… with only minor changes being noted on occasion as the millennia go by. Unfortunately, there is just no objective way to determine the actual likelihood, using gross morphological features alone, that one animal has given rise to another.

Keep in mind that those scientists that look at the world of living organisms from a typological point of view, recognize that each class of organisms are uniquely distinct with no signs that any of the plants or animals within each class had a common ancestor with any other class. However, evolutionary scientists have decided that similar structures in certain organisms within the various classes are similar because they come from a common ancestor. In other words, they believe that there is a link between the classes of organisms. Our quest is to determine which group of scientists is correct? So far, the fossil evidence and the fact of the shocking Cambrian Explosion surely favors the typologists viewpoint.

The field of homology can be described as the study of the relationship of one organism to another. For example, on the gross anatomical level, there may be body parts in any two organisms (e.g. animals) that bio-scientists are convinced evolved from a common ancestor…

These would be homologous. Of course, this assumes that macroevolution is true.

Homologous structures are decided based upon theory that they come from a common ancestor… not whether the two structures have similar functions in the animals. There is no way 168

to evaluate the veracity of this assumption, at least when discussing homologous animals on a morphological level. We shall see that there is a way to test homology when we take a look within the cell… the biochemical makeup of the animals.

It will be worth our while to see how Darwinists use this concept of homology in various animals and plants to, in their opinion, reveal good evidence that macroevolution has occurred.

Darwin was one of the first to note, “We have seen that the members of the same class, independent of their habits of life, resemble each other in the general plan of their organization [typologists agree with that point]. This resemblance is often expressed by the term ‘unity of type;’ or by saying that the several parts and organs in the different species of the class are homologous. What can be more curious than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include similar bones, in the same relative positions…. We may call this conformity of type, without getting much nearer to an explanation of the phenomenon” and he then adds, “but is it not powerfully suggestive of true relationship of inheritance from a common ancestor?”103 So, this concept of homology gave Darwin what he needed to feel a little more confident that all organisms actually did descend from a common ancestor. It also made sense from an evolutionist’s point of view that a particular structural pattern would persist as animals evolved from a simpler form to a more complex creature (e.g. the pattern seen in the forelimbs of the major vertebrates). The bones would simply be modified to be used in different ways by the various animals. Of course, folks who believe in the Intelligent Design of all living things suggest that God simply decided to use the same basic design for certain parts of a variety of creatures.

The hope was that with further study into the genetic and embryologic aspects of the various animals, more information would be discovered to make the homologous connections between animals even more solid. Unfortunately, although these studies were certainly undertaken, the strength of the concept of homology weakened. No basis for a genetic or embryologic underpinning of homology was found… and that is a problem. Without getting into the details, the fact is that the structures that seemed so homologous in the adult vertebrate animals from the gross, morphological viewpoint, had no evidence of homology in the earlier stages of development (i.e. embryological). The adult homology, strangely, was arrived at via different routes of development. That is not the way evolution would work… if it really exists in the real world. The alimentary tract, the forelimbs and the kidney are just three good examples of seemingly homologous animal structures (when viewed from the adult point of view) that do not develop from similar embryologic sites. To mention just one good example of these differing sites of origin, the fish and amphibian kidney starts out in the embryo from an organ called the mesonephros. However, in mammals, the kidney begins its development from the metanephros… this is quite a different structure than the mesonephros. Sir Gavin de Beer, the director of the British Museum of Natural History put it this way, “Correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these parts are ultimately differentiate… Homologous 169

structures need not be controlled by identical genes and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotype.”104 Sir Alister Hardy concludes, “The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution – yet, in truth, we cannot explain it at all in terms of present-day biological theory.”105 There is at least one more complicating factor to viewing similar structures in certain animals as being homologous… and therefore being evidence for evolution. Sometimes what looks like a homologous structure, actually is only analogous. So, what does that mean? Analogy can be defined as two structures that perform similar functions but do not come from the same line of descent. The idea is that because two organisms found themselves in very similar environments, via beneficial mutations and natural selection, they both ended up with very similar body parts… in appearance and function. A couple of examples may be helpful. In early biology textbooks (18th century), Linnaeus categorized the whale as a fish. A reasonable error.

Eventually, it was realized that the whale actually was a mammal, but because of environmental pressures, developed similar structures as a typical fish. This is a good example of analogous resemblance. Another example is that of the analogy between the Tasmanian Wolf and the North American wolf. The Tasmanian wolf actually is a marsupial that only has the appearance and some of the behaviors of wolves like the North American wolf. Evolutionists are convinced that they have a separate ancestral history and are not homologous. Instead, there similar features and appearance is due to analogy… they developed in a similar manner due to very similar environmental pressures. By the way, this type of evolution is referred to as “convergent evolution.” As the decades have gone by, very similar structures in more and more organisms that had been looked at as being homologous are now recognized as only being analogous. This has been true for organisms in the animal and plant kingdoms. The fact that the concept of homology has not proven to be an effective evidence for evolution has been a big disappointment for many of evolutionary biologists. But they certainly have not given up looking for more proof for Darwin’s classic theory. Looking at morphology of the various organisms alone, the evolutionists have not fared very well. However, since Watson and Crick and the 1950s, the opportunity to look inside the cells of animals and plants has been possible. In doing so, one would expect either good evidence for macroevolution or the door should be slammed shut on Darwinian evolution, once and for all. We shall take a look.

Biochemical Evaluation of Typology: We have just looked at the two major ways of viewing living organisms: a) the typological method which notes that classes of organisms appear isolated and without any sequential pattern to suggest that the various groups have a common ancestor, and… b) via homology which views certain body parts in some animals as having come from a common distant ancestor.

From a gross morphological viewpoint, even though the typological manner of viewing life appears more reasonable than macroevolution, until scientists have been able to elucidate and 170

understand the inner workings of the cell, there has been no way to really know for sure how close any two organisms were to one another. It makes perfectly good sense to believe that knowing the cellular makeup of any organism is very likely the best way of evaluating the complexity of that organism and can be used to evaluate its potential relationship to other organisms. One animal may look very complex compared to another, but its cellular make-up may suggest otherwise. Maybe more importantly, one can evaluate for a possible evolutionary linkage, by comparing the closeness of two animals or plants on a biochemical level (e.g. comparing their cellular proteins). It would be valuable to see whether there is any sign of a sequential pattern in a class of organisms or even between classes. In this last portion of this chapter, that is exactly what we shall be doing. I do want to warn the reader that this particular topic can be somewhat difficult to follow, especially in the details. However, I will make sure that the most important points are emphasized and made clear at the conclusion of this chapter.

The plan here will be to choose a very common and important intracellular protein to see how its structure changes from one animal to another. In the early days of the molecular biological revolution of the 1950s, it was noted that protein structure did vary from one species to another. As one might expect, within a given class of organisms, the amount of variance was related to the apparent closeness of the two animalsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; structure. It is also interesting to note that different proteins may have different degrees of divergence between any two animals. For example, the protein Cytochrome C varies much less than the protein hemoglobin when comparing each of their variance between any two animals in the vertebrate class.

As we shall see, it is very interesting to see just how much a particular proteinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s structure varies between animals within a class and between classes. The data is very elucidating. The comparison between proteins is calculated by simply by determining the percentage of amino acid positions in the protein that are not the same. If one has a protein with 200 amino acids and only 50 positions have different amino acids in them, then that sequence difference is 50/200 = 25%. We shall take a look at several animals and different classes of animals and see what can be learned from the data.

The distance between any two animals in a class with respect to their protein structure tends to match the distance between the same two animals when looking at their gross morphology. One amazing fact does stand out when looking at the percentage variance in protein structure between animals within class and vs. other classes. If you will recall, the typological model of looking at organisms within a class, revealed that every animal within the class in question all had their own unique set of characteristics and were equally separated from all other classes. There was no evidence of any transitional animals to be found. The interesting question to be answered now is whether protein structure is also equally isolated between any two classesâ&#x20AC;Ś or is there a sequential pattern of differences in protein structure seen when comparing the protein biochemical structure of one organism in a particular class to different classes? If so, that would be more consistent with the evolutionary model of development.

In the 1960s, many proteins in a variety of animals were sequenced and we now have excellent charts that allow us to know just how much any two animals vary in their protein 171

structure. Armed with this data, we can see whether the biochemical structure of animals is consistent with what would be expected if macroevolution had taken place. Although any protein can be used for this evaluation, I will choose Cytochrome C as our test case. As I noted in the previous paragraph, the percentage difference between any two animals within the animal class parallels their morphological differences. Note the percent difference between the horse and a dog (6%); between the horse and a turtle (11%); between a horse and a Tuna Fish (18%); between the horse and the insect silkworm moth (27%). All of these animals are in the vertebrate class; the differences noted in the Cytochrome C structure does parallel their morphological difference. That really is no surprise. Below is a chart that shows the percent sequence differences in Cytochromes between 21 different organisms.

Cytochrome Percent Sequence Difference Matrix (Chart A)

Notice in the chart that each subclass of sequences is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be easily assigned to a particular class. What is a surprise and something that sheds great light on the question of whether these animalsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; protein structures are likely due to them evolving from a distant common ancestor is revealed when we can see that the sequences of each subclass are equally isolated from the members of another group. There is absolutely no evidence of any transitional class of animals.

An excellent way to appreciate this absence of intermediate animals can be seen by charting a comparison of the percent divergence of the Cytochrome C protein in a bacteria when 172

compared to a variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, teleosts, insects, angiosperms, and yeasts.

Take a look at the chart below and see how virtually every one of these animals, plants and yeasts are equidistance from the bacteria Rhodospirillum. All of these eucaryotic cytochromes are essentially the same distance from the bacterial Cytochrome C. Considering how great the variation is in the 33 different organisms in the chart above, it is quite incredible just how similar their Cytochrome C’s divergence is from the bacteria’s Cytochrome C (all of the organisms have a sequence difference of about 64%). These organisms vary significantly among themselves with respect to their divergence from Cytochrome C… but not as a group when compared to the bacteria. No eucaryotic creature in that chart shows any biochemical molecular evidence of being an intermediate organism between the bacteria Rhodospirillum and any of the other listed eucaryotic organisms. As already noted, they all have large (~64%) and essentially equal divergence from that bacteria. This is a great example of the typological model… each eucaryotic organism is in a class that is unique and isolated. All of these eucaryotic creatures are very much separated from the bacterial kingdom.

Cytochrome Percent Sequence Difference Matrix MAMMALS Human Monkey Pig Horse Dog Whale Rabbit Kangaroo

BIRDS 65 64 64 64 65 65 64 66

INSECTS Fruit Fly Screw-worm Silkworm Tobacco Horn Worm Moth

65 64 65 64

Chicken Penguin Duck Pigeon REPTILES Turtle Rattlesnake AMPHIBIANS Bullfrog

ANGIOSPERMS Nung-bean Sesame Castor Sunflower Wheat

64 64 64 64 64 66

TELEOSTS Tuna 65 Bonito 64 Carp 64 ELASMOBRANCHS Dogfish 65 CYCLOSTOMES Lamprey 66

66

66 65 69 69 66

YEASTS Candida krusei Debaryomyces Kloeckeri Baker’s Yeast Neurospora crassa

72 67 69 69

Chart B on the next page shows how incredibly similar the sequence divergence is of mammals, birds, plants, fish, and even yeast when compared to the bacteria Rhodospirillum. It is actually quite remarkable when one considers the great differences between the larger mammals and the tiny unicellular organism like yeast in the eucaryotes under consideration. None of the eucaryotic organisms are transitional between the bacteria and any of the other organisms in that chart.

173

Horse (64) Chart B: Cytochrome C percent sequence difference

Pigeon (64) Tuna (65)

bacterial cytochrome

Silkmoth (65) Wheat (65) Yeast (69)

Chart B: Molecular Equidistance of all Eucaryotic Organisms from bacteria Here in this comparison between this large eucaryotic group of organisms and the bacteria which is representative of the procaryotic bacterial kingdom, there is absolutely no intermediate organism to be found. In other words, there is no evidence that evolution was involved in the production of any of these organisms.

Now let us take a look at the differences seen between some of the eucaryotic cytochromes. [Reference Chart A] The eucaryotes can be properly separated into three groups: yeasts, plants, animals. These are three kingdoms and we would expect to see a significant divergence from organisms between these groups. However, if the typological model holds true, any one of the organisms within any one of these three kingdoms should be essentially equally distant from the organisms in the other two kingdoms. On the other hand, if the evolutionary model is correct, there would likely be a sequence of varying divergence when comparing any particular organism in any one of the kingdoms to all of the organisms in either of the other two kingdoms. We can take a look and see which one is the best modelâ&#x20AC;Śtypological or evolutionary.

Basically, there is approximately a 25% sequence difference between the insect class of the animal kingdom vs. the mammal class and the bird class â&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e. equal divergence throughout the animal kingdom. The yeasts are separated by 42-44% from all of the other groups. Plants are all about 40% divergent from all other groups. As you can see from chart A, there are many more examples of the fact that each group invariably is equally separated molecularly from all the organisms in the other groups. If there were any intermediate organisms, this separation percentage would vary significantly. Therefore, this chart shows marked evidence for the longstanding typological model and shows no signs of having been affected by evolution.

The following graph (Chart C) shows that the percentage divergence of every vertebrate animal listed (from the horse to the jawless fish) compared to the insect class. As can be seen, the percent divergence is virtually exactly the same. Again, this is not what should be expected if the creatures in the animal kingdom had evolved one from another and all from a common ancestor.

We should expect the lamprey to have the least divergence and the horse the greatest percentage difference. Instead, each class is isolated and unique.

Horse (20) Chart C: silk moth vs. vertebrates Pigeon (21) Cytochromes-percent sequence divergence Silkworm fly turtle (22) cytochrome C carp (25) lamprey (26) 174

One more example of this concept should suffice to show that even as the sub-groups get smaller (i.e. going from kingdom to phyla to class, etc), the divergence still shows that each group still retains its autonomy. There is no evidence of evolving from one group from any of the other groups (see Chart D). Let me compare the jawless vertebrate, Lamprey, to examples of most all of the vertebrates. I will use the protein hemoglobin for this example. Keep in mind that our concept of evolution, if true, should show that the percentage divergence would be less when the lamprey is compared to the carp… and greatest when compared to the human. As it turns out, there is no evidence that any of the vertebrates are intermediate between the jawless vertebrates and any other vertebrate group. fish (75) Chart D: Lamprey vs. jawed vertebrates hemoglobin-percent sequence difference frog (81) Lamprey chicken (78) (hemoglobin) kangaroo (76) human (73) So, at the molecular level, there is no evidence that any organism evolved from another.

The common conception that humans evolved from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals is not seen at the molecular level of analysis. Not at all. Given the fact that the proteins that are being compared in these examples came directly from DNA and RNA, the same results are obtained when comparing sequence differences in these nucleic acids from one group to another.

As the years have gone by, thousands of different sequences have been compared in the various species around the world and never has there been one that has not followed the above pattern.

No sequence has been found that would suggest that it was a lineal descendant from any other sequence. Each class is unique, unlinked and isolated from all others. Just like with the fossil evidence, the molecular evidence is against the possibility of macroevolution being the cause of all living things.

In a later chapter, I will be addressing the issue of the supposed finding of a few missing links. It is worth noting that the molecular analysis of these purported fossil finds or “living fossils” show no evidence of their supposed transitional position in nature. The main point of this entire chapter is to show that on the molecular level, when the sequences of their protein structures are compared with other classes, the sequential divergence is invariably the same.

It really is a sad commentary on the overall worldview of most scientists that they cannot look at the blatant evidence in the fossil record plus the amazing uniform divergence percentages that were shown to exist in this chapter and still come out denigrating the idea of Intelligent Design… and continuing to support the crumbling theory of evolution. Michaele Denton, also saddened by this attitude, noted, “the hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious 20th century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists.”106 Now, let us go on to the next chapter to see a fantastic, an easier to follow, concept that knocks the wind out of the theory of evolution.

175

Chapter 15:

Irreducible Complexity:

I have been looking forward to writing this chapter on the topic off Irreducible Complexity (IC) for over twenty years. I first read about this concept in the late 1990s when I was teaching a course on apologetics. A book had recently been published (1996) by a Lehigh University professor, Michael Behe, entitled Darwin’s Black Box. I felt that the argument that it made against macroevolution was brilliant and irrefutable. In this chapter, I will attempt to show how this concept points out how many critical components of cellular structures could not have been built via Darwin’s evolutionary model.

Behe, who had been a typical evolutionist, had the good fortune of having an open mind.

By the early 1990s, he came to realize that there were certain systems within the cells of many bacteria and animals that could not have come into existence via the slow, step-wise manner that neo-Darwinism required. In particular, he said that he became fascinated by the bacterial flagellum. Here was an impressive motor-like structure that was obviously pretty complex. He wondered how evolution could have brought it together. He looked into the scientific literature to see if anyone had explained how that might have happened, and there was nothing. Next, he read Michael Denton’s book on Evolution, A Theory in Crisis and realized that there were good scientific reasons to question the ability of evolution to use random mutation and natural selection to yield major biological innovation.

Darwin’s idea was that new structures in living organisms would come about because small, positive changes would be made to already existing structures (typically via mutations) that might be selected out by natural selection. However, Behe noted that some systems had far too many items that were needed at the same time for it to be built or it could not function at all – like the bacterial flagellum or the cilium. He noted that these systems were very complex, for one thing. He also noted that they had to have all the components together in order to build the system right at the start… they could not be reduced to a one protein addition at a time concept of evolution. The system would be of no value unless everything was put together simultaneously. That is, the protein structure was irreducible. For example, if one takes any one part away from the bacteria flagellum it would not work at all. This was not the way Darwin viewed living things. He said items and systems would be built one part at a time. Behe said that these thoughts led him to call the whole concept one of being Irreducible Complex. He also got himself in hot water because he said that he was convinced that only an Intelligent Designer could build cellular structures in this manner.

His new book was reviewed by the main-stream press as well as the scientific community. Critics were upset with this new idea. However, this concept was now available to the world so any open-minded person could see this excellent evidence against macroevolution.

Behe titled his book, Darwin’s Black Box because until the latter decades of the 20th century, the mechanisms required for cells to accomplish all the amazing things that they could do was a mystery. No one knew what went on inside each cell – it was like looking at a black box. Now, Michael was going to open that box, so to speak, and show how modern science had shed a great deal of light on the topic of just how certain structures as well as molecular systems 176

(e.g. blood clotting, immune system, etc.) work at the intracellular, molecular level. He was going to show what was required for some of the more complex systems to work.

Recall what Darwin thought about the whole idea of how organisms changed over time.

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”107 Michael Behe decided to take up the challenge. He noted that an IC system would be such a system that could not be formed by that Darwinian method. He defined IC as “a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”108 This type of system cannot be produced by slight, successive modifications to its basic structure.

Since it can only work if all of the parts exist at the same time, it also cannot be formed via natural selection – there would be nothing to select until it is all up and working.

There actually two areas where one can look at irreducible complexity to see if it makes any sense that Darwinian evolution could be at play… or not. One area relates to the gross anatomy level. For example, some of our bodies systems are so complex, it is hard to imagine how they came into being one part at a time. Two great examples, and there are many more, are the renal system and the visual system. I am going to devote an entire chapter to the visual system a little later in this section. First, however, I will show how certain molecular machines within cells could not have been created via evolution. So, that is what we shall now do…

Our goal now is to understand exactly what an irreducible complex system looks like, then see if living organisms have examples of them.

The classic example almost everyone uses to show the basic idea of an IC system is the mousetrap. Let’s take a look. First, it is important to specify the function of the system under consideration. It is pretty obvious that we want the mousetrap to catch mice. Next, we need to take a look at all of the parts required to construct the system and see if some or all are required for the mousetrap to work. If so, the entire system can be deemed IC. The overall system can still be IC if some of the parts are not necessary as long as it is complex enough. In that case, the IC system would just not work when one or more of the required parts were not available. Now, back to the mouse trap…

Classic Mousetrap

177

•

• •

First off, we need to define the function of the system (to catch mice) and the parts of the system needed to complete the system. This includes the spring, the flat wooden platform, the metal hammer which will swing down to trap the mouse when it pulls at the cheese, the catch to hold the hammer back along with the metal bar that connects to the catch.

Next, we need to check and see whether any of these parts can be excluded and still have a reasonably working mouse trap. The answer is “no.”

Hence, this is indeed an irreducibly complex (IC) system.

Now that, hopefully, you understand the basic principle, let us advance and analyze the intracellular protein system that first got the attention of Dr. Behe… the bacterial flagellum.

Bacterial Flagellum: Interestingly, the flagellum was the structure that apparently first got Michael Behe to really begin to seriously doubt the neo-Darwinian theory that all living things were the result of macroevolution (i.e. an indefinite series of microevolutionary changes/mutations that, eventually, resulted in every animal, plant, and fungus ever produced). The propulsion mechanism for these bacteria was discovered in 1973. In fact, the motor that propels a power boat is exactly how Behe viewed the bacterial flagellum. They work the same and have the same basic parts as we shall see. Forty proteins are required to build this propeller-like device. Behe simply could not see how an occasional rare beneficial mutation (and they are very rare as we shall discuss in the next chapter) could result in such an impressive “outboard motor.” And the odds of having forty mutations in the same organism during one reproductive cycle was certainly “zero.” Always keep in mind that all of these structures that have been and will be discussed are made entirely out of the same tiny twenty amino acids… incredible!

Let us first define the function that the flagellum must provide to the bacteria – simply put, the flagellum provides the bacteria with well controlled, rapid locomotion. In fact, this “motor” has the ability to instantly stop, reverse direction immediately and rotate at 100,000 rpm. It is an incredibly efficient propulsion system.

The following are just a handful of the necessary components of the system (remember that, in fact, there are forty different proteins that make up this outboard motor). Let’s take a look at some of them: • The filament – serves as the propeller as it extends out of the main structure of the motor – it is made up of a protein, flagellin.

• The universal joint • Bushing (with its P-ring and L-ring) • Stator (studs plus C-ring) • Rotor (S-ring and M-ring) • Drive shaft (rod) • Clutch • Brake – stops the propeller when required • On-off switch • The motor must be properly located within the cell wall – this is a very necessary step in the construction of this unit.

• Requisite acid flow through membrane to supply energy for motion 178

•

Forty additional proteins – roles of these proteins have not yet been identified although some certainly are needed to build the actual motor for the flagellum. Others are needed to direct the assembly of the entire structure. It will not come together simply because the component parts exist.

Bacterial Flagellum After carefully reviewing all of these component parts in the motor system of the bacterial flagellum, Behe was completely convinced that it would be impossible to be the result of neo-Darwinian evolution. There was no way that this very complex system of locomotion could have been built one unit at a time. Remember, according to Darwin, at each point along the way, in the production of this impressive structure, the intermediate structures should have added at least some benefit to the organism. He, nor I, can see any benefit in adding only a rotor, or a universal joint, or even an unattached filament to the cell. Every one of the components listed above are required for the motor to work at all. Maybe there is someone reading this who might quibble with one or even two of those listed. Even if that person could imagine the flagellum’s motor working to some degree with one or two components (of the forty), what about the remaining thirty-eight? Near the end of this chapter, I will present the two arguments put forth by evolutionists in their attempt to shoot holes in this IC concept. This irreducibly complex idea first put forward by Michael Behe had really driven the die-hard evolutionists crazy – because it is so incredibly convincing of an argument against macroevolution.

179

Before moving on to the next example of IC, I want to mention the fact that in the last fifteen years a lot of research has been done to determine many of the details of how the bacterial flagellum is built. Behe devotes several pages in one of his more recent books, The Edge of Evolution, to a “part-by-part” description of this construction. It is pretty impressive that scientists have been able to figure out how this is done in the cell. More impressive is noting how an incredible number of proteins work together, one after another, to accomplish this amazing task. I get the impression that it is analogous to watching an assembly line at an auto factory as they put together all the components of a car. Everything has to fit perfectly in both the car and the flagellum. For the flagellum, this fit is 100% dependent on the proper tertiary structure of each protein. All of the forty proteins need to fit together just right.

Now let me mention a few other IC systems that are found in many living organisms.

1. The cilium – this structure is a microscopic structure that is used for locomotion in a liquid environment. It looks like a hair and beats like a whip. A sperm uses it to swim forward. A very important use of these structures is found in the lungs of animals. They line the respiratory tract of many animals and typically beat in unison to move, slowly, mucous toward the mouth. When a person has a URI (a cold) or inhales inappropriate matter, this mucous discharge is very important to rid the body of toxic (bacteria, viruses, dirt, allergens, etc.) material. I will mention just some of the IC components of this propulsion system below: a) Ciliary membrane b) Axonome - Nine double microtubules made from a protein tubulin surrounding two central single microtubules c) Each outer doublet consists of one fused ring of ten strands and one fused ring of thirteen strands d) The filaments of the microtubules are composed of tubulin e) Nexin – the protein that helps bind the microtubules together f) Dynein – functions as a tiny motor of the cilium

The Cilium

180

I am not going to discuss the mechanism of how these tubules work together to propel the organism forward. It is very interesting, though. So, at the conclusion of this book, I will reference Michael’s Behe’s ground-breaking book to those readers who want to understand this entire concept of IC better and for those who just want to know how the cilium works in some detail. It is sufficient for my purposes here to point out that without the many microtubules, the dynein motor, the nexin connectors, and multiple additional proteins, the cilium would just lie “dead in the water.” This system is also irreducibly complex. Actually, this system uses more than 200 different kinds of proteins to accomplish its intended job of providing motion to an organism. This is way more than even the flagellum requires.

2. ATP synthase - a complex which makes use of the proton potential created by the action of the electron transport chain in mitochondria. It transports a proton down the gradient and uses the energy to complete the phosphorylation of ADP to ATP. 3. Krebs Cycle - The Krebs cycle occurs in the mitochondrial matrix and generates a pool of chemical energy (ATP, NADH, and FADH2) from the oxidation of pyruvate, the end product of glycolysis.

4. Photosynthesis – the process by which green plants and some other organisms use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water. It may involve as many as 500 chemical steps!

5. Golgi Apparatus - A major organelle in most eukaryotic cells is the structure of membrane-bound sacs called the Golgi apparatus (or Golgi body, Golgi complex). It acts to process and package the macromolecules such as proteins and lipids that are synthesized by the cell.

6. Lysosomes – the cells system of removing waste products. This IC system is able to degrade material that is taken in by the cell as well as digest and remove waste products of the cell.

7. Kinesin motor protein motion - a group of related motor proteins that use a microtubule track in anterograde movement. They are vital to spindle formation in mitotic and meiotic chromosome separation during cell division and are also responsible for shuttling mitochondria, Golgi cells, and vesicles within eucaryotic cells.

8. There are several systems within the human body that require a myriad of steps, all required, in order for the body to live. For example, the entire mechanism of our kidney’s function is an amazing sequence of irreducibly complex steps resulting in a fantastic method to get rid of the liquid waste products in our body. Many aspects of our immune system also are IC. Another critically important and fairly well understood IC system is the blood clotting system. This is beautifully set up and also is an excellent example of irreducibly complex concept. Hence, I will next review the important components of that system.

181

Blood Clotting: When anyone takes time to think about all of the amazing things our bodies can do, it is really quite an “eye-opener.” For instance, think about your ability to see, taste, hear, smell, and feel – wow! Also, the entire system that has developed (or has been given to us) so we can run, jump, breathe, eat (take food in and get rid of the waste), play sports, think, etc., etc. My word! Frankly, scores of these functions are made up of IC systems. The first two systems (cilium and flagellum) that were described had to do with the locomotion of various organisms or parts of organisms. Next, let me list the IC steps of our impressive and well-controlled blood clotting system. It is an excellent example on the need for an Intelligent Designer as it could not have arisen by chance mutations or any other chance event.

First, let us see what will be necessary to have an effective blood clotting system. After a person receives a cut, the bleeding must be stopped quickly. It also must form a clot only in the area where the cut occurred – otherwise, any additional clotting might well lead to an embolism or it might block necessary blood flow in the vicinity of the cut. The clot must be well controlled in size and in time of existence. Next is a bullet point presentation of how this mechanism works

Blood Clotting Cascade

1. Fibrinogen (the protein that makes fibers in a clot) – makes up 2-3% of plasma. It is a composite of six protein chains comprised of three different proteins.

182

2. Thrombin – a protein that trims fibrinogen to make it “sticky” and form fibrin – this allows the fibrin fibers to aggregate.

3. The meshwork created traps RBCs to make the initial clot and stop the bleeding.

4. Now, without going into the many reactions required to properly control the amount of blood clotting, let me mention several of the enzymes (proteins) that are needed: a) Stuart Factor cleaves prothrombin b) Prothrombin activates thrombin c) Prothrombin is modified by glutamate residues that allows it to be cleaved by Stuart factor (this reaction also requires vitamin K) d) Proaccelerin activates accelerin e) Stuart factor also must be activated before it can cleave prothrombin 1. There is an intrinsic pathway – all necessary proteins are in the plasma After the body is cut, a protein called Hageman factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. This is followed by a series of reactions involving the following proteins; HMK>activated Hageman factor> prekallikrein> kallikrein> PTA> activated PTA+convertin> activates Christmas Factor+antihemophilic factor> Activated Stuart factor 2. There also is an extrinsic pathway – some needed proteins are on cells This pathway is also a long cascade of proteins. Proteins not already mentioned include proconvertin and tissue factor.

3. There is a cross-over of these two pathways at several points.

List of Blood Clotting Factors: 1. Fibrinogen * 2. Prothrombin * 3. Tissue Factor or thromboplastin 4. calcium 5. Proaccelerin (labile factor) * 6. ----7. Proconvertin (stable factor) * 8. Antihaemophilic factor A, Antihaemophilic globulin 9. Christmas factor (Plasma thromboplastin component) 10. Stuart-Prower factor * 11. Plasma thromboplastin antecedent 12. Hageman factor * 13. Fibrin stabilizing factor *missing any one of these factors will lead to bleeding disorder.

183

By the way, the blood clotting mechanism is not complete even with all of the steps listed above. Our bodies need to eventually, and at just the right time, stop the clotting process. That involves another set of IC proteins. Without going into the details, the list includes: antithrombin, heparin, protein C, activated hemophilic factor, thrombomodulin, plasmin, plasminogen, t-PA, alpha2-antiplasmin, and more. This additional list, is also very much an IC list of reactions.

Simply adding a protein here and there over the millennia will not do anything for the organism’s ability to control the clotting mechanism. They must all appear at the same time.

There are many different types of bleeding disorders, hemophilia A (factor VIII deficiency), hemophilia B (factor IX deficiency), von Willebrand disease, and rare factor deficiencies including I, II, V, VII, X, XI, XII and XIII. Of course, bleeding disorders can be very dangerous and even life-threatening. Women are especially vulnerable primarily due to menstruation and pregnancy… both of which can lead to uncontrollable bleeding if any component along the blood clotting pathway is missing. Lack of protein C causes death in infancy due to numerous episodes and inappropriate blood clotting.

Of course, evolutionists were particularly perplexed by this incredibly complex system.

There have been attempts to describe a Darwinian explanation for its development. Most of these attempts suggest that this system somehow borrowed proteins from other areas in the cell to use for clotting. None that I have come across give any indication as to how this might have happened. The basic idea is that just the right amount of a piece of a gene would be “stolen” for use in blood clotting, or one might just be duplicated, or a few gene sections might be pieced together from one gene with another, etc. Never is the main issue addressed… i.e. the fact that this blood clotting system is IC! There is no way that all of the machinations required to gather up the needed protein pieces and put them all together in just the right sequence and all at once could be accomplished via chance… i.e. there is not a chance. It is really a sign of desperation to even suggest that it could have happened. For anyone wanting more explanation on this topic, Michael Behe goes into great detail in showing the absurdity of this possibility in his book, Darwin’s Black Box. On a gross level, besides the visual system (to be discussed in detail later), there are many other IC systems in the human body, such as: circulatory system, digestive system, urinary, respiratory, nervous, and more. All are incredibly complex and with many irreducible parts within each of these systems.

Evolutionists Response to Irreducible Complexity: When Michael Behe came out with his first book, Darwin’s Black Box, it caused quite a stir… to say the least. Behe was slammed by virtually all scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology. There were only a handful of scientists that were willing to give any credence to his new idea of irreducible complexity. For so many ridiculous reasons, the general scientific community would never allow any theory to be considered as a real possibility if it might suggest that Intelligent Design had a place in origins… and IC did suggest that a Creator 184

had been involved in the construction of living organisms. Behe went out of his way to point out that he was just going where the facts led him in his research. He was not commenting on any religious aspects of his findings. That did not seem to stop the complaints against him and his new idea. Interestingly, there were a few fellow biologists, philosophers, mathematicians, and biochemists who also “saw the light” in the 1980s and 1990s. However, overall, Behe was looked down upon. It was fortunate for his livelihood that he had just recently received his tenure at Lehigh University before he went from being a typical evolutionist to someone who now believed that there was an Intelligent Designer behind all living things.

The years passed by with many scientists continuing to bash Behe – although none ever were able to come up with an evolutionary explanation of how any of the IC systems/cascades could have evolved. The world was simply supposed to accept that it must have happened via some sort of “secular faith.” On the other hand, there were many scientists that were impressed and convinced of the nice breakthrough Behe had made by sharing his new concept with the world. I certainly was.

In 2004, in the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, parents by the name of Kitzmiller decided to sue the school district because they were upset that they were allowing Darwin’s theory of evolution to be taught as only a theory. They were allowing the teachers to mention that there were some who doubted that this theory was actually correct in all of its claims – including that all life came from this purely natural process. Another problem was that the school had allowed Michael Behe’s book to be placed in the school library and students were encouraged to read it if they wanted to see another side to the story… with respect to origins.

The suit claimed that the school district was mixing religion into their subject matter. Of course, the flaming liberal ACLU represented Kitzmiller.

This became arguably the biggest case of this nature since the Scopes trial of the early th 20 century. The judge was incredibly biased. John Jones stated that he wanted Tom Hanks to play him if and when this case came to the big screen – it actually did become a PBS special a couple years later (Hanks did not play the judge). Jones mentioned how he watched the movie from the late 1950s about the Scope’s Trial – this movie was completely one-sided and made all Christians look like a bunch of dumb, inconsiderate rubes. After the Dover trial, and after viewing the judges final report, it became blatantly obvious that Judge Jones literally copied and pasted approximately 90% of the ACLUs briefs concerning the case in writing up his decision.

Many errors were in the ACLUs briefs – those same, exact errors were in Jones’s lengthy decision. He did not even take the time to carefully study what the defense presented. What a bunion-head.

Michael Behe was called to testify as a witness because IC was also on trial, so to speak.

It was the contention of the ACLU that there was no merit in this idea and it only was used to try to bring God into the classroom. The main witness for the ACLU side was a Brown University professor, Kenneth Miller. He brought up one of the two main objections that evolutionists tend to use against IC. He said that there was a “Type III secretion” system in bacteria that could be “borrowed” for use and replace thirty of the forty proteins in the purported IC of the flagellum.

185

Behe gave several good reasons why Miller’s conjecture was incorrect. Let me summarize Behe’s objections (and others) to Miller’s point which was that bacterial cells could use already existing protein complexes to build up the flagellum’ motor system: • First of all, even if it were true that this Type III secretion system could be used in place of thirty of the forty flagellum motor proteins, there still would be ten other proteins required for the system to work.

• Just because a similar portion of the flagellum exists, does not explain how it would be modified at just the right time for use in the construction of the flagellum. It definitely was not exactly the correct size and construction to simply be plugged into the flagellum’s propulsion system. Directions for the importation and modification of the Type III system would be missing.

• Very importantly, it has been determined that the Type III secretory system came onto the scene in bacteria long after the flagellum was in use. It could not possibly have been used to create the flagellum’s motor system.

• Probably the most relevant response to this objection to the concept of IC is the obvious fact (although apparently missed by Miller and Judge Jones) that the Type III secretion system would need to be an IC system itself. In other words, it could not have been put together via an evolutionary method itself… it also would have required a Creator.

As expected, the plaintiffs won this case. The judge’s decision included his statement that Intelligent Design should not be considered as having anything to do with real science. Time magazine had a feature story on the trial and on Judge Jones. PBS had a featured presentation on the entire affair. This is pretty much where things stand now as far as the ability to teach our children the truth about evolution and Intelligent Design – i.e. we cannot do it in our public schools and it is not done in our university system. Frankly, that is why I am writing this book.

Maybe it will be read by several young people one day and keep them from being brain-washed by the incredibly closeminded scientists of our day… or by their ignorant or fearful (for their jobs) teachers. It is so frustrating to know just how much evidence there is concerning the existence of God, His creative works, as well as the wealth of evidence against the theory of evolution – but not be able to get the message out to the vast majority of our youth (and elder folk as well).

There have been two main arguments that die-hard evolutionists like Miller have used in their attempt to denigrate the idea of IC. • The main argument used is the one that Miller used in the Dover case. That is, there likely is enough smaller protein systems within the cell to be borrowed for the construction of the purported IC system under investigation. Unfortunately, never has any biologist shown this to be true… never. There are no examples that

186

•

evolutionists can refer to as a realistic way that the many IC systems already known to biologists could have been constructed within the cell.

The second argument is rather silly, but here it is… just because biologists cannot figure out a way around the irreducibly complex construction of certain systems (ex. the cilium, blood clotting, etc.), does not mean that one day someone will have an epiphany and solve that neo-Darwinian question/problem. Maybe today’s scientists are just too ignorant or dense. No fooling, this is one way they answer the IC dilemma that exists for evolutionists.

Before wrapping up this chapter on irreducible complexity, I want to report an intriguing true story concerning a top evolutionist scientist from Germany, Gunter Bechly. In 2009, there were several celebrations held around the world to honor Darwin as it was the 200th year since his birth. Bechly was the curator of Stuttgart’s Natural History Museum. He was in charge of setting up that city’s festivities for the occasion. He decided to set up a display using a balance scale with about a dozen books that had recently been published to counter neo-Darwinism (such as, Darwin’s Black Box, Evolution – A Theory in Crisis, Signature in the Cell and about five to six more) on one side. He placed only one book on the other balance side, Darwin’s Origin of Species. He set it up so the single Darwin book was lower than all the rest. His point, all the weight of the argument of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution was in Darwin’s favor. But then a strange thing happened. For some reason, he decided to read several of the books on that scale that pointed out the glaring weaknesses of neo-Darwinism. When he was finished, he had rejected macroevolution and accepted the premise of Intelligent Design and completely recognized the validity of the IC argument. He noted in the scientific literature and the mainstream press how those scientists who were proponents were always getting mocked and mistreated. Well, he became one of them thanks to his willingness to be openminded and his inherent ability to stand up for what he thought was truth, not just what was easy (i.e. it is so much easier to simply say you believe the lie of macroevolution even when you do not actually believe it to be true).

So, now we have reviewed three important points: • the fossil evidence (or lack of it) concerning evolution • some of the molecular evidence showing that animals are created in a particular class, and they stay in that class until they become extinct or they continue to this very day • the impressive evidence that irreducibly complex systems add to our recognition that so many things in our study of living things points to Intelligent Design.

(Raup and Stanley) “We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.”109 187

(Dr. David Woodruff) “No one has a clue how the AMP pathway developed.”110 (Earl Core) Concerning vesicular transport: “A search of the professional biochemical literature and textbooks shows that no one has ever proposed a detailed route by which such a system could have come to be. In the face of the enormous complexity of vesicular transport, Darwinian theory is mute.”111 Michael Behe concluded after an exhaustive search of the scientific literature, “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.”112 In the next two chapters, we shall review the mathematical/statistical evidence that shows that macroevolution simply cannot have happened in any level beyond the genus level… and in that level only very rarely.

188

Chapter 16:

The Mathematical Limitations of Darwinian Evolution

As we have learned, the claim of evolutionists as they continue their allegiance to Darwin, is that all life came into being due to a beautiful combination of random mutation, natural selection, that, in turn, led to common descent. In the first three chapters of this section, a very significant amount of evidence was given and discussed to show just some of the evidence against the possibility that macroevolution could be the mechanism for the production of all life on earth. In the next two sections, we shall get into the DNA and protein evidence that has come to light in recent decades that shows, from a mathematical perspective, that Darwinian macroevolution simply has not, nor cannot, contribute to any significant morphological changes in plants or animals even over billions of years. Once this fact has been even more firmly established in these two chapters, we are left with Intelligent Design as the reason for the origin and the subsequent development of all living organisms. So, let us take a look at some of the intriguing details of what mutations can and cannot do to various organisms.

In order to get some idea on the limitations, if any, of evolutionary change over time, it is imperative to study appropriate organisms as they reproduce. Of course, for larger animals, there will not be anywhere near enough generations to follow for us to get a reasonable idea of the changes that one might expect to see as thousands of generations come and go. Therefore, it is fortunate that scientists can study certain bacteria and/or viruses since they have very short generation times. The concepts are the same as far as what mutations can accomplish whether they involve large animals or those at the level of bacteria, parasites, or viruses. What we shall see is that although there is no doubt that random mutations can cause some evolutionary change, the evidence that any mutations cause any beneficial large-scale morphologic changes is zero.

Keep in mind, in order to be the cause of any big morphological change, there would have to be many continuous steps (mutations), each one building upon the previous one, until the new animal or structure was produced. This type of change is not seen in nature. The fact is that the power of Darwinian evolution has been massively oversold to the publicâ&#x20AC;Ś and, the scientific establishment knows it as many of the quotes throughout this section on evolution demonstrate.

Be that as it may, there is still much to be learned about the potential power of beneficial mutation and the subsequent natural selection as we study some of the smaller organisms in nature.

Probably the two organisms that have been studied the most in an attempt to learn about the limitations of evolution are the bacterial cell and the malaria parasite. Keep in mind that all of these changes will be taking place at the level of proteins. If there is a mutation in the DNA of an organism, that organism will either die, be deformed, or, on a rare occasion, have a beneficial change in its structure or capabilities. These changes can be the result of point mutations, areas of DNA duplication, or other re-arrangements of the organismâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s DNA. Researchers have determined that the typical rate of mutation is approximately once per hundred million nucleotides in a generation. In other words, the copying of DNA is extremely dependable. Some viruses have more frequent rates of mutation.

189

One organism that has provided scientists with a great deal of valuable information about the possibilities of evolution is the malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum. For ten thousand years, this mosquito-borne parasite has wreaked havoc on millions of people around the globe.

The data that can be gleaned from the effects of mutations that are involved in the life-cycle of this parasite can be extrapolated to larger animals, such as humans. Until drugs were discovered, this parasite was a terrible killer of children in the United States. Sadly, however, within 10-15 years of finding the appropriate medicine to treat this disease, the parasite mutated and developed resistance to the drug. Since that first drug, additional drugs have been found to fight this scourge, to varying degrees of success. Of course, this drug resistance is an excellent example of microevolution.

Interestingly, there happens to be a serious human disease, sickle cell anemia, that offers good protection against the malaria parasite if the individual has only the sickle cell trait (one of the two genes is sickle, the other is normal). If a person inherits the sickle cell gene from both parents, death will likely follow fairly early in life. The hemoglobin in the red blood cells of these people stick together and tend to cause many of the RBCs to get stuck in the narrow areas of capillaries. Eventually, this structural problem leads to a condition called sickle cell crisis and can lead to death. The sickle cell mutation arose in Africa ten thousand years ago. The defect is a single amino acid mutation in the beta chain of the hemoglobin protein; it has a valine instead of a glutamic acid in the 6th position. It turns out that people with the Hemoglobin mutation in only one of these sickle cell genes (i.e. they have the trait, not the full-blown disease) are protected from the devastating effects of the parasite. These people are said to have sickle cell trait. Not only are they able to withstand the ill effects of malaria, but the people with only the trait have no significant health problems from this condition. One to two million African-Americans have this condition. About 100,000 have the full-blown disease. Here is the way the condition works: • If a child has received a copy of the sickle cell gene from both parents, all of his/her RBCs will be sickle hemoglobin and that child will likely die at a fairly young age.

• If the child only inherits one copy of the sickle hemoglobin (i.e. has sickle trait), they will be able retain reasonably good health. If the malaria parasite infects these cells, the half of the hemoglobin that has the mutant amino acid will cause the hemoglobin to aggregate and those cells will be destroyed. Hence, the child will not die from malaria.

• If a child is born free of the sickle cell disease, malaria will be devastating unless he/she is treated with medicine.

By the way, DNA studies have shown that this valine mutation in the 6th position of the beta chain has likely only occurred at most 2-3 times in the past 10,000 years – maybe only that one time. The question now is whether an additional mutation in the beta hemoglobin might come along and bestow greater health upon the person with the defective hemoglobin but still keep its resistance against the malaria parasite. Might natural selection choose a double mutation organism after random mutation produces one? That has happened and the mutation was first 190

seen in a person living in New York City. Along with the valine substitution at the 6th position in the beta chain, there is an additional substitution at the 73rd slot. Aspartic acid is substituted for Asparagine. Half-and-half mixtures of C-Harlem with normal hemoglobin react about the same as people with sickle cell trait. However, surprisingly, people that have pure hemoglobin CHarlem do not have their cells gel at all. So, this additional mutation has actually added additional protection onto the people who are living in malaria infested areas as they are naturally protected against this terrible parasitic disease plus their RBCs flow normally and transfer oxygen properly as well. So far, we have seen some of the positive effects of Darwinian evolution. Of course, these effects are of the “micro” variety, but still worthwhile to recognize and understand. Let us keep pushing the envelope and see how much further mutations can take us in this example.

There are other hemoglobin mutations that change the ability of the red blood cell to function properly as well as, in some cases, provide some protection against the malaria parasite.

For instance, when the 6th position in the beta chain is replaced by lysine instead of valine.

Another interesting mutation situation is when the DNA of one of the hemoglobin protein chains is deleted. When this occurs, the person is said to have a thalassemia. However, specific knowledge of these variants adds nothing of consequence to our knowledge concerning evolution. Therefore, I will not discuss them any further. There are a few other proteins inside the red blood cell that can mutate and give some protection to the individual against malaria and still allow for a functioning cell – i.e. glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, band 3 protein and the Duffy antigen. The important point to understand concerning every one of these mutations is that although they all do give some (or even a lot) of protection against a parasitic disease, they all actually make the cell – and the human with these cells – less healthy when they find themselves in ordinary situations (i.e. where they are not threatened by the Plasmodium falciparum parasite). In other words, overall, they are all damaging. To get a better idea just how much change the evolutionary process can conceivably produce, we shall study the number and significance of the changes that this parasite has undergone over time. Because there are literally trillions of these organisms and they have short generation times, much can be learned about the limits of evolution from this study.

For thousands of years, malaria has caused the death of millions of humans. Finally, after discovering the identity of this parasite, a very effective treatment was discovered in South America. The bark of the cinchona tree was brought back to Europe by some settlers as they knew that it was effective in treating fevers. Since malaria causes fevers, the quinine removed from the tree bark by French chemists was tried. This took place in the early years of the 19th century. The Harvard chemist, Robert Woodward synthesized this compound in the 1940s. The Germans synthesized a very similar drug, that was later reformulated by the United States as Chloroquine. Not only did these all help the fever, but they realized that it was an effective treatment of the primary disease. Unfortunately, within about forty years, significant resistance had developed to these medicines. Mutations had conferred upon the parasite the ability to withstand the effects of these drugs… they had evolved.

191

After a very sophisticated and tedious search, geneticists were able to determine what gene was involved in giving the parasite resistance to Chloroquine. It was a sequence of a protein that was named PfCRT (P. falciparum chloroquine resistance trait). Additional research revealed that this protein was located in the membrane of the parasite’s stomach. The mutant gene allowed for a pumping mechanism to rid the stomach of much of the chloroquine… allowing the malaria organism to survive and reproduce. Even these tiny creatures have lengthy proteins… this one is 424 amino acids long. Studies of this killer parasite have revealed that there are different mutations in this protein chain in different areas of the world. Invariably, there exist mutations at position numbers 76 and 220. Other mutations vary with regions of the globe where they are found. There seems to be two major clusters of these mutant parasites… one in South America and the other in Asia. Researchers initially believed that chloroquine resistance arose at least twice… once in South America and once in Asia. Now, it is thought that it happened on four different occasions. Apparently, the mutations at positions 76 and 220 are required, any others are likely there as helpers of some sort. As with the situation with the hemoglobin mutations, although these PfCRT mutations confer important advantages onto the malaria parasite when it has to deal with Chloroquine, when these parasites are removed from situations that require them to resist treatment with that type of medicine, the original strain of organism will re-assert itself. That means that the mutated parasite was not overall a healthier specimen.

One additional interesting point to think about is the fact that although it has become relatively easy for the malaria parasite to develop resistance to new drugs, it has not been able to figure out a mechanism (i.e. through microevolution) to conquer the beneficial, life-saving effects given to humans due to one simple mutation in the 6th position of their beta hemoglobin chain… and that is after having thousands of years of trying. That seems odd… So we can definitely see that Darwinian microevolution can deal quickly with some problems, but is stumped indefinitely by others. Our goal in this chapter and the next is to figure out which problems it can deal with and those problems beyond its reach.

It turns out that the odds of the malaria organism developing antibiotic resistance is dependent on the number of nucleotides in the genome and the number of mutations required before a beneficial effect is realized. The mutation rate and generation time are obviously relevant in this determination. The more malaria parasites that are exposed to the antibiotic, the shorter will be the time before resistance to the drug appears. The probability odds that will be discussed in the next few paragraphs might be a little bit confusing. However, it is important to get the gist of the discussion as the results will lead to an understanding of the limitations of evolution.

For example, if there is a drug that has only one chance in a billion for resistance to develop, this drug very likely would effectively cure a patient who has only one hundred million parasites in their body. However, if there are ten such patients, one would likely show resistance to this drug. However, much better treatment results are available if the patient is administered a “cocktail” of two or more drugs. If one in a million malaria organisms are resistant to each of two different drugs and the resistance is due to mutations at different sites, the odds of the 192

parasite being resistant to both drugs is only one in a trillion (one million x one million). The use of two drugs is often used now because of the increasing drug resistance seen in recent decades.

There are some antibiotics that will continue to be effective against the parasite until two separate amino acid mutations appear in the organism. In fact, chloroquine is one such drug.

Studies have shown that the odds of this parasite developing resistance to that drug is one in a hundred billion billion (1020). On the other hand, the malaria parasite gains resistance over atovaquone with just one mutation in the amino acid at position 268 in a single protein. One study showed that this typically happens once after treating “only” a trillion (1012) parasites.

Therefore, it is approximately 108 times more likely for the malaria parasite to show resistance to the drug atovaquone than to chloroquine.

Because there are about one billion (109) people infected with about one trillion (1012) parasites every year, there should be chloroquine resistance found in at least one person at any given time (since at any given time there would be 1021 (109 x 1012) parasites on earth). So, because there are so many malaria parasites in the world and so many people that are infected with them, it is pretty easy to find an infected person. If one is dealing with a markedly less virulent organism and one that is not so incredibly plentiful, it will take much longer to find a comparable resistance complex within its DNA. The general principle is that species with fewer organisms than the malaria parasite in the example above, will take proportionately longer to develop a cluster of mutations of the complexity of malaria’s resistance to chloroquine (i.e. one in 1020). Many books tab this probability a CCC (a chloroquine complexity cluster). For example, when dealing with humans, there are markedly less than 1020 of them in the world. Estimates suggest that there are in the range of “only” one trillion (1012) creatures in the line leading to homo sapiens that preceded us over the course of the last 10 million years. That number is very much less than the number of malarial parasites that are needed to develop chloroquine resistance. In fact, the ratio of the number of creatures in that humanoid line to the number of parasites needed to have resistance to chloroquine develop is 1012 / 1020 = 10-8. What this means is that there is only one chance in 100,000,000 that a humanoid creature would develop a set of mutations in the past ten million years that is as complex as the CCC mutation set seen in the malaria-chloroquine example.

Michael Behe concludes, “No mutation that is of the same complexity as chloroquine resistance in malaria arose by Darwinian evolution in the line leading to humans in the past ten million years.”113 Let me give another example of the significance of this statistical finding.

There are approximately 5,000 species of mammals in the world at this time. If there were an average of 1,000,000 mammals per each of these species, and we set a reasonable generation time of five years, and we let this go on for one billion years, the likelihood that any one of these mammals having a mutation complex of the CCC type (which is actually only a point mutation at two different amino acid sites), would be only one chance in one hundred. The point to remember is that the likelihood of a relatively insignificant beneficial double mutation in the DNA of any and all mammals, over the last billion years, is really quite small. But even more important, even if one or two happened by chance, big deal! Even if that type of CCC mutation 193

happened once or twice in the animal kingdom over that span of our world’s history, it is certainly not going to eventuate in a fish evolving into a frog and then into a human… or a dinosaur evolving into an eagle and then into a hummingbird. The stats show that the type of mutations that could happen are far too insignificant and would happen at a markedly too infrequent rate. One additional point of information… although it is true that there are plenty of other proteins in the malaria parasite that could also mutate, only the CCC mutation complex turns out to be of any beneficial value to the organism. That is why our statistical analysis related only to those mutations.

Given that the probability of getting a CCC type of DNA mutation is one in 1020, the likelihood of getting two of them (a double CCC - four amino acids sites involved) in one organism at the same time is one in 1040. Researchers have estimated that there have been less than 1040 number of organisms in all of earth’s history. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that there has ever been, or ever will be, a mutation complex that would be anywhere more complex than a three-amino acid exchange. Michael Behe calls that the “edge of evolution.” That is synonymous with the limits of macroevolution.

In recent decades, important statistics have become available concerning mutation rates, etc. For example, as mentioned earlier, there is about one error made per hundred million nucleotides of DNA duplicated. However, since there are so many nucleotides per cell, there are about 1-10 mutations per cell made in the DNA duplication process. Only a small fraction of these mutated nucleotides is directly related to the coding for proteins (much of this DNA used to be looked at as “junk” DNA – now, we know that it has several important jobs within the cell).

There are a variety of mechanisms within the cell that result in DNA mutations. For instance, there may be a simple substitution of one amino acid for another (about once per 108 births), or a small deletion, gene duplication or insertion mutation (each of these are also about once per 108 births). It is true, however, that beneficial mutations occur markedly less frequently than deleterious ones. There is no problem having a section of a gene deleted; yet, to have a beneficial substitution of a particular amino acid could well be a very rare thing. The point to remember is that beneficial mutations are rare, and a complex set of mutations such as a CCC is extremely rare. The beneficial mutations that might lead to a worthwhile new organism are basically impossibly likely as has been shown. There is an interesting feature about mutations in the genes of all animals that is an important indicator of possible relationships between different species.

This is specifically related to the concept referred to as “common descent.”

If DNA analysis shows that two species share a common set of mutations in their DNA, there is a likelihood that these two species descended from a common ancestor in the distant past that also had this same mutation set. At some point in the far distant past, the two current species in question may well have split from their common ancestor and developed their own characteristics… hence they ended up as different species. Evolutionists would attribute this common DNA genetic match to evolution. However, it could also be simply due to the Creator using a favorite method of making an aspect of a creature and He chose to use the same method in each species. More information would be needed to decide which explanation was the better 194

one. That quest is what this entire section and the next chapter are all about. So far, the macroevolution idea is not making out very well.

There is one intriguing similarity found in the chimpanzee and humans. Both have a copy of a broken piece of DNA that, in other animals, codes for a protein that helps make vitamin C. So, here we have one example of a situation that could be explained by reference to a common ancient animal that sustained this mutation and subsequently past it on to both descendant species. Michael Behe comments on this topic thusly, “Although fascinating, [this] is in a profound sense trivial. It says merely that commonalities were there from the start, present in a common ancestor. It does not even begin to explain where those commonalities came from or how humans subsequently obtained remarkable differences. Something that is nonrandom {i.e.

Intelligent Design] must account for the common descent of life… Most mutations that built the great structures of life must have been nonrandom.”114 In 1993, a structure within cells was discovered that amazed the biochemical world. A graduate student, Keith Kozminski of Yale, using a powerful new microscope, noticed an intriguing area of movement on the cilium of a single-celled alga. He saw a series of “bumps” move up one side of the cilium, then down the other side… moving twice as fast on their way down than up. Further evaluation revealed more details on this incredible ‘machine.’ Over the years since that discovery, much of the protein make-up of the mechanism behind this amazing cellular machine has been determined. It is simply a very complex structure that is responsible for the building and subsequent maintenance of the cilium. It replaces portions of the cilium with fresh material on a continual basis. This IFT (Intra Flagellar Transport) is made up of at least sixteen proteins. Importantly and interestingly, this IFT is not only needed for each cilium, but also it is required to function properly for normal kidney and vision function… and it is likely needed to maintain the proper function of other important organs. It is an incredibly important structure.

In Chapter 15, the idea of irreducible complexity was introduced and explained. There are a great many systems in the cell and within the cell membrane that require IC systems to function. These systems require Intelligent Design, no doubt about it. As the years pass, and research is continually being done to see how cells work, more and more complex systems are discovered. For just one example, in the bacterial flagellum that was discussed in some detail in the last chapter, it has now been discovered that each part of the construction of this structure is linked to a switch mechanism that is turned on only when it is time for that particular portion of the flagellum is to be built. The control mechanism portion of the IC system switch the genes on in the order and at exactly the proper time in order to build the flagellum correctly. H. Pearson wrote in Nature (a very important scientific journal) when commenting on the control mechanisms that are so complex that they are spread throughout the cell, “The picture these studies paint is one if mind-boggling complexity.”115 The bottom line here is that although there are some beneficial mutations found in nature that can be attributed to a microevolutionary change via the classic random mutation – natural selection mechanism, there are even more 195

complex illustrations in organisms that require scores of proteins working as a coordinated team to accomplish the necessary task. These systems require Intelligent Design as they consist of irreducibly complex (IC) systems. They are beyond the limits of what evolution can be expected to accomplish.

Some Basic Concepts: Let me review some of the more important concepts that have been discussed in this chapter. First, recognize that all creatures are built with proteins. These proteins are coded for by DNA within cells…typically DNA in the genetic machinery within the nucleus, but also nucleic acids that are found elsewhere in the cells. The human genome has over three billion nucleotides. Only about 3.3% are critical for coding for structural or control proteins. The mutation rate is about one per hundred million nucleotides (.033 x 3x109). Therefore, since only one mutation site need mutate to develop sickle cell trait or disease, the odds that a baby will have the sickle cell mutation is one in a hundred million. In order to calculate the odds in getting just the correct two-point mutations, one must square 108 = 1016 That is the probability of getting the C-Harlem double mutation. For organisms like bacteria and malaria parasites, since there are so many billions of them and they have a very short generation time, the likelihood of getting a double mutation is not unreasonable over a long period of time. As we saw in the early portion of this chapter, it did happen. On the other hand, since humans and most other large animals have much longer generation times and there are markedly less of them in the world, the chances of our species getting a double mutation is essentially zero.

Coordination of complex systems in cells: Now that it is hopefully understood that the complex activities of cells are engineered by IC systems (not just one or two simple point mutations), it will be worthwhile to take a look at what biochemists have learned about these impressive systems in recent decades. Just how do they work? Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Science recently stated, “we now know that every major process in a cell is carried out by assemblies of ten or more protein molecules. And, as it carries out its biological functions, each of these protein assemblies interacts with several other large complexes of proteins. Indeed, the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”116 The truly incredible aspect of this assembly line is that the whole thing has to assemble itself and know when each part of the assembly line begins and ends its contribution. In the summer before I began my graduate work at MIT, I got a very interesting and enjoyable summer job – I was hired by a technical company, Milgo Electronics, to set up an assembly line for putting together circuit boards. I was a “time study” man (aka an efficiency expert) just like Frank Gilbreth whose life was made into the movie “Cheaper by the Dozen.” I really enjoyed the job as I found it an interesting challenge to figure out how to split up the tasks in making the circuit boards the company produced and to allot the appropriate amount of time for each task – so the circular assembly line would run smoothly.

196

There is no one to do this for the multiple IC assembly lines in cells. Somehow, the cells need to know how to set things up for themselves… and, they surely do run very smoothly. Amazing!

S.A. Woodson put it this way in Nature magazine, “The cells macromolecular machines contain dozens or even hundreds of components. But unlike man made machines, which are built on assembly lines, these cellular machines assemble spontaneously from their protein and nucleic acid components. It is as though cars could be manufactured by merely tumbling their parts onto the factory floor.”117 By some “magic,” the hundreds of relevant proteins (those that make up that particular IC system) float around the cellular fluid, swimming along with the entire complement of other proteins, until they bump into their specific “mate”… the protein that has just the correct shape and chemical makeup to align properly with the searching protein and they stick to each other. This process is very similar to the critically important process cells use to find the appropriate antibody to match up with an invading antigen. This system is really intriguing as it is able to make billions of different antibodies (e.g. to fight infections, battle cancer, etc.) out of only a few hundred genes that code for them. This is another amazing IC system that cells have. I will suggest some reading material at the end of this book for those readers who want to understand this whole idea better.

In order for a new IC system to be constructed, there would have to be a new proteinprotein connection (that new connection could be a part of an updated IC system). In order for that new connection to be made, research has been determined that tens of millions of protein sequences would have to be searched through before a new protein-protein binding site was found. Additional recent studies have revealed that the generation of one new protein-protein binding site is approximately as difficult as the malaria parasite developing chloroquine resistance (i.e. a CCC; one chance in 1020). That would make it one chance in 1040 to create two new protein-protein binding sites. That probability is basically like saying zero chance since there have not even been 1040 cells in all history. The bottom-line conclusion is… since IC systems almost always have at a minimum six or more protein-protein complexes, there is no way that random mutations and natural selection could be involved in IC systems. This is just a mathematical proof of saying the same thing that we said in Chapter 3.

The AIDS virus is one other organism that has been extensively studied. It is made up of only nine genes (for comparison, the malaria parasite has thousands of genes). The mutation rate of this virus is ten thousand times faster than the rate for the malarial parasite. Even with that massive rate of mutations, the AIDS virus has not developed any new molecular machines or structural changes. Over thousands of generations of trillions of viruses, no new biochemical systems have developed. These organisms, and all other organisms, cannot evade the consequences of irreducibly complex systems. Those systems require Intelligent Design.

Now, let me mention just one last example of the search for a neo-Darwinian mechanism of a significant evolutionary change in an organism. Professor Richard Lenski of Michigan State, has been growing E. Coli for thirty-two years. These little critters have undergone 73,500 generations in his lab. Even after that massive number of generations and opportunities for genetic change, there have been no significant evolutionary changes in the E. Coli… only a few 197

microevolutionary mutations. There have been zero new protein-protein interactions nor any molecular machines developed. They have all been born as simple E. Coli bacteria. By the way, the average cell has approximately 10,000 protein-protein binding sites… it is just that they are not created via evolutionary methods… and there is only one other path to their creation…

Intelligent Design.

“There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful explanations.”118 (James Shapiro) It is time to take a look at all this information that we have collected concerning living organisms. We now know that random mutations cannot account for more than a collection of microevolutionary changes in plants and animals. Surely, these mutations can be helpful as we have seen in our study of the malaria parasite and sickle cell trait. On the other hand, even after millions of organisms have undergone thousands of generations of life, no significant new protein systems have been created… no significant cellular change has taken place structurally.

Yet, as we look around the world, we can quite easily see hundreds, if not thousands, of different plants and animals – from an ant to an elephant to a human. How did that happen? Keep in mind both the amazing variety of structures of these various creatures, but also the incredible complexity of the capabilities of each of them. Some produce beautiful flowers, others produce delicious food to eat, some can live under water, some can fly, some can run “faster than the wind,” some can build amazing buildings and bridges, and many have incredible instinctual behaviors (see Chapter 21).

What could have been the cause of the creation and development of all this variety of animals and plants? What can produce the necessary sudden beneficial changes in plants and animals that has given the world such a plethora of amazing variety? There are not that many possibilities. There are some scientists who think that there may be some undiscovered laws of nature that happen to be behind these outcomes. Others like to reference the infinite universe idea… if there are an infinite number of universes, hence an infinite number of planet earths, one just might be so lucky to have all this variety in it. The third possibility is that an Intelligent Designer planned our Universe eons prior to its creation and this plan was the ultimate cause of everything in our Universe and everything upon the earth. Frankly, this idea makes perfectly good sense and can account beautifully for everything presented in this book. The first two possibilities are amazingly unlikely.

It is true that much less is known about building an animal or a plant than is known about organisms like the malaria parasite or bacteria such as E. Coli. One thing that we do know is that large, multicellular organisms require many irreducibly complex systems – i.e. many intricate molecular machines. As we speculated earlier, not only must the components of these IC systems be created by an Intelligent Designer, but the whole system must be managed to exacting specifications. In recent decades, it has been discovered that there are proteins that exist to regulate the actions of the proteins within the IC cascade. They may turn the cascade on, off, 198

repress certain portions of it, etc. The genes that contain these controller proteins are therefore essential for the proper growth and development of the animal or plant. They are called Hox proteins. Mutations in these genes (called homeotic mutations) may cause major structural abnormalities in the organism. Another related discovery was that the Hox regulator proteins have a counterpart protein in the human. The analogous Hox protein in each organism controls an analogous section of each organism. For example, one may be the switch to turn on the building of an eye. Not only that, but these Hox gene “switches” can be inserted into a different organism and that organism will “switch on” and build the appropriate organ. So, it was an intriguing discovery that mammals and insects use the same switching proteins. This suggests that this protein regulatory gene system was inherited by mammals and insects from a common ancestor or that an Intelligent Designer chose to use the same on-off switch system in more than one species. Either or both could be true. These Hox genes are still mostly a mystery. Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist from the University of Chicago, stated, “We now know that Hox genes and other transcription factors have many roles besides inducing body pattern, and their overall function in development – let alone in evolution – remains murky.”119 It has been over twenty years since the first sequencing of these control gene proteins. However, nothing has been learned concerning how the wide variety of plant and animal forms are generated – nothing at all. One very interesting piece of information about the Hox control genes has been discovered.

Sean Carroll noted, “The surprising message… is that all of the genes for building large, complex animal bodies long predated the appearance of those bodies in the Cambrian Explosion.

The genetic potential was in place for at least 50 million years, and probably a fair bit longer, before large, complex forms emerged.”120 It looks a lot like the Intelligent Designer of our Universe and all living organisms moved all the necessary components into place so they would all be ready to “explode” when the proper time arrived. It makes absolutely no evolutionary sense that these Hox control genes would have been brought on the world scene millions of years before they were to be used. Of course, there was more than one way that God could introduce new life forms onto earth. It may be true that He simply decided to literally just switch on a Hox protein switch that He had implanted/created into each cell at exactly the time of His choosing.

In the next chapter, additional evidence will be discussed to show, once again, that Darwin’s theory of evolution falls far short of being able to explain all life on earth.

Macroevolution does not take place.

Darwinian Theory has no answer for consciousness: Sir John Eccles, Nobel Prize physics, “the conscious self is not in the Darwinian evolutionary process at all. I think it is a divine creation… and this is a creation, a loving creation.”121 George Wald, Nobel Prize, physiology/medicine, “Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science. It does not lie as an indigestible element within science, but just the opposite: Science is the highly digestible element within consciousness.”122

199

“I believe that there is one “gap” for which there never will be a scientific explanation, and that is man’s consciousness.”123 Sir Neville Mott, Noble Prize winner for physics

Quotes: the following are additional quotes from scientists who have recently recognized the serious problems with the theory of evolution: Professor L.More, University of Cincinnati, “The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation [evolution]; [for] the only alternative, is to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason, many scientists century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a ‘philosophical necessity.’”124 Prof. Hya Prigpgine (two-time Noble Laurate in Chemistry) – “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident is zero.”125 Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, “When one considers that the entire chemical information to construct a man, elephant, frog, or an orchid was compressed into two miniscule reproductive cells [sperm and egg nuclei], one can only be astounded. In addition to this, all the information to repair the body when it is injured. If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered fit for the psychiatric clinic,”126 David Gelernter, “To help create a brand-new form of organism, a mutation must effect a gene that does its job early and controls the expression of other genes that come into play as the organism grows. Evidently, there are a total of no examples in the literature of mutations that affect early development and the body plan as a whole and are not fatal.” (Claremont Review) Niles Eldridge, “No wonder paleontologist shied away from evolution or so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zig-zags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change – over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet, that is how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.”127 Lynn Margulis, Univ. Mass Biology prof. – She asks the audience of molecular biologists at one of her talks if there is anyone in the audience that can name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. There never is anyone who can. “Neo-Darwinism, which insists on the slow accrual of mutations is in a complete funk.”129

200

Chapter 17:

Can Macroevolution Lead to New Body Forms?

In the last chapter, a detailed study was undertaken to evaluate the probability that mutations within the cell could lead to significant evolutionary change. It was determined that there were some point mutations that were of great benefit – such as the mutation to the hemoglobin molecule that allows millions of Africans to avoid death from malaria. However, overall, the various types of mutations known to occur tend to have a detrimental effect on the organism. Although, as just noted, some mutations can lead to microevolutionary beneficial change, the question we want to address in this section, and, in particular, in this chapter, is whether there are changes that take place in cells that lead to macroevolutionary change. That is, are there changes that can lead to significant structural changes… animals with new body forms?

We broached that topic in the latter portion of Chapter 16; we will really analyze it in this chapter.

In the early 1960s, an MIT computer science engineer, Murray Eden, decided to take on the project of seeing what the likelihood was that the combination of mutation and natural selection was enough to give the world the incredible variety of plants and animals that we see.

He figured that this was a problem that he could address mathematically by using probability and statistics. By the mid-1960s, his idea had generated enough interest in his colleagues that a conference was convened to discuss the whole concept. This was held in Philadelphia and was entitled, “Mathematical Challenges to Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.”

Mathematicians, biologists, and evolutionists came from around the world. It is interesting to note that even way back in the mid-1960s there were serious doubts about the capability of NeoDarwinian processes to lead to the existence of all living organisms.

In the opening remarks, Sir Peter Medawar stated, “The immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory.”130 Eden was one of the participants who thought that significant beneficial change to animals was extremely unlikely. He said that random mutations almost always led to degradation of the organism… even death. On the other hand, so far, no person or research group had actually undertaken the study of just what the probability was of there being a beneficial grouping of mutations that would lead to new animal forms. Some of the attendees at that Wistar conference did take up that challenge. The main question was concerned with finding out the probability of there being a beneficial amino acid mutation in a protein sequence. Or put another way, what was the probability of finding a functional protein sequence after a random amino acid mutation? Also, how is this affected by the length of the protein? In the last chapter, the specific example of the probability of the malaria parasite developing resistance to Chloroquine was discussed. In this chapter, the probability of evolving novel functioning proteins will be evaluated in much more detail. Also, the likelihood of macroevolution leading to brand new animals and plants, including the complex intracellular systems needed for their development, will be analyzed.

201

Most genes (sections of DNA that code for proteins) consist of more than 1,000 nucleotide bases. Since there are four different bases to choose from, there are 41000 possible sequences that could be constructed. Since it takes three bases to code for each amino acid, there would be about 333 amino acids, at least, in a typical protein. One particular protein (i.e. the series of these amino acids) would be just one possibility out of a possible 20333 other amino acid sequences. The difficulty that these researchers had was that there were just far too many sequence possibilities (more than the number of atoms in the Universe) to, by random chance, stumble upon one that was a functioning sequence – especially one that was an upgrade from the original protein. Eden was of the opinion that there was not enough time for a typical cell’s mutation and selection mechanism to try out all of the possible amino acid sequence possibilities in its search for a new functioning protein. One of the attendees at the conference, physicist Stan Ulam put the problem this way, “the evolutionary process seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexities we see in life now. It appears… no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it even be as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is very close to zero that the chance of such a chain seems to be practically non-existent.”131 After a lot of brain-storming, Murray Eden came up with the only idea (other than an Intelligent Designer making the choice) that might work. That is, maybe there was a very surprising number of amino acid sequences that would lead to a beneficial protein structure. That is, the ratio of functional protein sequences to non-functioning protein sequences might be pretty high. If so, the mutationselection mechanism would stumble accidentally (required as per Darwin) upon a sequence that would eventually result in a new organism… on its way toward a human being one day. The question that needed to be answered was just how many functioning proteins would be made from these mutations? Do not forget that every plant and animal is primarily constructed out of these proteins… the differences in each organism relates to the difference in their numerous protein folds. New information was beginning to surface by the late 1960s that gave some hope to evolutionists that there might be a decent percentage of functioning protein sequences that mutations could produce. For one thing, it was discovered that for many proteins to continue to do their job in the cell, a variety of amino acid substitutions would be allowed… the question was how many would work?

Another MIT scientist, Robert Sauer, was at the forefront in the late 1980s of performing experiments in an attempt to find out the rarity of a functioning protein in the sequence space of all possible amino acid series. He used a protein of 92-amino acid length – a short one. One other scientist, Hubert Yockey, also looked for this same answer using previously published data.

Sauer came up with the ratio of functional to non-functional amino acid sequences of 1 to 1063.

Yockey came up with a figure of 1 to 1090. So, they both came up with very low ratios, but found that there was at least some variability of the amino acids that could be substituted and still yield a functioning protein. Taking an approximate average of these two results, we can say that there is approximately 1 chance in 1075 of finding a functioning protein via a random search of all amino acid possibilities in a 92-amino acid long protein. Mathematician Stephen Meyer 202

notes that this is roughly equal to a “blind spaceman finding a single marked atom by chance among all the atoms in the Milky Way galaxy.”132 As you might have guessed by now, there still was a large contingent of neo-Darwinists who were not going to let these stats defeat them. So, they concentrated their attention on the fact that there was some variability allowed for the amino acid choice. They ignored the fact that they had more chance of winning 50 consecutive lotteries than finding a functional protein by a chance amino acid substitution. Still further research was underway to determine if there was any possible way that these mutations could eventually lead to a completely new animal.

The man that picked up that gauntlet was Douglas Axe. Axe became intrigued with this question while a PhD student at Cal Tech. He read the books and articles written by Richard Dawkins, but was unimpressed with the famous man’s conclusions… that macroevolution was a fact of nature. He recognized that in all of the examples that Dawkins gave in his writings, he always provided his computer program simulations with intelligent input… his own. In the real world of living things, the whole point of those believing in macroevolution was that all life was produced purely by chance… absolutely no intelligent input was allowed.

After studying the research and results of Robert Sauer, Axe decided that he would run his own experiment as he disagreed with some of the baseline numbers that Sauer used in his study. Axe also decided to concentrate on the issue of the origin of new protein folds after mutational change. He recognized that the way these long and large protein structures came together in three dimensions was critically important to their function. New and functional protein folds were needed to allow for the creation of new animal and plant structures/form. They were the requirement for the generation of new life forms. Axe learned a lot of important and new things from his experiments. He learned that multiple amino acid substitutions invariably led to rapid loss of function. Also, the exterior, hydrophilic portion of the three-dimensional protein fold was most important. The replacement of the interior, hydrophobic core of the protein fold with a random combination of amino acids was not at all as damaging to function.

Axe wondered whether a new protein fold could best be made, if at all, by altering an already existing protein fold or, would mutation/natural selection more likely create one from a non-functional area of the genome. He set out to determine the answer to that question. The first possibility was to see if mutations to a pre-exiting gene could result in a new protein fold. The answer was “no.” When he caused mutations to a preexisting gene, no new protein folds were forthcoming. Instead, these proteins invariably lost their three-dimensional structure, and their functional ability. The greater the number of mutations, the greater the loss. The second possibility was to see how alterations in amino acids in non-functional parts of the genome could allow for the production of a new functional protein fold. The hope was that the cell could still function as the working portion of it was not being touched… and maybe a new protein would be stumbled upon by random mutation/natural selection of another area in that same cell. Although this idea seemed to have more merit to it, the result was the same. In both cases, properly folded,

203

functional sequences of amino acids are exceedingly rare. Further study allowed him to determine the following: • There is 1 chance in 1074 that one would find a 150 amino acid sequence (via a new mutation) that would allow for a functioning stable protein fold (i.e. a functioning tertiary fold) out of the entire set of possible amino acid sequences of that length. In other words, there is no chance.

• Axe went on to say that since not all stable proteins fold into a structure that will confer a specific functional advantage on the organism, this number needed to be lowered to a total of 1 chance out of 1077. That would be the likelihood of a mutational trial finding a specific functioning new protein that could be used in the building of a new animal or plant. Of course, this is still effectively zero chance.

Axe still had one more question to answer. It wouldn’t be that hard to figure out, but it was really most important to do so. What was the probability of random mutation generating a novel functioning protein in all of the history of life on earth? Although there were a total of 1077 possible sequences to consider, only those mutations in the genes in the reproductive cells of the parents can affect subsequent generations. He made a series of reasonable assumptions and calculations and decided on 1040 as the approximate number of gene sequences (evolutionary trials) that have been generated to search sequence space in the history of our world. In other words, he concluded that there has only been enough time to search 1040 amino acid sequences.

Yet, his earlier study showed that one would tend to need to search 1077 sequences to find a good, novel protein fold that could be used in the development of a new animal. Unfortunately, there were 1037 too few search opportunities… i.e. far too few.

The problem is actually much worse than that. For one thing, he used the time available to search for a good amino acid sequence as the time since the origin of life on earth. Actually, it makes much more sense to use the time from the Cambrian Explosion until the present day.

Second, Axe’s calculation involved only finding one novel protein fold… just one. However, in order to build a new animal via macroevolution, one would need to generate many more new proteins than one. Also, most all of these proteins would be longer than 150 amino acids long.

Most of the Cambrian animals required the protein lysyl oxidase that is made up of 400 amino acids. That is just one of many examples of the many long, complex amino acids that the Cambrian animals needed. These new animals also were constructed with many brand new and novel types of cells. Most of these new cells required a coordinated system of additional proteins to perform their new functions. The probability of all of these protein systems evolving during that incredible Cambrian epoch was truly infinitely small. Let me list the problems with the neoDarwinism mechanism generating the novel animals of the 5-10-year Cambrian Explosion period: • Protein mutation almost always results in degradation or complete loss • There is an incredible rarity of novel protein formation in amino acid sequence space. Only 1 out of 1077 would be functional. Therefore, new and novel protein 204

• • •

formation within cells, in fact, will never happen. Recall that there are only 1080 atoms in the entire Universe!

Long and novel proteins are needed to build new animal forms.

Systems of proteins are needed to control the novel proteins… most all of these systems will be of the irreducibly complex variety.

The Cambrian Explosion epoch was very, very short. Given the relatively unlikelihood of mutations, there was very little time for mutations to lead to all the new animals that were produced during that epoch. Hence, neo-Darwinism cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion.

It is interesting to note that when an article was published in a journal of the Smithsonian Institution about the Cambrian Explosion and the problems that neo-Darwinism had in accounting for it, the editor got blasted by scores of Museum scientists, television news reports, and the press (e.g. NPR, Washington Post, Nature, Science). Sadly, and absurdly, the editor, Richard Sternberg was slandered unmercifully and demoted! Questioning neo-Darwinian evolution was (and still is) a definite no-no.

It is a fact that most evolutionary scientists were beginning to tense up about the evidence that was coming out against macroevolution. In an attempt to counter the studies that showed the essential impossibility of having a new protein evolve via mutations, they presented their own evidence after reviewing many survey databases related to gene sequencing. They suggested that it was not very difficult to find two very similar genes with respect to their amino acid sequence.

They stated that these genes must have originated from a common ancestor. Why else would they show such similarity? Of course, they were somewhat different as they each took their own evolutionary path. Typically, they thought that the first step was that the common ancestor gene duplicated itself, and then each of these two genes evolved separately… both with their own set of various kinds of mutations (e.g. duplication, point, lateral gene transfer, exon shuffling, etc.).

None of the researchers demonstrated just how mutations and natural selection could actually find novel genes or proteins in sequence space in the first place. They just said that it must have happened because of evolution since these similar genes did exist and the only option allowable in the scientific establishment was via neo-Darwinism. The mathematical possibility of it happening was completely ignored. No mention of the statistical likelihood of it happening was ever mentioned. By the way, even the purported common ancestor gene was only theoretical. If it did exist, where did it come from? The only actual genes that were studied were the two similar genes… and, in life, there are a lot of similar genes.

The question that really cried out for an answer concerned whether the existence of two similar genes was definitive evidence of a common ancestor. Let us take a look at that proposition to see where it leads…

First of all, let me remind you that there was so much difference in the “deep divergent point” studies that were discussed near the end of Chapter 13 concerning the Cambrian Explosion that they were viewed as being essentially worthless. If you will recall, the estimates 205

ranged from 0.1 to 1.2 billion years ago that a common ancestor to animals in the Cambrian epoch was found. Keep in mind that 0.1 billion years ago was after the Cambrian Epoch – yet, some researcher got that as the date for a common ancestor for Cambrian Explosion animals! All the books that I have read concerning the dating of ancestral organisms by using what is referred to as the “molecular clock,” have said that it has long since been discredited. Douglas Erwin wonders whether “molecular clock dates can ever be applied reliably to such geologically remote events as Neoproterozoic branchings [late Precambrian] within the Metazoa.”133 So, we cannot state that any genetic analysis (molecular clock studies), nor any fossil evidence, can establish any Precambrian ancestral forms of animals (i.e. a deep-divergent point).

Biologists pinned their hopes on the fact there actually is a Darwinian Animal Tree of Life. If so, there would be a universal common ancestor. If that could be unequivocally established, the fact that these evolutionists simply dismiss the total lack of fossil evidence would not seem so bad. Jerry Coyne said, “It stands to reason that if the history of life forms a tree, with all species from a single trunk, then one can find a common origin for every pair of twigs (existing species) by tracing each twig back through its branches until they intersect at the branch they have in common. This node, as we have seen, is their common ancestor.”134 Again, as mentioned above, evolutionary biologists were convinced that there must be a universal animal tree regardless of the total lack of fossil evidence and the nonsensical molecular clock (aka deep-divergent studies) results. So, what about that tree of life? Decades of studies have led to the following assessments: • “Evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns.”135 • “Phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception.”135 • “The tree-of-life project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence.”135 • “Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded… the evidence of animals and plants isn’t exactly tree-like.”135 • Michael Syvanen, U. Cal, biologist, compared 2,000 genes in six animals spanning a wide variety of phyla. No tree-like pattern was found. “In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory stories.”136 • He continued to say…“We’ve just annihilated the tree of life. It’s not a tree anymore, it’s a different topology [pattern of history] entirely. What would Darwin have made of that?”136 • Antonis Rokas, molecular biologist, Vanderbilt, conceded that “a complete and accurate tree of life remains an elusive goal.” He pointed out that “a 50-gene data matrix does not resolve relationships among more metazoan phyla”136 because it generated numerous conflicting phylogenies and historical signals. “Relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved.”136 206

•

In regard to animal phyla, “many recent studies have reported support for many alternative conflicting phylogenies.” One case study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom.”136 (Sean Carroll)

As more and more results came in concerning the molecular genetics studies, the disparity in the phylogenetic trees between those studies and those derived from anatomical evaluation of the animals became all too apparent. Many research teams have come to that same conclusion. For example, a paper by Laura Maley and Charles Marshall appearing in Science, wrote, “Animal relationships derived from these new molecular data sometimes are very different from those implied by older, classical evaluations of morphology.”137 There is no clear data concerning the evolutionary relationships of the various phyla preserved in the fossils of the Cambrian Explosion. There is an inability to reconstruct an evolutionary history of the animal phyla from the data that has been collected and analyzed.

There is no clear Precambrian pattern of descent… no clear evidence of a common ancestor “phylogenetic analysis at the level of the phyla is highly problematical.”138 (Brusca and Brusca textbook) Oxford University, zoologist, Peter Holland, “Taken together, modern re-evaluations of traditional evidence support different and mutually exclusive subsets of [phylogenetic] relations.”139 Here is just one more of the many examples of biologists writing about this very problematic disparity, “Incongruence between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analyses and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequences has become pervasive as databases have expanded rapidly in both characters and species.”140 (L.Davalos PhD) The point in reviewing all of these molecular studies was simply to show that the assumption by the evolutionists that all animals and plants evolved from a common ancestor is far from an established fact. It is true that there are many sets of animals that have similar genes that lead to similar protein sequences. However, there are more reasons than a common ancestor that can be the cause of these similarities. A very common and important one was mentioned back in Chapter 14 – i.e. Convergent Evolution. Many animals have structural features that are very similar to other animals that are not classified as closely related ancestors. For example, a mole cricket and a mole have very similar forelimbs, but are not, in any way considered to be in the same ancestral line. Moles are mammals, mole crickets are insects. Biologists have recently discovered that whales and bats have experienced parallel evolution resulting in their similar echolocation capability. These two animals are not in the same mammalian line, but still had similar systems. Convergent evolution of animals demonstrates that significant genetic similarities does not necessarily imply common descent from the same ancestor. Sometimes, animals have parallel structures, sometimes they have parallel systems.

207

Of course, one other reason that various organisms might have similar genetic sequences is that an Intelligent Designer liked a particular structure or system and decided to use it multiple times in a variety of animals or plants. Why not? Many engineers will use the same structural idea in many different items. For example, the same locking mechanism could be used for many different cars and truck doors. The same radio could be used in almost all cars and trucks… and so forth. Obviously, certain similar items could be used in different organisms, be they plants or animals.

As it turns out, there is a significant genetic finding that absolutely cannot be attributed to evolution. Genetic sequence studies have discovered thousands of genes in a wide variety of animals and plants that have no similarity to any other known gene. These genes are called ORFans. These special genes are found in every organism, be they plant or animal. As much as one-half of the genome can be made up of these ORFan genes. Quite obviously, it is not possible to posit a common ancestor gene for these animals or plants since much of their genes are made up of unique genetic sequences. They are one-of-a-kind animals. When this kind of genetic material was first encountered, evolutionists thought that with additional sequencing, homologs would eventually be found for all these supposed unique genes. In fact, the more sequencing that has been done, the more ORFans have been discovered! Of course, the existence of ORFans is quite a monkey wrench to the idea of neo-Darwinian evolution. Where could these unique genes have come from if not via an Intelligent source? There is no way they could have been produced from simple mutations… or even complex mutations. We went over the reasons why that was an impossibility earlier.

The only hope for the evolutionists now lay in the remote possibility that duplications of genes might lead to new and structurally different organisms. Of course, they have to ignore the insurmountable problem of ORFans – that is an insoluble problem. Well, let us take a look at the idea of creating new animals using gene duplication and other mutational changes to genes. Can this type of change lead to novel structural proteins?

Generally speaking, evolutionary biologists are assuming that by shuffling around and/or copying various pieces of already existing code, novel proteins will result. Unfortunately for those die-hard evolutionists, the process of random rearrangements of current DNA code will not result in new functional proteins. Interestingly though, all of these research studies have allowed various biologists to stumble upon dozens of new protein coding genes that originated de-novo on the human lineage since it supposedly diverged from chimpanzees. A paper in the Genome Research journal in 2009 noted, “The emergence of complete, functional genes – with promoters, ORFs and functional proteins – from “junk” DNA [DNA not in the nucleus of cells] would seem highly improbable, almost like the elusive transmutation of lead into gold that was sought by medieval alchemists.”141 (Siepel, ibid, p. 220) It is amazing that the article asserted that somehow this was an example of macroevolution, where new functional proteins were being created from nonfunctioning cellular DNA. Another study of fruit flies revealed that up to 12% of the genes in the Drosophila melanogaster arose de novo. The author of that study was honest enough to recognize that this finding was not consistent with evolution. Again, where could all these new 208

genes come from – certainly not just a few mutations or even a series of them. All of these genes were brand new! None of the new protein folds that are seen in all of the new animals in the Cambrian Explosion cannot be explained by referencing neo-Darwinian evolution. We have gone over the impossibility of that earlier. As hopefully you recall, the likelihood of coming up with a functioning new protein fold (i.e. a new protein tertiary structure that could allow for the changing of the structure or function of an animal) via mutations is nil. Douglas Axe, after careful study came up with the odds of 1 chance in 1077 for sequences of only modest length (150 amino acids). Certainly, more than one would be needed in any case. Evolutionary biologists have not been able to figure out how new protein folds (required to produce novel animals and plants) can arise via mutations – regardless if these mutations are point, duplication of genes, exon shuffling, etc. Cells are being studied that have a great many novel proteins (with their new folds)… neo-Darwinian theory (that the complex systems and structures in organisms came into existence via natural selection acting on small scale mutations and variations of DNA in the nucleus) cannot come up with even one! However, these evolutionists will not give up trying, that is for sure…

One major issue that evolutionists needed to address was related to the fact that many systems within cells require the coordinated action of many sequential parts (or proteins). As University of Illinois biologist, Tom Frazzetta noted, “Not only must the end product – the final machine – be feasible, but so must all the intermediates. The evolutionary problem is, in a real sense, the gradual improvement of a machine while it is running.”142 (ibid, p. 232) This is not the same as irreducible complexity… but, a similar concept. Frazzetta went on to say, “Phenotypic alteration [change in structure of animals] of integrated systems requires an improbable coincidence of genetic (and hence, heritable phenotypic) modifications of a tightly specified kind.”143 (ibid, p. 233) Once again, the question surfaced as to whether given the animal’s mutation rate, generation time, and population size, there could have been an evolutionary mechanism that would account for the structural changes seen from one animal to another? Most evolutionists simply assumed that there had to be some evolutionary mechanism to build the necessary new genes. However, more and more scientists were recognizing the fact that one or even a few mutations would not suffice to build the complex systems or structural changes seen when one animal or plant seemingly evolved into another. They were finally recognizing that there were very likely some complex systems in living organisms that could not be constructed by a straight-forward neo-Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection.

For example, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist, Wen-Hsiung Li realized that “Acquiring a new function may require many mutational steps, and a point that needs emphasis is that the early steps might have been selectively neutral because the new function might not be manifested until a certain number of steps had already occurred.”144 Hence, systems such as these would need multiple coordinated mutations. However, as we have seen, the probability of an animal generating multiple coordinated mutations is extremely low. Dr. Stephen Meyer states that it would take longer than the age of the earth for something like this to have any chance of occurring. Frankly, he is being very generous to say even that.

209

Dr. Michael Behe (Lehigh University) and Dr. David Snoke (Univ. of Pittsburgh) did a lot of research related to the probability of coordinated mutations occurring in complex multicellular organisms. Some of Behe’s work was discussed in the last chapter. These two scientists found that if three or more coordinated mutations were needed to arrive at a new plant or animal, it would never happen. Think about that… only three mutations (in just the right places) would be too much. Of course, this goes back to what we learned in Chapter 16 concerning the malaria parasite’s resistance to Chloroquine. One CCC (a chloroquine complexity cluster) was needed for that… and it did happen very long ago. However, if a double CCC (a total of four mutations; 1 chance in 1040) had been needed, it would never have happened. Behe went further and speculated on the time required for two coordinated mutations in the hominid line. This was based on the relevant parameters of: population size, generation time, and mutation rates. These, of course, vary with species. For the hominid line, Behe said several hundred million years would be needed before even one CCC type double mutation event would have happened. The big problem is that according to evolutionists, the chimpanzee and human line diverged only six million years ago. So, a neo-Darwinian explanation cannot be used to explain how that could have happened. That finding apparently bothered two Cornell ‘mathematical’ biologists, Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt. So, they set out to refute Behe’s finding. Instead, their calculation also showed that it would take almost a quarter billion years to generate the necessary two coordinated mutations. Both results were more than 30 times longer than the amount of time that there actually was between the appearance of both the chimp and the human from their presumed common ancestor.

There was one more item to address. Some evolutionists thought that maybe a protein or even a group of proteins could be “co-opted” from one organism to another. If that could happen, maybe it could be the answer to how an organism suddenly got one or more new functional proteins. This was mentioned earlier as a potential solution to the IC (irreducibly complex) problem. Molecular biologists Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger decided to see if this concept might work. They looked high and low for two very similar proteins (i.e. they had almost the same sequences of amino acids). They did make sure that these two proteins performed different functions. They chose Kbl and BioF2. They tried to take the protein Kbl and, by substituting amino-acids, they tried to see if they could make a protein that could perform the function of BioF2. They failed. No matter how long they worked on the problem, they could not cause the change in function they were looking for… no matter the number or position of amino acid substitutions. They concluded that co-opted proteins were not the answer to the development of new organisms.

Axe and Gauger concluded: • No more than two coordinated mutations were possible in the generation of a new protein fold.

• Genes and the proteins that they code for are complex entities themselves.

210

•

The generation of even one new gene or protein is extremely unlikely from a neoDarwinian process. There is no chance that this process could lead to a completely new animal.

The Role of Genes and Proteins in Animal Development: We have seen that classic mutation(s), followed by natural selection (i.e. the neoDarwinian mechanism of evolution) will not lead to new body forms… i.e. new animals or plants. Regardless of how proteins arise, something must direct their activity within the cell: when and how to play their role in the new organism. Each protein likely will need to be placed in an IC system in concert with many other proteins. It turns out that there are many different regulatory proteins that do this job. Typically, when a mutation is late acting, it does very little to affect the structure of the animal. If a mutation is early, there may be such a big change that the animal does not develop properly and live. Neither of these situations will lead to a new functioning animal. Nobel prize winners, Christine Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus, pioneers in this area of research, discovered the extreme difficulty in resetting many of the switches that regulate the order of bodily development. Critical proteins, called morphogens, establish the head to tail structure of the fruit fly. They act early in development. One of these, is called Bicoid. When its gene mutates, the fly embryo will die. Beneficial early regulatory changes do not exist. No examples of viable animals can be found if their early development was affected by mutations. Paul Nelson, of the Discovery Institute, said, “Research on animal development and macroevolution over the last thirty years … has shown that the neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of new body plans is overwhelmingly likely to be false – and for reasons that Darwin himself would have understood.”145 Developmental Gene Regulatory Networks: A little earlier in this chapter, I mentioned how new systems of proteins often would require other proteins to regulate their actions. That is, these dGRN proteins coordinate various systems of proteins within the cell… and even between cells. Two Cal Tech scientists, Eric Davidson and Roy Britton, studied the early genetic control of embryos. They recognized that since all of the cells of any given animal have the same genomes, there has to be an animal-wide system of genetic control turning on certain genes as needed depending on what structure that particular cell was going to produce. In one area of the body, a portion of a gene may be turned on to make an eyeball. In another area, the same genetic material in a different cell, would have a section turned on to build a bone… etc. Hundreds of specialized cell types arise as an embryo grows to adulthood. It is really quite impressive to realize that there has to be a system-wide control mechanism to coordinate all of this growth. Davidson discovered that non-protein regions in the cell’s genome control this timing and other aspects of the growing cellular structure. The combination of these non-protein coding regions and the protein coding regions of the genome function as a circuit. These circuits are called developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRN). These networks direct the embryo’s development as it progressively increases 211

in complexity from one stage of development to the next. Building a new animal or plant requires not only new genetic material and the novel proteins that result from the new DNA, but also new dGRNs. New plans are needed in order map out the development of a new organism.

Before leaving this topic, let’s recall that a great many new animals came onto the world scene during the 5-10 million years of the Cambrian Explosion. All of these new body forms required new dGRNs. It is a complete mystery as to where in the world all of this genetic material came. It was to produce all of the novel animals of this incredible period in history.

Does anyone honestly believe that evolution could accomplish all of these regulatory processes I have outlined in this chapter? It makes no common sense to believe it. None. Nor, as we have seen, no scientific sense. But there is even more against macroevolution…

Epigenetic Information: In 2003, Gerd Muller (University of Vienna) and Stuart Newman (New York Medical College) published a book of articles that discussed the fact that genes alone do not determine the form and structure of animals. Information located in cellular places other than nuclear DNA sequences was a significant contributing factor. This was called epigenetic information. The book concluded, among other things, that neo-Darwinism “completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form.”146 These editors recognized that there was no reasonable evolutionary explanation for the origination of body structure because neoDarwinism was unable to account for epigenetic information. No longer could evolutionists assume that all body form and structure was coded for by genes alone. Of course, this also meant that mutations in genetic DNA could not be the sole cause of evolutionary change… if, evolutionary change actually took place.

Relatively recent research has revealed that the information needed to build animals (their complex biological systems and their form and structure) comes from both the cellular DNA and this newly discovered epigenetic information. DNA helps direct protein synthesis. After the proteins are made, they need to be arranged together into a functional system of proteins. These proteins eventually work together to build a particular cell type, then the appropriate tissue, organ, and, finally, the whole animal. Epigenetic information, together with the DNA within the nucleus, direct the building of the three-dimensional structure of the animal. Embryonic cells play a most important role in body-plan formation. Epigenetic information is found in many places within the cellular structure of eukaryotic cells. For example: • Cytoskeletons made up of microtubules that help distribute proteins to appropriate locations within the cell so that they can perform their appropriate function. These microtubules are made of proteins called tubulin.

• A microscopic organelle called a centrosome in conjunction with microtubules gives a cell its shape and directs molecular transport to and from the nucleus.

• Specialized targets in the cell membrane also play a role in embryological development.

• Ion Channels are cell wall openings that allow for ion transfer across the cell membrane.

These channels also affect the form of the developing animal.

212

•

Sugar Code – sugar molecules on the exterior surface of the cell membrane. These molecules are sequence specific, complex arrangements of sugar molecules that contain a great deal of epigenetic information for the developing cell.

Building a new animal body plan is not simply related to the DNA code in a cell’s nucleus.

Research over the last twenty to thirty years has revealed that animals and plants are built from a combination of genetic information and epigenetic information. Together, they lead to the threedimensional body forms of the various animals. It is true that most of the information comes from proteins coded for in the DNA… however, there still is a lot of information that is needed from the sugar molecules on the cell membrane surface. Their location is not coded for by proteins.

The form and structure of each new generation of a plant or animal arises from both the gene product (proteins) and the variety of epigenetic information that is within each cell. Neither mutations in the gene nor mutations in the epigenetic material can offer a way to generate a new life form. We have already discussed how mutations in nuclear DNA will not suffice for the creation of a new life form. For the same reasons, mutations in epigenetic material also will not lead to a new type of animal or plant.

There is one more aspect of cellular control that should be mentioned before wrapping up this discussion on evolution. Let us take a look…

Evidence of Design in Living Organisms: A wide variety of evidence has been presented in the material that has been presented to show that there is no possibility that living organisms have evolved in the classic neo-Darwinian fashion. Doug Erwin and Eric Davidson are among a large group of evolutionary biologists that have rejected that model completely. Instead, those two have come up with a list of items that must be satisfied by any theory attempting to explain how the Cambrian Explosion came to be.

The explanation must involve: • Animals must appear on the world scene in a very short geological period of time (within 5-10 million years).

• The proposed cause must be able to generate a “top-down” pattern of appearance.

• The cause must be able to construct complex systems of genetic circuits.

• It must be able to create complex body forms and structures.

• It also must be able to generate digital information.

• The cause must be able to create both nuclear DNA genetic information as well as epigenetic information… of the kind previously described in this chapter.

• It should allow for long periods of stasis after the animals make their appearance.

• The cause for the animals in the Cambrian Explosion should not require an ancestor.

• There should be no transitional fossils in the epoch preceding the Cambrian epoch.

213

Davidson and Erwin note that no current theory of evolution satisfies the above requirements. Erwin went on to say that the origin of all the new animals (with their novel body forms), has no parallel to events in the world today. That is, “the events of the past were fundamentally different – profound asymmetries exist between evolution then, and evolution now.” As relates to the cause of the Cambrian Explosion, he added, “whatever it was, must have been unlike any observed biological process operating in actual living populations today.”147 The fact is certainly true that the description of the underlying cause of the Cambrian Explosion could not be any known evolutionary mechanism. On the other hand, Intelligent Design fits perfectly with every one of the required points listed above. Even many of the wellknown evolutionists recognize that fact: “The machine code of the gene is uncannily computer-like.”148 (Richard Dawkins) “And as we have seen, DNA is like a computer program, but far, far, more advanced than any software ever created.”148(Bill Gates) We have certainly demonstrated that new protein folds (and therefore new forms of animals) cannot be created via evolutionary methods. However, we know from our everyday experience that the only known cause of large amounts of specified, complex, digital information is an Intelligent Designer. Hence, the only logical cause of the Cambrian Explosion had to be an Intelligent Designer… an incredibly intelligent designer, I might add. There is only One of those… God. Davidson was very impressed with the “wiring diagram” that he created to depict how he envisioned the connections within the dGRN of a typical cell. All of the animals in the Cambrian Explosion were made up of a hierarchical arrangement of information-rich systems and structures. This information included that found in the genes, gene products, dGRNs, the various cells, tissues, and organs. All this information together leads to a new, specific body form… i.e. a new animal. There is an interesting capability of some of the genes in these animal groups. For instance, there is one gene, the Pax-6, that not only can regulate the development of the eyes of fruit flies, but also it can regulate the eye development of cephalopod, and mice. Intriguingly, although each of these three animals have different type eyes, the one gene has the ability to regulate the construction of the eyes in all three animals. The same pattern of having the same gene able to regulate the development of organ systems in more than one animal is seen in many other phyla and relating to many other organs in the body. This remarkable capability, referred to as polyfunctional modularity, was a shock to biologists when they discovered it. It was certainly not anything to be expected as relating to evolution… but, definitely makes sense for a Creator.

Why not use the same regulator in more than one animal if it works nicely?

As it turns out, all of the features of the adequate cause of the Cambrian Explosion as noted on the list above, are very consistent with an Intelligent Designer. None of those on the list are consistent with any sort of evolutionary mechanism whatsoever. An open-minded person must recognize this, unless they are not playing with a full deck upstairs.

214

Chapter 18:

Missing Links and Icons of Evolution:

This section on evolution is coming to an end. The previous five chapters were written in order to expose the myth of macroevolution. As you can see, there is a great deal of evidence against Darwin’s theory. Not only is there an incredible lack of fossil evidence, but the cellular molecular evidence against it is also much too impressive to ignore. Yet, that is just what so many evolutionists still do… ignore the evidence. Instead, they typically refer to a handful of examples in nature that they say show that evolution has occurred regardless of the evidence.

These things have become what many call the “icons of evolution.” Let us take a look at them and see if they really are able to convince us that we did indeed come from an ancient one-celled organism.

The main icons are as follows: Haeckel’s Embryos, Archaeopteryx, peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, horses, apes to humans, and missing links.

Haeckel’s Embryos: It is really interesting to note that when Darwin was really getting discouraged concerning the continuing lack of evidence for his ground-breaking new theory of evolution, he found that he could find comfort by turning to the embryological evidence that was provided by a German biologist, Ernst Haeckel. Darwin was pleased that the embryos of various animals “show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state.”149 In fact, Darwin said that this embryological evidence was “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of it.”150 Haeckel’s famous embryo evidence were the drawings that he made of the early vertebrates. The idea was that if the early embryos of vertebrates were all very much the same, they must have come from a common ancestor. Hence, Darwin’s theory of evolution must be true. As Charles Darwin put it himself, “The human embryo itself at a very early period can hardly be distinguished from that of other members of the vertebrate kingdom.” Since humans and other vertebrates “all pass through the same early stages of development… we ought frankly to admit their community of descent.”151 For over one hundred years, Haeckel’s drawings of the vertebrate embryos have appeared in one textbook of biology after another. They have been used to visually convince students that the theory of evolution is correct. The problem is that these drawings are all fakes! Not only that, but the scientific community has known that they are fakes for over one hundred years – yet, they do not care. They make for a good story, so they let them appear in all these texts without even commenting that they are total fakes.

There was another famous embryologist in the 19th century, Karl Ernst von Baer. He did not believe in the large-scale transformation of species that Darwin proposed. He certainly did not believe that all vertebrates came from a common ancestor. However, Darwin did cite von Baer as the source for the embryological evidence that he used to back up his new theory. Von Baer was upset about that fact and was a vocal critic on Darwin’s theory until his death in 1876.

215

Haeckel came along next and promoted the whole idea about the embryological status of all of these animals were so similar that they must be excellent evidence for them all being from the same ancestor. In fact, he coined a famous sentence, “Ontogeny (embryonic development of the animal) recapitulates phylogeny (evolutionary history of animal).” The idea was that all of the animals in the vertebrate line began at a common ancestor – hence, the same early embryo – but then things were added on to the animal (i.e. terminal addition) to lead to different species, genus, etc. This was known as Haeckel’s “biogenetic law.” Virtually no biologist accepted this new “law” but most wanted to hang on to some of its underlying tenants as they all really wanted to have something to back up their new “darling”… Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Darwin, in his book, Origin of Species, listed two items that he felt were the case in the embryonic development of animals” 1. “The embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar.”

2. “With many animals the embryonic or larval stages show us, more of less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state.”

Haeckel’s Fake Embryos vs. Photos of Real Embryos

As you can easily see, Haeckel’s drawings of the vertebrate embryos were highly misrepresentative of reality. He chose only those mammalian orders that had somewhat similar embryonic development. Certain mammals did not have very similar embryos… he did not put them in his drawing. Biologists even in the early 20th century were aware of the misrepresentation. Some called Haeckel out as being a fraud. Others simply stated the fact of the picture being incorrect and did not comment on whether it was done deliberately. Michael Richardson said, “These famous images are inaccurate and give a misleading view of embryonic development.”152 In 1997, Richardson showed how Haeckel’s drawing was so different from 216

reality by showing a photograph of the same embryos in real life (see photo). Interestingly, Richardson pointed out that many amphibians had quite different embryonic development than the other vertebrates. For example, if Haeckel had chosen a frog instead of a salamander to represent the amphibians in his drawing, the drawing would not have been so impressive. When one views actual embryos side by side with Haeckel’s drawing, the differences are so great that there is little doubt that they were deliberately drawn incorrectly. As Stephen Gould noted, Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions”… his drawings are characterized by “inaccuracies and outright falsification.”153 The fact is that instead of the six classes of vertebrates being most similar as fertilized eggs and then slowly diverging as they developed, what is actually seen is: The eggs of the six classes start out noticeably different from each other; the pattern in the gastrulation stage shows significant differences between fish and amphibian, between reptiles, birds, and mammals. That is, even in the earliest stages, the differences are significant.

Embryologist Adam Sedgwick stated when comparing a dog-fish with a chicken, that, “there is no stage of development in which the unaided eye would fail to distinguish between them with ease.” He added that “a species is distinct and distinguishable from its allies from the very earliest stages all through the development.”154 The following summarizes the problems with Haeckel’s drawing: • They include only those classes and orders that come closest to fitting his theory.

• The drawings distort the embryos that they are supposedly drawing correctly.

• They omit the earlier stages where the embryos show significant differences.

• Most egregiously, they are almost certainly intentionally fake.

Sadly, textbooks are still showing these drawings and making statements like those in Raven and Johnson’s Biology text, “Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other. Some of the strongest anatomical evidence supporting evolution comes from comparisons of how organisms develop. In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.”155 This text is all a lie… and these lies or text just like it is being taught to students all over the United States. It is just so terribly sad that teachers are not allowed to teach the truth concerning the origin of living things and the evidence for and against evolution.

Archaeopteryx: Possibly the most famous “missing link” was first discovered just two years after Darwin wrote his “masterpiece.” Darwin had been really frustrated about the fact that there had been an absolute dearth of transitional fossils found – since there, theoretically, should have been thousands. Even in his book, he noted “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.”156 Yet, until 1861 217

came around, none had been discovered. In 1861, a fossil was discovered in a limestone quarry in Germany. Hernan von Meyer described it as having wings and feathers (like a bird); but it also had teeth, a long lizard-like tail, and claws on its wings. He named it Archaeopteryx… i.e. ‘ancient wing’. It was presented as an intermediary between reptiles and birds. Since that first discovery, a total of seven additional fossils like it have been found. The geological period that these fossils are from is the Late Jurassic, about 150 million years ago. The quality of some of these fossils is exquisite. These fossils are considered genuine as well.

After the find in 1861, the gap in the fossil evidence between reptiles and birds seemed to have been bridged. This creature had beautiful feathers like a bird. The remainder of the body seemed to be all reptile. Thomas Huxley was a staunch defender of Darwin and helped to publicize this fossil find. He actually regarded another fossil specimen called Compsognathus as an even better “missing-link” between reptiles and birds. This creature was a small bird-like dinosaur according to Huxley. It was similar in appearance to the Archaeopteryx, but with no feathers and smaller. In the early years after these discoveries, the thought was that reptiles had eventually produced these so-called missing links, then millions of years later, more typical modern birds eventually came along. But where were all of the other transitional fossils?

The lack of other transitional fossils was not the only problem. In 1985, Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin wrote, “Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to any group of modern birds.” Instead, he said that “it is the earliest known member of a totally extinct group of birds.”157 Mark Norell, of NYC National Museum of History, agreed with that assessment… it was not an ancestor of modern birds.

After decades of searching for the fossil ancestor of Archeopteryx, paleontologists generally believe that the most likely ancestor lived millions of years later! Of course, this makes no common sense… but, using the strange information gathered from “cladistics” - which is a relatively new method of fossil classification - that is the result that is reached. The folks that want us to believe that apparent paradox simply suggest that the fossil evidence has just not been found yet… or maybe it will be missing forever. Some paleobiologists are simply more honest and simply say, “We don’t know, so much of this is just hot air.”158 (John Ruben, Oregon State) This cladistic grouping causes paleontologists to classify the Archeopteryx as a dinosaur with feathers. In fact, the implication is that all birds are dinosaurs… if cladists are correct.

Scientists continue the search for transitional forms between reptiles and birds and between reptiles and amphibians. Fake fossils have been found over the years. One lay in the British Museum for many years before it was exposed as a fake. Recently, a forger created one by gluing a dinosaur tail onto the body of a primitive bird. This one was named Archaeoraptor. It was featured in National Geographic and hailed as showing that birds were indeed dinosaurs, “just as confidently as we say that humans are mammals.”159 There have been other odd fossil finds in recent decades. For example, a Montana family discovered a fossil in 1993 that was named Bambiraptor. It is the size of a chicken and was given to a professional paleontologist in 1995 who decided to reconstruct it. He added feathers where he thought they should be and eyes in appropriate places in the skull. He added hair-like 218

projections on the body. It looked somewhat odd. The fact is that no one had any real idea what it originally looked like. No hair or feathers were found near the fossil find. On another day during the conference, a supposed dinosaur with marked bird-like characteristics was presented for view and evaluation. The problem with this specimen finally came out… the DNA that so intrigued the presenting group in the first place and had them connecting the dinosaur type specimen to a bird, turned out to be from a turkey. It turns out that someone had been eating a turkey sandwich when they were working on their project and they thought that might well be the cause of the confusion. My word!

The reality of the situation is that paleontologists are still in search for actual transitional fossils between reptiles and amphibians, between reptiles and birds, and between amphibians and mammals, etc. There should be thousands of these fossils. Even when one or two finds are presented to the public, they really never are transitional in nature… but, instead just seem to be, at most, an intermediate between a reptile and a bird (e.g. it may have feathers like a bird and a reptile-like tail, or a reptile and an amphibian (with fully formed features of each)… not a true transitional animal.

Several of those in attendance at the meeting in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida – the topic being Dinosaur bird evolution, were not impressed with all of the obvious shenanigans that was going on. Several biologists have stated that the Archaeopteryx is simply a bird. Ernest Lutz, Ph.D., concluded that “there is neither evidence of a lineage from reptiles to Archaeopteryx nor from it to any living birds.”160 Dr. Alan Fedducia (Chapel Hill, NC) after comparing three of the better fossils to 500 current bird specimens noted, “Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird.”161 So, the impressive fossil Archaeopteryx has been shelved as a possible missing link. The search for a more appropriate missing transitional link continues.

Peppered Moths: Probably the most famous icon of evolution is that of the peppered moths. Although the change of color from light to dark and back again was noticed in the early years of the 20th century, it wasn’t until the 1950s that a British doctor and biologist, Bernard Kettlewell performed experiments on these moths. These experiments led to findings that made Kettlewell famous. He noticed that birds ate light-colored moths to a much greater degree than their darkcolored cousins. He attributed this situation to the fact that the tree trunks where the moths tended to land had become darkened due to industrial pollution. He figured that the birds could more easily see them against the dark background of the tree trunks since the moths were very light in color. The melanotic moths were able to survive and multiply to a much greater degree.

He apparently had found the first actual documented example of natural selection. Darwin certainly wrote about this aspect of evolution, but he had never seen it in action. The interesting aspect of this anecdote is that these peppered moths don’t even rest on tree trunks as a general rule. When pictures of them doing so began to appear in textbooks, they were pinned on to the trunk… they were just put there to look good for the photo.

219

Even though the pictures were doctored, Kettlewell actually had the right idea. His experiments with these moths did reveal evidence of natural selection. For example, in one study, he marked hundreds of peppered moths, both light and dark, so that he could identify which ones remained after he released them into a tree filled area and collected those that remained the next day. He found that 27.5% of the dark colored moths were still there, but only 13.0% of the light-colored moths were left alone. His conclusion was that via natural selection, the darker colored moths were able to survive and later would reproduce because they had a better inherent camouflage. Interestingly and appropriately, when anti-pollution laws passed in the 1950s resulted in the trees returning to their natural light coloration, the light-colored moths again became the dominant moths in the “forest.” Although this really was a good example of natural selection, it should be noted that further studies demonstrated that other factors played a role in the outcome of the experiment as well.

Finally, in 1984, Kauri Mikkola reported on an experiment that he carried out in which he discovered that peppered moths almost never rest on tree trunks, but instead come to rest on horizontal branches typically high in the trees. This revealed a real problem for Kettlewell as he had almost always released his moths (in the 1950s experiments) in the daytime where they became easy targets for birds. When birds preyed on his moths, they had been released onto the tree trunks… a totally unnatural place for them to be. However, as I said earlier, most biologists believe that natural selection was still on display during the experiments that Kettlewell had run in the 1950s. Of course, anyone could re-run these same experiments if they desired. To sum this all up, in 1998, American biologist Ted Sargent and his colleagues Craig Millar and David Lambert wrote, “We feel certain that this phenomenon is a product of selection.”162 They felt that other factors may have played a role in the selection process though, “the complex of factors that might play a role in the increase (or decrease) of melanism in moths has barely been tapped.”163 It is really important to keep in mind that this peppered moth story is a classic example of the one aspect of Darwinian evolution that is valid… microevolution.

Although the peppered moth story has been clouded for the reasons I just mentioned, it still is used in virtually every biology textbook that deals with evolution. Not only that, but the photos that are used as illustrations are typically the staged tree trunk photos that caused the problems in the first place. This situation is just one more example of the misleading of our youth with false information on this topic of evolution. Sadly, although the hoodwinking that is seen concerning evolution is not where the brain-washing with false information stops in our educational system.

Darwin’s Finches: As you may recall from the introduction to this section, Charles Darwin really got interested in the whole idea of evolution while on a trip to the western side of South America. In 1835, he took a side trip to the Galapagos Islands, about 600 miles west of Ecuador. That archipelago consisted of about twenty-five small islands. Darwin noticed that there was an interesting disparity throughout those islands in that the finches varied quite a lot from one island 220

to another. In particular, there were thirteen different species, each with a unique beak size and shape. Darwin figured that all of them got to that general area many thousands of years ago.

Since that time, a single species diverged (evolved) into the variety that he was then seeing. Each island had its own particular environment, so, the finches changed slowly over time via mutation and natural selection. It was seemingly a perfect example of microevolution. While he was in the Galapagos Islands, he collected nine of the thirteen species that eventually were to bear his name. He did not record much data about them on that trip. Ornithologist John Gould went to work and sorted out the different finches by island, beak size, etc. Interestingly, when asked about whether the finches were what stimulated Darwin to devote his lifetime to developing his theory of evolution, historian of science, Frank Sullivan, was quoted as saying that “nothing could be further from the truth.”164 It wasn’t until 1930 that story of Darwin’s finches rose to its current lofty status. Perry Lowe coined the name in 1936. A decade later, David Lack wrote a book, Darwin’s Finches where he described the finches, their beak variability, food sources, etc.

He argued the case for their differences being due to natural selection. So it was Lack, not Darwin, that connected the finches to microevolution due to variations in species over time, followed by natural selection. Although textbooks generally credit Darwin with recognizing the relationship between the different beak sizes and shapes and their food sources, he actually had nothing to do with it. It was not until eighty to ninety years later that biologists connected the beak sizes to the birds’ diets.

A husband and wife team, Peter and Rosemary Grant began a decades long evaluation of these finches in the 1970s. They focused their attention on one of the smaller islands, Daphne Major. In doing this, they were able to band and follow every medium ground finch on the island. They found that in drought conditions, only the larger beaked finches survived. These birds were also slightly larger in general than the average. They attributed this situation to the fact that these larger birds with larger and stronger beaks were able to crack open the tougher, large seeds which were the only type seed that seemed to survive in drought conditions. They measured the beaks and noted that the average beak depth had increased by 5%. Extrapolating forward, they concluded that in 200 to 2,000 years, the differences in size of the birds and their beaks should be such that a new species could emerge… assuming one drought per decade and it taking about twenty droughts to allow for enough change to eventually yield a new species. Of course, this was quite an assumption… and it surely did not turn out to be a correct one. What they found out a few years after the first drought in the 1970s, is that when the island had a year with a lot of rain (e.g. 1982-1983 El Nino), food once again was plentiful and the average finch on the island reverted back to its original body and beak size. So, all that was experienced by the Grants was an oscillation in size over the decades. This was not evidence for evolution or the possibility of speciation (creation of a new species). Actually, they did make one other interesting observation. They noticed that several of the different species had mated and produced hybrids that thrived and were able to reproduce themselves. Strangely, instead of getting good evidence for evolution producing new species, they had found evidence that two species were actually merging into one. Peter Grant went on to say that if they were to define a 221

species by the ability to interbreed, instead of there being thirteen species, there would only be six species on all of the islands.

Let me make two final points. First, even though the Grants were not able to see evidence of speciation in the finches, they were able to demonstrate microevolution by natural selection.

The beak sizes and bird sizes grew larger on average in drought situations because of the effects on the environment (especially on the food sources). Second, it is sad, but typical, that the Grants decided to publish articles in the 1990s declaring that they discovered evidence of speciation in their research on the Archipelagos Islands. Mark Ridley in his 1996 college textbook, Evolution, went even further to say that the evidence on the island revealed that new species would arrive approximately every 200 years. He “forgot” to mention that when the rains returned, the beak size and finch size reverted back to where they started. Once again, the evolutionists continue to lie to support their theory. Very poor form.

Fossils - Horses: Drawings of horse fossils have been around since 1882 when Othniel Marsh of Yale published his drawing showing his idea of the evolution of a four-toed horse ancestor into the modern “one-toed” horse. He drew the picture as a straight line from the four-toed ancestor, through a series of intermediates until the modern horse was reached. Since the 1950s, however, paleontologists have shown the horse “tree” as having branches along the way… branches that generally end in extinction. It is worth mentioning that scientists one hundred years ago looked at the straight-line drawing of Marsh and others as being indicative of a directed evolution of the horse. That is, many, if not most, scientists around the turn of the 20th century thought that this horse lineage was evidence of possible supernatural intervention in the evolutionary process.

Others thought that it might be a sign of some internal, mystical force in the animals that directed the evolution.

222

By the 1920s, more evidence allowed for a better drawing with appropriate side branches… most leading to extinction. Even though a drawing with these side branches does not in any sense eliminate the possibility of a directed (i.e. by an Intelligent Designer) evolution of the horse, for some reason the average paleontologist was more receptive to the newer drawing.

For one thing it was more accurate. For another, many seemed to think that the branches implied a purely undirected evolutionary process… I guess they thought that if the horse’s lineage had some branches in it, God would not have chosen to do it that way.

As it turns out, from Darwin to the present day, there have always been a significant number of biologists that have believed in purely undirected (not by a Creator) evolution by natural selection. Yes, there was a period approximately one hundred years ago where there were those who did think that this whole process was ultimately directed by God or some mystical internal force… but, those who may have believed that way today have been banished to the woodshed… or have had to open up their own research institute. However, regardless of the inappropriateness of making the dogmatic claim that the series of horse photos is purely an undirected accidental evolutionary event, this series might be a good example of microevolution… not macroevolution. Remember, there are no examples of macroevolution. On the other hand, the various horse breeds that have suddenly appeared in the fossil record could very well have been simply created by God at the appropriate time set by Him. There is not enough evidence to rule our microevolution, but I do think that it is very strange that apparently hundreds of truly transitional horse fossils would have to be missing if this series did actually progress as the evolutionists say it did.

From Apes to Humans: I now want to turn our attention to the fossils that purportedly show the evolution of the mammalian species from the earliest primates to humans. Humans are in the order called Primates. How real is the evolution of humans? Is it truly the first demonstration of macroevolution in history? There has been a lot written about it over the years. So, let us take a look. Many people now are calling the conclusion that humans did evolve from primitive apemen one of the biggest scientific frauds in history. Over the years, evolutionists have consistently presented their evidence as being factual in showing that this evolution did occur. In fact, it has always really bothered me to see the pictures that are plastered up on the walls of Natural History Museums showing what we are supposed to believe is the continuous sequence of appearance from the ape to the human. Take a look at just one typical example on the next page:

223

For well over one hundred years, people have been “discovering” supposed missing links in the theoretical evolutionary chain from ape to man. We need to take a look at some of the more prominent of these finds. It is very important to recognize that the majority of these fossil discoveries are a sampling of only of a small portion of the primate hominid (includes humans and some of the great apes). For example, a tooth, jaw fragment, a part of a skull, or a knee joint.

From this sparse material, museum curators and artists create what they think the hominid looked like. Frankly, they may be off by a “figurative mile.” Then these creations are placed in museums or their photos are included up on the walls of those same museums… made to look just the way the evolutionists want them to appear. The following are some examples of these fossil discoveries over the last century or so.

First of all, it should be made clear that many of the fossils that originally were reported as being one of the missing links between apes and humans turn out to be actual bone fragments from apes or humans that had suffered from various deforming diseases, such as; rickets, syphilis, Paget’s disease, and arthritis. Some of these pieces of evidence have later been proven to be fossils of monkeys or other ape-like animals. One has turned out to be the teeth of pigs. The point is that there have been many fossils mistaken for a missing link that later were shown not to be.

224

Piltdown Man: In June 1912, this fossil find was unearthed in the Piltdown quarry in England. Charles Dawson, a lawyer made the discovery… he had made other discoveries as well that ended up in the British Museum. Although he died in 1917, another skull, called Piltdown Man II was discovered and accepted as an excellent example of a missing link between apes and man. Both of these discoveries were heralded for many decades and taught about to millions of students… until the 1950s. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were based on this fossil find. At that time, in 1953, fluoride absorption studies showed that this fossil was an impressive fraudulent creation of a combination of an orangutang’s jaw and a human skull fragment. The instigator had dyed the teeth and skull fragments with chemicals to cause it to look very old. The Jesuit philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Cardin was the forger. He was a philosopher and scientist and apparently wanted people to have some evidence to help them believe in evolution. It worked for forty-one years, sadly.

Ramapithecus: This fossil was discovered in 1932 and served as an example of a missing link for about 50 years. This fossil was solely based on fossilized teeth. Unfortunately, further study in the 1980s revealed that they were the teeth of an orangutan.

Java Man: In 1891, a batch of famous fossilized bone fragments were discovered in Java, Indonesia.

They were identified as being 750,000 years old and labelled as Homo erectus. The bone fragments were: a skull cap piece, three molar teeth, and a thigh bone fragment. The skull cap was found 46 feet away from the other fossils and the piece of thigh bone was identical to human thigh bones. Many biologists have stated the obvious… that there was no evidence that these bones were all part of the same creature. A little later, ten human skeletal bones were discovered in that same area. The conclusion is that Java Man was a human being.

Nebraska Man: Professor Harold Cook discovered the fossilized remains of this ape-man in 1922 in Nebraska. The head of the American Museum of History, Dr. Henry Olsen announced that this fossil find was intermediate between ancient chimps, Java Man, and modern man. Of course, many years after that announcement, the truth concerning Java Man became known. Amazingly, the only fossil evidence of Nebraska Man was a tooth! How can this happen? Well, keep in mind what evolutionists such as Dr. Gareth Nelson said, “We’ve got to have some ancestors. We’ll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates.”165 By the way, years later the entire skeleton of the animal was found that the tooth came from. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig! Sadly, this fossil evidence was used in the Scopes trial… too bad the real story concerning it was not discovered until years later.

225

Neanderthal Man: These fossils were discovered in Neander Valley in Germany. Additional fossil specimens were discovered in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe; lived from 430,000 to 42,000 years ago; Cranial capacity -1450 cc; Initially it was believed to be a fine specimen of a missing link from an ape-like primate to a human. It turned out to be a human skull that was adversely affected by Vitamin D deficiency. It gave him ridges over his brow and curved leg bones. All of the “caveman” like features that are attributed to these early men, are now thought to be due to pathological conditions… vitamin deficiencies or diseases. The average brain size of these Neanderthal skeletons had larger skulls than the average human of today. They buried their dead; There was no measurable DNA evolution over the 388,000 years of fossils; they possessed no symbolic capabilities; no worship activities; nor evidence that they wore clothes.

Cro-Magnon Man: This man is exactly that… a man, a human. They lived from 40,000 to 10,000 years ago.

The aforementioned examples of supposed missing links between primate apes and humans have all proven to be either fakes, obvious primate apes, or humans. Now, let us take a look at the current Darwinian thinking on the evolutionary origin of man. Over the last one hundred years or so, there have been many fossil discoveries that have been considered as being in the evolutionary line from the great apes to humans. The following bullet point presentation will feature the current suggested transitional animals in this line from primates to homo sapiens.

Please take note of the overall size, the brain case size and the time period the animal was on earth – from origin to extinction: • Australopithecines (discovered in 1924 in S. Africa); lived from approx. 4.2 to 1.2 million years ago; there were several varieties of the members in this group: Australopithecus Africanus, A. Robustus, A, Boisei; The average cranial capacity was 500 cc for all varieties except for Australopithecus Afarensis (aka Lucy) – cranial capacity was only 450 cc.; some evolutionists believe that homo sapiens can trace their ancestry back to Lucy; Walked relatively upright; These primates were apes; they were approximately 4 feet tall and weighed 50 lbs; Others believe that the evolutionary line to homo sapiens branched off prior to Lucy and the first fossil evidence of that line is…

• Homo Habilis (tool maker); (excavated in 1964 in a site that had tools and animal fossils such as pigs, horses, and catfish); lived from 2.5 to 1.5 million years ago; walked upright; average cranial capacity was only 650 cc; some believe this primate should be placed with the Australopithecines, others believe it to be an extinct primate similar to a chimpanzee. The human tools might be explained by the evidence of human fossils found in the same place.

• Homo Erectus (aka Peking Man); found initially in Java (1890-1891); lived from 1.8 to 0.1 mya; average cranial capacity was 950 cc (small, but consistent with some European men’s cranial vault size); 5 ft. & slim; cooked with fire; walked erect; no 226

•

• •

•

evidence that it buried its dead; no signs of human culture; most evolutionists believe they were ancestors of homo sapiens; some have considered this to be a human fossil. In fact, Homo Erectus fossils are found side by side with humans for over a million years… they were contemporaries of each other. It was the first of the hominids that travelled outside of Africa into Europe and Asia; Probably not able to speak well.

Homo heidelbergensis: First discovered in Heidelberg, Germany, 1907; Purportedly evolved from Homo erectus in Africa about 600,000 years ago. It became extinct about 200,000 years ago. Average cranial capacity was 1200 cc. It has a small hyoid bone that allows for speech; ear anatomy suggests good hearing ability. May have given rise to Homo sapiens in Africa about 200,000 years ago. It also gave rise to Neanderthals in western Europe and Denisovans in the eastern Europe.

Homo sapiens idaltu: 80,000 – 250,000 years ago, no symbolic ability, no worship, no technical ability; tropical Neanderthal type, but lives in warmer climate.

Homo sapiens (modern man): ~125,000 to present time; cranial capacity is 1400 cc; cultured, religious, 5 2/3 feet tall, 160 lbs.; came into world sometime between 20,000 and 125,000 years ago.

In recent decades, a few additional hominids have been discovered. They include “Little Foot,” a type of Astralopithecus, Astralopithecus sediba, Homo naledi, and Homo floresiensis – became extinct only 12,000 years ago in Indonesia. Since that time, only Homo sapiens have been around (of the hominid species).

Professor Marvin Lubenow: “When people become aware of the massive misrepresentation of the dates for the Homo Erectus fossil material, they act perplexed. Why do evolutionists do this?

The answer is obvious. If the date range of all the fossils having a Homo Erectus morphology were commonly published in a chart as they are in this book, it would be clear that human evolution has not taken place. [maybe the reason is not intentionally deceptive] Because of evolutionists’ faith in and commitment to evolution, I believe we are seeing a psychological phenomenon. Evolutionists give us the dates they wish Homo Erectus would have. I suspect it is more a case of self-deception than it is an attempt to deceive others. It indicates how deeply their faith has colored their facts.”166 Frankly, I believe that Lubenow gives evolutionists far too much credit. They are just liars who do not want to recognize God. An objective evaluation of the fossil record reveals the following: • •

•

Home Erectus shows no evidence of having evolved from or into any other mammal in its two million years on earth.

Modern Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens, Home erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. No evidence of their evolving into or out of one another is seen.

Almost all specimens found of Homo habilis are contemporary with Homo erectus. So, Homo habilis did not evolve into Homo erectus.

227

• •

When humans first appear in the fossil record, they are already fully human. There are no transitional forms seen in the fossil record.

Different types of fossils are found at the same place geographically and the same level stratigraphically. This fact confirms the lack of evidence of human evolution. Son-of-agun.

“There are no fossils that support the theory of evolutionary development of mankind. Prior to 4.5 million years ago, the hominid fossil record is a virtual blank for 10 million years. This supports the idea that humans were created by a supreme being.”167 (Pro. Lubenow) “The human fossil record is so strongly supportive of the concept of special creation. This is not the message that we hear from a hundred different voices coming at us from a hundred different directions. The human fossils themselves tell the real story. Even when the human fossils are placed on time charts according to the evolutionist’s dates for these fossils, the results do not support human evolution but conflict with it.”170 (Prof. Lubenow) It is also true that there is no evolutionary “tree” as was predicted there would be if humans had arrived on the earth as a result of that process. Instead, there seems to be a “bush” where the hominids that arrive on the scene, one after another, do not continue to increase in size, brain vault capacity, societal abilities, etc. Instead, we see that the capabilities of these hominids fluctuate as time goes by.

Mitochondrial Eve: A molecular evaluation on humans of the genetic makeup in the mitochondria. It suggests that all races of humans owe their origin to a single female from Africa who lived between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. This study is very controversial. If it turns out to have some merit, it would obviously mean that modern man is much younger than evolutionists have traditionally believed to be the case.

A comment on Hominid fossils: “In all the world there are only a few dozen such specimens, a modest showing made all the more valuable by the decades of searching and digging by hundreds of specialists. Dinosaur researchers may examine thousands of specimens. Extinct elephants can be found by the hundreds at a single site. But when it comes to the remains of our own forebears, the numbers dwindle dramatically. Hominids, it seems, were never very numerous in ancient times. Those whose bodies were preserved, at least as bones, are rarer still.”168 (April, Science 84) The fossil remains of hominids are also usually very fragile.

The Infamous Missing Links: I have just presented six of the significant icons of evolution. That is, they are examples of organisms that have been referenced over the decades when someone is trying to show that the concept of evolution is true. As we have seen, these examples are laden with weak points if not downright fabrication of evidence. Before leaving this subject concerning the missing links in nature, I want to mention a few more things.

228

“It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the fossil record suddenly and are not led up to be known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences… Almost all paleontologists recognize that the discovery of a complete transition is in any case unlikely.

There are still a few paleontologists and good ones, who are so impressed by how much has been found that they conclude that most, at any rate, of what has not been found never existed.”169 (Paleontologist George Simpson) Gerald Kerkut, British zoologist, pointed out that missing links exist between each of the following major groups of organisms:169 1. Viruses, bacteria, and protozoa 2. Protozoa and Metazoa 3. Various invertebrate phyla 4. Invertebrate vs. vertebrate phyla 5. Major groups of vertebrates The transitional fossils that show evolutionary linkage between these groupings is missing. Even the rare purported transitional organism is always in dispute… and, these supposed transitional organisms are rare indeed.

229

Chapter 19:

Genesis Creation Account

Non-believers have difficulty in believing the Holy Bible to be the actual Word of God for a variety of reasons. Some simply do not believe in an Intelligent Designer of the Universe – this book is written primarily to show these individuals that they really need to reconsider that belief. Others may be Christians, but have a difficult time making sense out of the first two chapters of Genesis considering that the vast majority of evidence seems to suggest that our Universe is almost 15 billion years old… and a literal interpretation of the Bible would seem to suggest that it is no older than ten to twenty thousand years. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that many of the early church leaders did not take those early chapters as referring to 24hour days. Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, and Irenaeus thought that each creation day was a thousand years long. Clement of Alexandria did not look at these days as being literal… he simply did not know what to think about the time period. Origen looked at these verses as he looked at most others, in a spiritual sense. Augustine looked at the days in a figurative sense. He did not know how long ago God actually created the Universe, but did not adhere to the six 24-hour day concept. Eusebius, who wrote an excellent account on early church history, wrote much about the creation event. He was aware, however, that the Hebrew word for day, yom, could refer to a 24-hour day or a longer period of time. He also was unsure of how to interpret the first two chapters of Genesis. Ambrose, a bishop of Milan, was among the early church leaders who apparently did believe the day referred to in the creation account was meant to be taken as a 24hour period. The point I am making, though, is that there was a very big difference of opinion as to how to interpret these first two chapters in Genesis during the early centuries of the church.

The majority of the leaders were not afraid to admit that they just did not know. They did not have any secular scientific evidence like theologians have needed to consider in recent history.

All they had to go by was what they saw as they viewed the earth and beauty of the stars and planets and the biblical account of creation.

In 1650, James Ussher, an Anglican archbishop published his commentary and account of the dates noted in the book of Genesis. Cambridge University’s John Lightfoot made a slight correction and then concluded that God had created the Universe beginning on October 18, 4004 BC. Adam was created on October 23rd at 9:00 a.m. Admittedly, most young-earth creationists of our day do not get that precise. Instead, they believe with good reasons, that many of the generations in Genesis are skipped so that the actual date of creation could be anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 years ago. For some reason, however, Ussher’s date was looked at as “gospel” by most in the church for 150-200 years or so. It wasn’t until geological advances, fossil discoveries, and then, Darwin came along that the general public eliminated this early date for creation as a reasonable possibility.

When the Scope’s monkey trial came along in the 1920s, the idea of an old earth became cemented in the minds of most people. Christian fundamentalists were very concerned that this general belief was going to be devasting to the cause of Christ. They were of the opinion that far too many people would not turn to the God of the Bible because of the difference in the creation 230

account in Genesis and what secular science now felt was the real date of creation. So, there tended to be two ways that those in the church dealt with this issue… one group became adamant that the biblical account of six 24-hour days was exactly correct and set out to prove it – this effort was led by Henry Morris who wrote a book, The Genesis Flood in 1961. Many people were intrigued by his book and now a large group of people follow his organization via the Internet. He put a great deal of effort into showing that there was scientific evidence for a young earth (see the next chapter). I will briefly mention how this group interprets Genesis 1 and 2. The other major group of Christians were convinced that God did not mean for the reader to take each creation day as being only 24 hours long. I will be discussing the two major interpretations of how this group looks at creation in the paragraphs that follow as well: these are referred to as the “Gap Theory”, and the “Progressive Day-Age” theories of creation. Let me begin: Progressive Day-Age Creationism (PDAC): It is worthwhile, I believe, to note that possibly the individual who is the most vocal proponent of this PDAC account of creation is the brilliant astronomer-physicist, Dr. Hugh Ross.

Ross started the organization, Reasons to Believe over thirty years ago. He became a Christian after realizing that only the Bible had presented information that was totally consistent with what he had learned about the Universe from his graduate school studies. He was even convinced that the Bible’s creation account was consistent with secular science and the Big Bang. He has written dozens of books on a variety of subjects that demonstrate the veracity of the biblical account when compared to current scientific accounts. Where there are differences, he shows that the evidence is markedly in the favor of the biblical account… in the same manner as I have shown it to be in this book. Ross also believes that God communicates His truth to us through His Word and via nature. He often says when teaching on this subject, “God’s revelation is not limited exclusively to the Bible’s words. The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible.” Ross looks at nature as an inerrant revelation from God to be relied upon like any book of the Bible. Of course, that assumes that what is seen in nature is interpreted correctly.

We know from all that is written in this book, that scientists often make significant errors in their analysis of nature. Next is a brief review of the PDAC viewpoint of creation.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening (ereb) and the morning (boqer) were the first day (yom). (Gen 1:1-5) Importantly, the word yom (Hebrew word for day) can mean more than just a 24-hour day. It can be interpreted as: • A 24-hour day 231

• • •

A general period of time – often a long period of time A specific point in time A period of light contrasted to darkness

In the PDAC view of creation, yom is taken to mean a long period of time. Support for this usage can be found in Hosea 6:2 that states, “He will revive us after two days: He will raise us up on the third day, that we may live before Him.” In this verse, yom is not to be taken as a 24-hour day. It would appear, in the context of that chapter in Hosea, that it is actually alluding to thousands of years.

Ereb = can mean evening, sunset, night, or ending of the day Boqer = can mean sunrise, coming of light, beginning of day, dawning So, these descriptive words are referring to the ending of one long time period (yom), followed by the beginning of another long time period (yom).

Days 1 through 6 conclude with the phrase “and the evening and the morning were the first [or second, or third, etc.] day.” This indicated that each of those six days are now completed.

However, day seven does not have this ending applied to it… it is still in progress. This suggests at least two important points. First of all, day seven is God’s day of rest. He tells us in Psalms 95 and Hebrews 4 that this seventh day is still ongoing. Obviously, this day is very long – it isn’t even over yet and has been going on for a long time… from Adam and Eve, through all the years of the Old Testament, New Testament, the 2,000 years since then… and however long until Jesus comes again. The fact that day seven is so long implies that some, if not all, of the other yom days are very long as well. These verses, then, are consistent with the current secular view of the age of the earth.

The fossil record is very consistent with the PDAC. Many fossils are found in the earth during the time period from the biblical day one through day six (up through the time period when Adam and Eve were created). After that, God entered His day of rest… and we see no new animal fossils either!

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God 232

said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen 1:24-31) The biblical account of the 6th yom (day) is a good day to look at when evaluating the fact that the word yom does not necessarily mean a 24-hour day in the Genesis account. Take a look at what happened on day 6. The land animals were created along with Adam. God also planted a garden in Eden. God told Adam to name every bird and animal that God had created. Later in day 6, God created Eve out of Adam. Now that had to be a long day. Some people who believe in the 24-hour day theory, say Adam may have had superhuman speed to do all of his assigned tasks. However, there is no reason to believe this. Even Jesus, who was perfect, did not have super human speed in His actions while on earth.

There are people who believe that the PDAC cannot be correct since it implies that death entered into the world prior to Adam’s first sin. They point to the Bible verse, “Wherefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. (Romans 5:12) Note that Paul writes that death passed upon all men. Not only that but this death related to spiritual death… not physical death. This verse cannot imply that absolutely no death could take place as it is almost guaranteed that there were many hours from the time that plants and animals were created prior to Adam’s first sin. There are many onecelled organisms that have a life span of just a few hours. Not only that, but many animals require nourishment more frequently than every day in order to survive. Plants died when animals first ate them. What those who believe in the PDAC creation account suggest is that the death that is spoken of is human death. We know that when Christ died on the cross for our sins, He removed the barrier between mankind and God. Since that time, a person (man or woman, but not animals) can receive eternal life by turning to Jesus and accepting His free gift of salvation. This involves the repentance of sin, the recognition of who Jesus is and what He did for us and, most importantly, asking Him into one’s life.

There are very many reasons to believe that the Universe is very old… about 14 billion years old. Many of these were mentioned in an early section of this book. One of the easier ones to mention here is the distant starlight problem. We are able to see stars up in the sky that are very far away from earth. As a matter of fact, it is easy for cosmologists to measure that distance as being as far as light can travel in over thirteen billion years… and that is a long way. Of course, since we can see those stars, the Universe has to be at least thirteen billion years old.

Those that believe in a 24-hour day interpretation of Genesis, recognize that this is nowhere close to 10,000 years old. Of course, the people who believe in the 24-hour day for Genesis have an answer… we will go over that a bit later.

233

In conclusion, here is a bullet point presentation that represents what likely happened on each day-age on earth if the PDAC is correct: 1. God created the earth, sun, moon, and stars beginning about 13.8 billion years ago. An opaque atmosphere changes into a translucent atmosphere.

2. A stable water cycle is created. Rain falls on earth.

3. Land emerges along with some plant species.

4. The sun’s light on earth becomes visible from the viewpoint of earth. The stars and moon also become visible. Atmosphere becomes transparent.

5. Marine creatures are created and sea dinosaurs. Reptiles and amphibians and lower vertebrates.

6. God creates land animals and Adam and Eve about 20,000 to 120,000 years ago.

7. Day 7 is still going on and will until Jesus comes again.

8. The people with this view of creation do not believe in a total global flood… at least Hugh Ross does not. He believes that the water covered vast areas of Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf. He has intriguing reasons for believing this way… worth reading about in one of his books I note in the bibliography.

The Gap Theory (Ruin and Reconstruction): Another popular old earth view of creation is known as the Gap Theory. It is one of the two “old earth” views that is still popular among many Christians today. It does not look at the word yom in the first verse of Genesis as meaning day-age. Instead, those with this view of creation believe that yom does mean a 24-hour day. The major difference comes due to the fact that they envision a “gap” of billions of years between the verses Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Take a look at those two verses noted below: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was [became] without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen 1:1-2) Supposedly, the Universe, including the earth, went through a whole lot of unrecorded events in the 14 billion or so years after God first created it. Initially, the earth was perfect… a wonderful place to be… no sin, no problems. During this time, there were many plants and animals on the earth. These animals included dinosaurs. Fossils were laid down.

In one version of this theory of creation, God allowed Lucifer dominion over the earth.

Of course, Lucifer led his angels in the task of running the earth. Eventually, however, as we learn about later in the Bible, Lucifer wanted more. He wanted to be like God. Because of his uprising at that time, God banished Lucifer, now called Satan, and one-third of the angels… now to be called demons. Also, in a popular version of the gap theory, there was a massive flood which destroyed that original beautiful world that God had created as mentioned in verse 1.

234

Therefore, the earth had to be replenished. That is why in Genesis 1:2, the word “hayah” is translated as “became” instead of “was.” In other words, the originally perfect world became formless and void with only darkness upon earth. Those who like this theory point to Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23-26 as sections in the Bible that use the same phrase as in Genesis 1:2 about the earth being without form and void. In both of these instances, the situation does relate to God having just instituted some form of divine judgment. Therefore, as you might imagine, those that believe in this idea of creation are convinced that “hayah” should be translated as “became” in this verse.

Others insist that it need be translated as it typically has been over the centuries, that is as the word “was.” They insist that the Hebrew grammatical construction of Genesis 1:2 requires the reader to recognize that this verse is simply an explanation/clarification of Genesis 1.1 That is, when God created the world as briefly mentioned in the first verse, the second verse fleshes it out to tell the reader more about that particular creation… not one that came again billions of years later. God originally created the earth formless and void as mentioned in verse 1.

Beginning with the phrase “and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” the remaining verses in Genesis 1 will describe what God did next.

Assuming now that the gap theory is correct, the earth was going to require God to step in and fill or replenish the earth. Here we have another difference of opinion as to how to translate a Hebrew word. Take a look at this controversial Bible verse… “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” (Gen 1:27-28) Note that in the King James translation of the Bible, the Hebrew word in this verse is translated “replenish,” in most other versions, it is translated as “fill.” Those people who like the Gap theory point to this King James translation as evidence that God was actually having to re-fill an earth that he had emptied secondary to His previous judgment on it.

The Hebrew word used in this verse is often translated as “fill” elsewhere in the Bible. Still, this is added ammunition for those holding to the Gap theory of creation. Those who do not think the Gap theory has merit note that in 1611, the word “replenish” in England meant to “fill completely.”

It is really interesting that a different Hebrew word is used for create in Genesis 1:1 as compared to the word for made in many of the following verses. People that ascribe to the Gap theory suggest that God created out of nothing (the Holy Spirit was the sole cause of this creation ex nihilo) in verse 1, but used the material He had already created to re-fashion (i.e. make various new things out of something previously created ex nihilo) the earth in many of the following verses (e.g. He made the firmament, etc.) It is worth noting that the word for create, bara, is used only of God. Asah, the word for made, is used for humans and God. The Scofield Reference Bible famously adheres to the Gap view of creation. In their commentary, they note that there are only three areas in Genesis 1 that reference an actual creative action: Genesis 1:1 (creation of the heaven and earth), Genesis 1:20-21 (animal life), and Genesis 1:26-27 (humans).

235

Everywhere else, the thought is that God is making something or re-fashioning something out of matter that has already been created. On the other hand, there are many places in Genesis where these two Hebrew words are used interchangeably. Genesis 2:3 tends to wrap things up… “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” In other words, God’s work had consisted of both, creating and making things.

One potential problem with this theory is the fact that the fossils show that death and disease preceded the entrance of Adam and Eve onto the earth. Yet, the Bible says that Adam’s sin was the cause of death. The reply that those who believe this theory is the best description of creation is the same as those taking the PDAC view. That is, Adam’s sin brought in spiritual death to mankind. More details on this issue and others can be found by referencing the books that I list at the end of this chapter. I should point out that there are a great many verses in the Bible (mostly outside of Genesis) that point out many problems with this theory. Be that as it may, millions of people still think that it is the best interpretation of the creation account available. Next, I will present the most common explanation of Genesis 1 and 2… that each day that is mentioned is a 24-hour day. Also, that there are actually six of these 24-hour days in creation week…

Literal 24-hour day, 7-day week view (SDC): The last viewpoint that I will cover concerning the biblical creation account is the 24hour, six-day week of creation. The seventh day of this week has also concluded. This is based on their interpretation of Hebrews 4:3-5. One additional reason for believing that the seventh day has ended is that Adam and Eve lived through it prior to being banished from the Garden and the ground being cursed by God. The idea is that since God had already blessed and sanctified the seventh day (Gen. 2:1), He would not then curse it.

Basically, one simply needs to take the verses in Genesis 1 and 2 literally to know what people having this view believe about the creation week. For example, when in the PDAC view the Hebrew word yom was translated as a long period of time (e.g. an epoch), in the 24-hour day view, it is translated as meaning one 24-hour day.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen 1:1-2) The first verse is the overview of the creation account. Starting with verse 2, God will begin to go into detail concerning what was done each day throughout the six days He created the world… and then He states that day seven will be a day of rest. The first six days have already ended and the verses tell us that.

People holding this view do not believe that the world is more than 10,000 to 100,000 years old… really closer to 10,000. Of course, they do not believe in evolution. For those readers who want to look into this view in much more detail, there are three major research groups on

236

the web that have much to offer: Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis, Henry Morris III (Institute for Creation Research), and Carl Wieland from Creation Ministries International.

There is no timing difficulty with the fact that fossils show evidence of disease and death in this view of creation. Genesis 3:17-19 tells us when death and disease was allowed into our world: “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Gen 3:17-19) The SDC group of people believe that Noah’s flood was about 40,000 years ago and totally covered the mountains of the entire world. Some sea creatures and the animals that God brought into the Ark survived. The Gap theorists interpret the flood as originally being in the “gap” years due to Lucifer’s great sin, followed by another Noahic flood during the lifetime of Noah. They believe that both floods were not global… instead, they involved the region around Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf. This is also the region where those people holding the PDAC view believe the great flood would have covered. There are good explanations for these three views on the Internet. The one I list below gives a good account of the PDAC and the SDC views. There are many sites that give a nice explanation of the Gap theory as well. https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/critical-analysis-hugh-ross-progressive-dayage-creationism/ Conclusion: So, one can see that there are two basic ideas on the interpretation of the first couple of chapters in Genesis. Millions of Christians believe that the Universe is very old – consistent with secular science. Others adhere to the classic interpretation… the earth is pretty young, in the range of 10-100 thousand years old. There should be no problem whatsoever for anyone rejecting the message of the Bible simply because they have a problem with the creation account in Genesis. Two of the three accounts above are certainly consistent with the creation account of secular science today. As I will point out a little later in this book, most other religions have creation accounts that are at odds with science.

237

Chapter 20:

The Age of the Earth: Is it Young or Old?

In Chapter 19, the three most common views on the creation account given in the book of Genesis were reviewed. Two of these accounts stated that the earth was several billion years old.

The third view suggested that it was about 10,000 to 100,000 years old… closer to the 10,000 number, most likely. So, what evidence is there for the age of the earth? If it turns out that the evidence is overwhelming that it is only tens of thousands of years old, the existence of God is essentially certain and unarguable. Virtually no one would argue that the world as we know it to be could have arrived at this state in just thousands of years by purely natural means. Hence, God would have had to be responsible for the whole affair.

The scientists that support the young earth view have done a great deal of research over the last 60-70 years to find reasons to believe that they are correct in their view of our earth’s age. In this chapter, I will mention just some of those reasons. Keep in mind the fact that scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old are convinced that this evidence is faulty.

In some of the examples that I will describe, I will also mention the counter argument. I also will show how Noah’s flood fits in with this young earth view, dinosaurs, the current topography of the earth, and fossils. It is quite a neat story… the truth of it is open to debate, of course.

Before giving specific examples of why many people believe the earth and Universe to be young, let me mention why these people do not put much credence in the dating methods used today. Most geologists believe that they can get a good idea on the age of the earth by developing what is called the geological column. The earth’s strata are arranged according to the fossils found within it. Of course, in doing this, the geologists are assuming that their theory of evolution is correct. This column does not actually exist in nature; the idea of what it should look like if there had been no major floods nor any tectonic plate movement, etc. does exist, however.

Even the Grand Canyon only includes a little less than fifty percent of this column… although it is surely displayed there beautifully. There are major anomalies in the stratigraphic order in many of the columns around the world. Of course, old-earth proponents have what they purport to be excellent reasons for these anomalies… and they may well be right. On the other hand, young earth creationists find certain of these explanations difficult to accept. One example is the fact that at Glacier National Park there is one block of Precambrian limestone (supposedly one billion years old) on top of a large block of Cretaceous shale (supposedly only 100 million years old). How did that happen? Well, the old earth proponents say that massive tectonic forces were able to move this 350-mile by 35-mile by 6-mile-thick block of limestone to its current position on top of the shale from its original position beneath it. The “father” of the young earth movement, Henry Morris, says that this would have been impossible. Instead, he says that the limestone was simply deposited on top of the shale in the first place… for example secondary to a worldwide flood. Young earth proponents also point to various examples of fossils mixed together in the same portion of the geological column even though by the old-earth theory they should have been separated by millions of years.

238

A second dating method that the young earth scientists believe is very flawed is that of radioactive dating. They give examples of large errors in Carbon-14, uranium-lead, and potassium-argon dating methods. They say that there is no way that one can be sure that a given specimen does not have any “daughter” atoms within it that would completely invalidate the findings. Plus, one cannot be sure that the decay rate has stayed the same over time. They back up this questioning of this dating technique by showing several current-day specimens that, when tested, supposedly are thousands (and in one case 3 billion) years old. So, these scientists will not accept any evidence that their young earth hypothesis is wrong if it relies on the geological column or current dating techniques. Again, I am not saying that I agree with this position, but I am just explaining it.

In bullet list that follows, I will mention and briefly describe seven pieces of evidence cited by young earth proponents that the earth is only about 10,000 years old: 1. The earth’s magnetic field – Studies have shown that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying at a rate corresponding to a half-life of 1,400 years. If that is extrapolated back 1,000 years, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as a magnetic star… i.e. real strong. That large of a magnetic field has to be at the upper limit for the earth. Hence, the earth cannot be older than 10,000 years. Now, those scientists who hold to the oldearth view simply say that the magnetic field reverses every so often… therefore, it never gets too high.

2. Meteoric Dust – Cosmic dust enters into our atmosphere at a constant rate… about 14 million tons per year. If the world were five billion years old, it would be covered in dust that was 182 feet deep! Old-earthers argue that this dust would just mix with regular earth dirt and no one would know the difference. However, it turns out that in cosmic dust there is a very high percentage of nickel (300 times more than in dirt). There is no evidence of this nickel on the earth’s surface… at least in large quantities. Calculations based on the nickel content of the surface layer/crust, show that the earth should be about 3,000-5,000 years old.

3. Petroleum and Natural Gas – Cap rock is able to contain at high pressures underground petroleum and natural gas. Calculations, however, have shown that the cap rock should not be able to indefinitely withstand the constantly building pressures. Young earth proponents believe that this increasing pressure could not be maintained for any longer than 10,000 years. They also report that recent experiments have shown that oil and gas can be produced in very short periods of time from marine and vegetable matter. Wood and other cellulose material has been converted into coal with hours as well. Their point is that all of the deposits of oil and coal and natural gas that we see around the globe did not take eons to produce… no, it could be produced in thousands of years instead. They also point to the evidence of gold chains and human skeletons found in coal deposits.

Polystrate fossils have been found in coal beds as well – this indicates rapid formation.

4. Comets – since comets slowly burn away as they circle the sun, and no new sources of comets appears forthcoming, they should all be gone by now if the world was older than 239

about 10,000 years. Since they still are up there in the sky and can be viewed on occasion as they fly by (e.g. Halley’s Comet), the world must be only about 10,000 years old.

5. Meteoric Material – It is true that there is a lot of evidence around the world of meteor strikes. However, all of the evidence appears to be only in the earth’s crust. In fact, there is no evidence of meteor strikes, including huge craters, below the surface of the earth… and there should be if the earth were billions of years old.

6. Too much helium in minerals – Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay into lead. A study in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that the helium that is produced in zircon crystals in Precambrian rocks has not yet escaped. When studies of the rates of helium loss were undertaken, it showed that the helium has only been leaking for about 6,000 years. They were supposedly 1.5 billion years old.

7. Our galaxy is too spiral – The stars of the Milky Way rotate about the galaxy center; the inner stars rotate faster than the outer ones. We can measure the rotation speed. The observed speed of rotation is so fast that the current beautiful spiral shape of the stars would instead be a featureless mass of starlight if these stars had been actually rotating for billions of years. We can only see them in their classic shape because they have been in existence for only about 10,000 to 20,000 years.

There are many additional examples of scientific data that young earth proponents use to back up their position that our earth is only about 10,000 to 100,000 years old. I will suggest a couple of good books at the end of this section that give plenty more of these examples for those who desire to read more on the subject.

Noah’s flood: Although it is very difficult to say with certainty when the flood of Noah took place, the year 2472 BC was selected by the researchers at the Institute for Creation Research. A careful reading of the book of Genesis allows one to say that date is probably close to correct. Let me review how that flood supposedly affected our world. Keeping in mind the fact of the massive quantity of fossils that were found within a very short time frame of ancient history, the suggestion that this fossil record came about because of a sudden great deluge makes some sense… if, indeed, the world is not old. The flood would have resulted in mass deaths and fossilization. “And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth.” (Gen. 7:23) A very amazing batch of fossils has been recovered over the years. Many burial sites contain fossils from animals that seemingly come from a wide range or geographical locations. One example is the Cumberland Cavern in Maryland. It has animal remains from arid climates, hot, damp areas, and cold, northern zones. Many other sites also show a mixture of fossil types. Many people believe that the only logical explanation for this variety is that these animal carcasses were transplanted to particular sites via a massive, worldwide cataclysmic flood. Additional and interesting evidence of this type of an event is seen 240

in northern Siberia and Alaska. Many mammoths can be seen with blatant evidence of having perished suddenly. Many are completely intact and incredibly well preserved. Some still had food on their tongues. Really, only a very sudden cataclysmic flood could do such a thing. The book of Genesis even gives us a good explanation of how it could have happened in such a way that it was an incredible surprise to most of the creatures on earth at that time. “In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” (Gen 7:11-12) Most commentators believe that up until this flood, there was a canopy of sorts over the entire earth… and the earth received its water via some sort of a mist from above. The flood began with the downfall of this canopy of water and water from the deep. “But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” (Gen 2:6) Creationist think that water from this canopy came down at incredibly low temperatures (e.g. 150 degrees below zero). This massive flood and the cold temperatures in the northern regions resulted in mass extinctions and a totally different worldwide environment after the flood. This ultimately resulted in people eventually dying at earlier ages. Petrified logs, polystratic trees (tree fossils that grow through several layers of strata), ephemeral fossil markings (these require incredibly rapid fossilization), and soft parts of animals found in the fossil record all are signs of a catastrophic event. All in all, what we see in our studies of the earth and the fossil record is quite consistent with a massive world-wide (or close to it) flood.

Before wrapping this chapter up, I do believe it appropriate to at least mention a couple of pieces of evidence in the favor of those who hold that the earth is old (in the billions of years).

One item that is almost always brought up in debates between these two groups of Christians, is that of us seeing starlight that we know comes from stars billions of light years away. A light year is the distance that light travels in one year… and that is quite a distance! The young earthers have their answer for this discrepancy. Some suggest that God may just have created the stars including the extent that their light extends in the same fashion as they believe that He created Adam and Eve already as adults… and the Garden of Eden already beautifully landscaped. Others think that light simply travelled much faster back then. Still others say that the entire set of Laws of the Universe changed after the Fall of Adam, so many things may not make sense to us today as we now live under a new set of Laws.

There is a very impressive piece of evidence that relatively recently was found concerning the dating of trees and what are referred to as varves (found in northern lakes). I believe that you will find this information very interesting and revealing. First of all, let me define varves. Varves are sediment layers formed in lakes in certain environments. In northern latitudes where lakes freeze over, fine-grained material will settle out in winter, followed by coarser-grained material in spring as ice thaws and increased stream flow carries larger particles into the lake. Each winter-spring cycle produces a fine-coarse couplet called a varve. The hope was that each varve ring would equal one calendar year. They wanted to see if they could prove 241

that was the case even going back thousands of years. So, scientists compared the amount of Carbon-14 in tree rings to the age of varves for thousands of years in the past. There are trees that are over 4,000 years old, believe it or not. There is one in Sweden that is 9,550 years old! By taking samples from trees, the amount of Carbon-14 in each ring was measured and plotted on a graph going back over 4,000 years. Intriguingly, the graph was a straight line, going down a little each year as was expected. There were no surprises in the graph. Radioactive decay rates remained constant. It was really impressive that certain dates were checked against known ancient historical events. For example, a piece of wood from Hezakiahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tunnel had its Carbon14 level measured and it had the same amount in it as did the tree ring number 2700 (which stands for 2700 years ago) in the research project we are discussing here. Given when the specimen was tested, number 2700 would correspond to ~700 BC. Although the exact date is not known, 700 BC is when Hezekiahâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s tunnel was built, give or take a year or two! Even more interesting to a Christian, the date of the writing of Isaiah 53 in the Dead Sea Scrolls was found to be number 2100 (i.e. 100 BC). That is really exciting as it gives excellent corroboration that the book of Isaiah (including the amazing messianic prophetic chapter 53) was written long before the time of Christ. Many liberal folks have stated that it must have been written after Jesus died as it is too impressive a prophecy of His entire life and death to have been written in Old Testament times. Now, the world has proof that it was written long before the Messiah came to earth. Since it is possible to go back in time much farther using varve rings than tree rings, the research team did go back 100,000 varves in a lake named Suigetsu. The line that this generated did remain linear meaning that the Carbon-14 decay rate remained the same for all of those years. The meaning of this finding is that the earth must be at least 100,000 years old.

A very important final piece of evidence (actually many pieces) is all of the evidence that I presented in the chapter on cosmology in the second section of this book. Everything about the Big Bang and the events that followed it, reveals a whole lot of information about the old age of the earth. In conclusion, I would have to say that the default, secular and even Christian position is that the earth is billions of years old. However, there is some evidence that seems to suggest that it is instead only thousands of years old. If one day we find out that it truly is a young earth, so be it. That would be fineâ&#x20AC;Ś certainly, if that ever becomes reality, as I alluded to a little earlier, that would make every reasonable person a believer in God, and that would be great.

242

Chapter 21:

Amazing Animal Instincts

All of the examples that I will be presenting in this section will demonstrate the remarkable capabilities of many of the living creatures on this Earth. Of course, there are a great many more examples that could have been referenced, but the following twelve should suffice to show the amazing instincts God has instilled into His animal and plant creations. These capabilities are really quite impressive and do not, in any way, lend themselves to an evolutionary model.

Penguins: The very first time that I saw the documentary “March of the Penguins” (2005), I remember saying to myself that anyone seeing this movie that had an IQ of at least double digits would have to come away with the knowledge that God had to exist. There simply was no way that any kind of evolutionary mechanism could have resulted in the amazing capabilities of these incredible Emperor Penguins. Let me point out a few of the amazing things that these penguins do each and every year down in their home in Antarctica.

Every March, the onset of autumn down there, after stuffing themselves with food (fish), all of the penguins begin a 70-mile march to their birthplace inland. This can take up to a week.

They need to end up in the same place every year, however, the land/ice that they must traverse to get there shifts all the time as the ice melts in various places. Eventually, somehow, they do make it to their destination. Many years earlier, this area was chosen for their “nursery” as it offered a relatively thick area of ice and at least some protection from the wind that comes often in the winter storms. After their arrival, they almost immediately begin their look for a mate… one male per female each year… monogamy for any given year. Since there seems to be always more females than males, sometimes the courtship can be interesting. In any case, eventually, they mate and soon thereafter (in June) an egg is produced… immediately covered by the body of the mother. Unfortunately, there is very little time for the family to bond at this time. The mother must hurry back to the water’s edge in order to replenish herself with fish/food. So, after literally practicing the egg exchange maneuver several times, the very quick exchange takes place – in seconds. If there is a problem that requires more than a few extra seconds in this exchange, the egg will freeze and crack open… and that will end the possibility of new life for this couple. Fortunately, the vast majority succeed and the mother heads off with hundreds of other mothers for the shoreline… a week or so away.

So, while the mother is working diligently to eat and get ready to return to feed her baby chick, the father must carry on in his role as protector of the egg. He must not let the egg be exposed to air; he must team up with all of the other fathers during the terrible storms that are inevitable each winter. All of the males huddle together to keep warm, taking turns at who is in the middle and who must suffer the colder air on the outside of the huddled group. Each father must protect his egg under his belly and on top of his claws/feet for over two months. Finally, the mothers return! Sometimes, sadly, the egg will hatch a few days too early and the baby chick will starve to death before the mother can make it back. Interestingly though, the father does 243

have a milky substance in his gullet that he can transfer to the baby chick to allow for an additional one to two days of life before starvation occurs.

As soon as the transfer of the chick from father to mother takes place, the male penguin must hurry back to the water’s edge for some food to eat… it will have been four months since his last meal and he will have lost half his body weight! Another amazing fact is that the mother finds her “husband” and baby chick by listening for their voices… even though there are hundreds of penguins in the birthplace home, they each have a unique voice - at least as far as the mother is concerned. Not only that, but before the father leaves his chick, they spend a little time “speaking” to each other to make sure that they can recognize each other’s voice/sound when they meet up again in a couple of months.

So, the fathers head back to the water to eat and wait for their family to come. The mothers raise their baby chicks and, eventually, as summer approaches, they head on back to where the whole thing began… right where their “husband” and their baby’s father is waiting for them. After spending some time eating and playing together as a family, it will be time to head out into the sea. The next cycle will be coming up as the Antarctic summer comes to an end the next early March. I hope that the reader will take the time to view the movie made in 2005 about the Emperor Penguin… watching how they interact and work so hard to keep their baby egg/chick alive is a beautiful thing to witness.

The Woodpecker: The woodpecker is a very intriguing bird. Interestingly, I just saw a beautiful, red-headed woodpecker just outside my front door a few days ago. Actually, I first heard him as he was pecking away at a dead branch about half way up the trunk. Woodpeckers have very strong beaks, as you may have surmised. They can peck away at up to 100 times per minute as they work at getting at the little bugs within or under the dead bark.

They are really made for this type of life. They have strong legs and toes in front and in back of its feet so it can get a real firm grip on the trunk of a tree to help as it pecks away at its prey. Although all other birds have their bills directly connected to their skull, the woodpecker has spongy tissue as a buffer between its skull and bill. Without this buffer, the vigorous pecking action could very well cause harm to the brain of this amazing bird. Sometimes, the woodpecker will peck away diligently for hours and has even been known to peck through concrete at times in its quest for some tasty food. Obviously, it cannot see the various insects that it goes after underneath bark or similar places, but it has fantastic hearing and a superb sense of smell to help find these little creatures.

One more strange feature to mention is that this bird has an incredible long tongue – about five inches long. More interesting than that is the fact that this tongue is wrapped around the brain within the skull - and it is not attached to the rear of its mouth – as it is in all other birds. It inserts this tongue into the opening the beak has made and searches out the insect prey.

244

Grey Sea Slug: Although the slug is an unimpressive looking creature, it surely has characteristics that make it look amazingly designed. For starters, this creature feeds on sea anemones – almost all crabs and fish avoid the anemone because it uses a highly poisonous venom for defense.

However, the sea slug and the anemone have quite a relationship that helps feed and protect the slug very nicely.

The anemone is an animal that has tentacles on its back and side that contain barbed poison arrows that can be fired at an enemy from hollow tubes or filaments. These darts are effective defense tools for the anemone. The slug, on the other hand, does not view the anemone as an enemy whatsoever. Instead, the sea slug eats this creature as a main source of food. It is able to do so without being injected by the poisoned arrows. Instead, after enjoying the main portion of the anemone’s body for its food, the slug is somehow able to load these poison arrow tubules into its own series of tubules that lead from the sea slug’s stomach through its inward body parts, and out to the back and sides. That eventuates in the sea slug having its own missile launch pad on the surface of its body so that it can launch a very effective attack on any approaching enemy.

So, somehow there exists here a creature that is able to neutralize another animal’s poisonous defense system, use that animal for its own sustenance, and then make this very effective defense system its own defense system. Now, that is impressive and it is difficult to imagine how evolution would bring something like this about. Imagine how many mutations would need happen to allow for the complex change in body structure required to allow the sea slug to eat the body of the anemone, then transfer the arrows through its own body to the surface, align the anemone’s arrows in the slug’s own tubule system, arrange a firing system, etc. There are simply way too many steps that need be worked out for this to have happened as the NeoDarwinists say it must have happened. This is without doubt an irreducibly complex system.

Keep in mind, that until the system was complete and workable, any step along the way would have been only a detriment to the slug… and, not kept as a product of natural selection. It is so much more likely that this incredible symbiotic relationship was arrange by God. Pepsis Wasps: This is a giant wasp and has a very unusual method of reproduction. It typically lives in the desert and walks along the sand looking for food and shelter. When it comes across a tarantula, instead of turning and running, it is ready to attack. Attack it does. The tarantula is not pleased and bites the wasp and injects its deadly poison. Unfortunately for the spider, the wasp has an antitoxin that totally protects it from being harmed by the toxin.

The battle wages on as the wasp then injects its own venom into the tarantula’s stomach.

The spider doesn’t die from the venom, but it does become paralyzed. The tough little wasp then drags the bigger spider back into a pre-dug hole and places it with its belly facing up. The wasp digs a little hole in the stomach, inserts an egg into it and, a few days later, the pepsis stage of the wasp will devour the stomach as food, then the remainder of the spider as the days pass by.

245

Strangely, the wasp will tend to repeat this ritual each day for a total of twenty days. This symbiotic relationship is one more situation where the idea of evolution does not seem to fit.

Dolphins: Dolphins are beautiful creatures. They are smart and gentle and typically are very friendly. They also are very impressive in what they can do. They are one of a few animals that have a specialized organ in the front of their skull that produces an ultrasonic high-frequency sound. It uses this sounding ability as echo-location sonar and can evaluate its location effectively. This gives them impressive ability for hunting, and navigation in low-lighting situations. It is only since the last half of the 20th century that mankind has been able to somewhat mimic the dolphin’s ability in this area.

The dolphin also is a great and fast swimmer. The U.S. Navy studied the Dolphin to learn better design forms for its ships and submarines. The Navy has used the design knowledge gained from studying the dolphin to build faster and more efficient tankers and military vessels.

The Germans reportedly studied the skin of the dolphin and created a duplication of it (to a degree) that was able to increase the speed of its submarines by a very significant amount. The dolphin’s skin is actually three layers thick with each layer having a particular function. The point is that this mammal has so many natural characteristics that are helpful to mankind that it is surprising. It surely looks like an impressive Designer was behind the creation of this wonderful creature.

Monarch Butterflies: A couple of summers ago, my beautiful first-born granddaughter, Sarah, and I teamed up to raise a family of monarch butterflies. Sarah, is truly an expert on the subject of the animal kingdom and already knew a lot about butterflies – however, we both still learned much more over the course of that summer. My neighbor noticed that she had a significant number of caterpillars living on several milkweed plants in her yard. This was about early-July. She was happy to let us collect the little fellows and transfer them into a butterfly habitat with a mesh cage. Inside this “house” we placed two milkweed potted plants. It turns out that female butterflies and caterpillars only like to dine on milkweed. They are very picky. We were then all set to see what would happen.

It was really impressive just how much each caterpillar (i.e. the larva) ate each day. They grew very big within about 10-14 days. It constantly was eating, pausing only to shed its skin (molt – each one is called an ‘instar’). Although we did not notice each instar, the monarch butterfly has five of them as they eventually grow to almost 2,000 times their original mass.

When our caterpillar friends had grown very large, they left the milkweed plant, one by one, and ran around their habitat like they were in a hurry to get somewhere. However, they soon stopped moving, and latched onto a solid part of the cage, typically up pretty high.

Just before they pupate, monarch larvae spin a silk mat from which they hang upside down by their last pair of prolegs (they have five pairs of prolegs). The prolegs have tiny hooks 246

on them that hold the larva onto the silk mat or a leaf. The silk comes from the spinneret on the bottom of the head. As it sheds its skin for the last time, the caterpillar sticks a “stem” into the silk pad and actually hangs by this stem while the pupa is being formed. This stem extends from its rear end and is called the cremaster. The caterpillar's skin is shed for the last time as it passes from the larval (caterpillar) stage to the pupa stage of metamorphosis. Under the caterpillar's skin this time is a jade green casing which is called a chrysalis. Inside the chrysalis, which is only about an inch long, the caterpillar will miraculously transform into a beautiful butterfly. This whole process, called metamorphosis, is amazing! It consists of four stages – larva (i.e. the caterpillar), pupa (chrysalis), adult butterfly, and egg. Changes actually begin to occur within the larva.

The wings and other adult organs develop from tiny clusters of cells already present in the larva, and by the time the larva pupates, the major changes to the adult form have already begun. During the pupal stage this transformation is completed. Eight to fifteen days after the chrysalis it formed, it will be time for the birth of a new butterfly.

About an hour after emerging from the chrysalis, the new butterfly will fly around and sip nectar from various flowering plants, such as zinnias, as well as re-discovering the milkweed plants where it will soon lay its eggs. It will be ready to mate in about 5-7 days. It will place an egg under a leaf and make it stick on with an adhesive fluid that it supplies. Although the butterfly may deposit 300 plus eggs onto the leaves of the milkweed plants, only about 2% make it to an adult butterfly. Four to six days later, the cycle will begin (i.e. a caterpillar appears) once again. The adult butterfly will live for approximately three weeks.

Inside the chrysalis, the monarch's mouth parts are reconstructed so that the emerging butterfly will have no chewing mouthparts but, instead, a proboscis (a straw-like apparatus which will be used to sip nectar). Never again will it eat solid foods. The somewhat creepy, crawling creature transforms to become a beautiful flying insect. The emerging butterfly will have 3 pair of legs, not eight like it had as a caterpillar. Its eyesight will dramatically improve from what it was when it was a caterpillar, and its eyes will be quite large. Reproductive organs will form (they were absent in the larval stage). And all of this happens in just 10 - 14 days.

Although there is some variability, most monarch butterflies experience four generations each summer. Interestingly, the last generation of adult butterfly will not lay any eggs, but will head south for the winter – all of them around the United States head for the same place. The monarchs that emerge from their pupae from late August through early October have immature reproductive organs and are not capable of reproducing. From December until March, they survive on water alone. The temperature is generally 50 degrees or below in these mountains, so the monarchs are at rest most of the time as it is too cold for them to fly. Their fasting ends in March and they begin to store up on food (energy stored as fat) as they consume a lot of nectar from the many wild flowers on the mountains of central Mexico. On the spring equinox (March 21st) the millions of butterflies take to the skies as they head up north where they will they will give birth to the next generation of butterflies. Finally, that last generation of butterflies dies soon after it gives birth to the next generation… ready for the long summer that follows.

247

I certainly hope that the reader has been suitably impressed with the incredible complexity and detailed nature of the life cycle of the monarch butterfly. Not only is each individual metamorphic cycle impressive, but the fact that these butterflies somehow know to stop attempting to reproduce at summer’s end, and head thousands of miles into the mountains of Mexico (never having been there) where they meet up with their long-lost cousins that are also coming to the same mountain complex from all around America. Now, that is incredible! There really is no way that anyone could outline a believable evolutionary mechanism to accomplish that complex life cycle… it is just too convoluted and much to irreducibly complex along the way. How could the mutation of the genetic information result in the fourth generation of butterflies being able to recognize the need to fly about 3,000 miles south, land in a specific spot in the Mexican mountains (along with millions of its “cousins”), make it through a long, cold winter, and then, and then only, mate to produce the next generation of caterpillar? How in the world do these little creatures know to head toward Mexico on the autumn equinox… then return back north six months later on the spring equinox? This stuff is just too incredible to be pure chance. A person has to be really in a bad way not to admit that this points to Intelligent Design.

Bombardier Beetle: This beetle is an incredible insect that has a system of defense that defies explanation using any sort of evolutionary mechanism. It uses a very complex system involving volatile and explosive chemicals that remain in an inert state until the beetle has need of them. This impressive system is, without doubt, irreducibly complex. Hence, it could not have been produced via an evolutionary change or changes. Note how the system works.

When the beetle needs to neutralize an enemy, it will squirt a scalding hot liquid mixture out of an opening near its rear end which will burn the intruder and chase it away. Prior to ejecting the scalding liquid, secretory lobes within the body of this ½ inch beetle make a mixture of two chemicals – hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone. The mixture is then transferred into a storage chamber that is connected to yet another chamber, which we shall call the “explosion chamber.” Under ordinary conditions, there is a nice sphincter muscle seal between the two chambers. However, when threatened, the beetle will relax that sphincter and at the same time secrete enzymes from ectodermal glands that are attached to the explosion chamber. The hydrogen peroxide plus hydroquinone solution enters into the explosion chamber, mixes with the enzymes (peroxidase) just secreted into that same compartment, resulting in water plus the chemical quinone – which is highly irritating. A great deal of heat is also produced in this exothermic reaction. In fact, the solution boils! Boiling hot vapor with the toxic chemical quinone mixed throughout is released from the beetle’s outlet ducts into the face of the surprised enemy. For anyone that may wonder why the two chemicals did not cause this extreme reaction when they were together in the first chamber, it is because they had not come in contact with the enzyme that was secreted when they were squeezed into the explosion chamber.

In conclusion, the bombardier beetle has a very ingenious defense system. It requires two collection chambers, a sphincter system to keep substances apart until the defensive apparatus is 248

ready to fire, the chemicals hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone, secretory lobes, enzymes to speed up the exothermic reaction between the two main chemicals when they reach the explosion chamber, a collecting vesicle, and an outlet tubular duct to use when squirting the chemical irritant at the enemy. That is quite a complex defensive system… one that a rare mutation every million years or so would likely not produce. If one takes the time to think about this system, it is very difficult to see how it is not an irreducibly complex system. There are at least nine parts to the defense system. If any one of the nine is missing, it would be quite difficult for the remaining eight to mount an effective defense. It is pretty much true that all parts of this system of defense must be in place for it to work. Exceptions are remotely possible, but, once again, it is much more reasonable to believe that this defensive system was created by God. Cuckoo Bird: The cuckoo bird is one of nature’s more intriguing characters. As you will soon learn, they do not make the nicest neighbors in the forest. In fact, they are really quite ignoble, to say the least. For whatever the reasons, mother cuckoo birds have absolutely no desire to do the rewarding, yet often difficult job of rearing their young. So, they have “figured out” how to enlist much more loving and caring mother birds to do this job for them. This takes a significant amount of nefarious activity to accomplish… but, they are up for that task.

Mother cuckoo birds can lay many eggs in any given breeding season. When it senses that the first egg is ready to appear, the cuckoo bird has already scouted out and found a new home for her egg… the home will be another bird’s nest… a nest that is ready to receive its full complement of eggs from that other mother bird. The new nest may be the home t many different types of birds. When the other nest is free of adult birds (the mother, for example, is out gathering up more nesting materials and/or food), the prospective mother cuckoo bird will fly in to that nest, lay her egg, and take off. Typically, just before flying away, she will knock one of the original eggs out of the nest. On a rare occasion, the cuckoo bird will actually lay her egg in that nest while the other mother bird is still in the nest. That can lead to some harsh words… and physical confrontation sometimes. However, fortunately, this scenario is rare. Usually, this exchange is done surreptitiously.

As the days go by, the cuckoo bird repeats this technique for all of her progeny. Sadly, the mother cuckoo bird never returns to see how her baby chicks are doing. By the way, the baby cuckoo chicks tend to be as un-neighborly as their mother. When the cuckoo egg hatches and the little chick begins to grow, it typically wants more of the food for itself. The kindly act of sharing will never be something learned by the cuckoo bird. Instead, as soon as the little one is able, it will begin to push each of the other eggs and/or chicks out of the nest. The goal, not always reached, is to have the nest all to itself… and, therefore, get all of the food being brought in by the mother bird. Of course, the fact that the host bird loses so many of her eggs, and later her chicks, is very sad. Eventually, when the cuckoo bird is big enough, it will fly away, without so much as a thank you. Oh well.

249

Do consider: how does the newborn cuckoo chick learn about giving up her future eggs/chicks when there was never any mother cuckoo bird around to teach it? How could this information be stored and then inherited in DNA? I surely cannot imagine how macroevolution could lead to this obvious inherent ability. Both the adult cuckoo bird and the baby chicks demonstrate successful, albeit mean-spirited, capabilities that allow them to propagate their species. They may be looked upon as lazy, mean jerks by the other birds in the forest, but they probably donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t care.

Honey Bees: The honeybee is an extraordinary insect. There are three types of bees: the Queen (one per colony), drones (male), and female workers. They live in a beautifully constructed and complex honeycomb. They use beeswax that comes from their own body. The honeycomb can house up to 75,000 bees! All around the world, these honeycombs are constructed to the same specifications. Each unit within the comb is hexagonal in shape. It is used because it is the best possible configuration to maximize strength and storage space. It is constructed in such a way to prevent leakage of the honey from the cellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opening. One of the many amazing things about the honeycomb is the unbelievable fact that thousands of different worker bees begin construction of their future home from three different starting points. Even though they begin their construction at markedly different points and heading in virtually opposite directions, they all will meet up together at just the correct point and result in a beautifully constructed home for their queen and the rest of the hive.

Each group of bees have a particular job to do. One group of female worker bees position themselves at the entrance to the nest and fan their wings to ventilate the hive. They also work to control the temperature and humidity within the structure as well. The temperature has to be kept at a very warm 95 degrees in order to keep the honey in good condition. Another group of worker bees protect the hive from intruders. On occasion, these bees have to call for some help if the hive is being attacked by a larger type of creature. It is interesting to note that if the unwanted intruder is neutralized, but too big to remove, it will be embalmed by the worker bees and left for viewing as an art form.

Honey is produced by the mixing of nectar and pollen from flowers with chemicals that the bees secrete from their body. After a bee extracts the nectar and pollen from any given flowering plant, it leaves a drop of fluid scent from itself so that other bees will not waste their time trying to gather nectar and pollen from those particular flowers. Collections take place from flowers up to 0.5 miles from home.

One of the more amazing things about the honeybee is their incredible ability to communicate and tell one another where a particular batch of flowers are located so that more bees can go out and bring back additional nectar and pollen. The honey bee will first walk straight ahead, vigorously shaking its abdomen and producing a buzzing sound with the beat of its wings. Incredibly, the speed and distance of this dance tells the other bees more details about the location of the flowers. Even more amazing, the bee uses the sunâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position in the sky in 250

combination with its body to somehow point out the direction to fly to find the flowers. A figureeight dance pattern is used, with the bee repeating the straight portion of the movement each time it circles to the center again.

Honey bees also use two variations of the “waggle dance” to direct others to food sources closer to home. The “round dance,” a series of narrow circular movements, alerts colony members to the presence of food within 50 meters of the hive. This dance only communicates the direction of the supply, not the distance. The other bees just head out in the proper direction and can easily spot the flowers as they are less than 50 meters away. On the other hand, a “sickle dance,” a crescent-shaped pattern of moves, alerts workers to food supplies within 50-150 meters from the hive. Some studies have demonstrated that the distance the food source is away is communicated by how many times the honeybee shakes its bottom per minute.

There is no doubt that the honeybees use the sun’s position together with their own position to tell other honeycomb members how to get to various flower/food sources. They have an incredible system of communication. The final product, honey, is a wonderful product. It includes fructose, glucose, most of the “B” vitamins, vitamin C, calcium, sulfur phosphate, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium, iron, and potassium. Along with the honey, bee resin and royal jelly are very excellent products that are used all around our world.

Before leaving this discussion of the honeybee, let me mention how a queen bee makes it to that lofty position. All of the female babies are fed pollen and honey and develop into worker bees. The prospective queen, is given only this whitish stuff called royal jelly. This bee does not get any of the honey or pollen. It used to be thought that the royal jelly was the specific reason that this bee became a queen. Now it is known that it is the withholding of the honey and pollen from the queen early in its development is what leads to it becoming a queen. Interesting.

I suggest that the entire life of a honeybee, including their home, their reproduction system, their home building, food collection techniques, and more, all identify markedly more with a likely Intelligent Designer than as a product of evolution. Just think about it.

Venus Flytrap: Not only do many animals show amazing abilities that defy an evolutionary explanation, but so do many plants. One, for example, is the carnivorous Venus Flytrap. It is only one of six hundred different species of carnivorous plants. They apparently need to eat meat as a back-up if their normal diet from the soil becomes inadequate. The Venus Flytrap’s colorful flowers attract their prey. Once the insect lands on the plant, hair cells send an electric charge to a hinge-like area on the plant which causes it to clamp shut instantaneously. That traps the insect where it eventually dies, decays, and is consumed. It is “smart” enough to know when to use its trapping mechanism and when not to respond – for example, if a small pebble gets lodged within the flytrap instead of an insect. It surely makes no sense that an evolutionary process would even create a mechanism like this. In any case, it is surely interesting.

251

RedBack Spider: This spider has an absurd mating ritual. When the sexual act has been completed, the male performs a tumbleset that results in his belly being placed right over the open mouth of his mate. His female partner then decides to eat the male! Amazingly enough, the female typically is already in the process of eating her “husband” while the sexual act is still going on. My, oh my. I cannot think of a good reason why evolution would lead to this situation either.

Migration: So many birds and land animals have a very interesting trait that is virtually impossible to attribute to an evolutionary mechanism. That is their capability to migrate at certain times of the year. I think that most people think of birds when the topic of migration is broached. However, there are many land animals that migrate as well. For example: caribou, eels, lobsters, butterflies, turtles, zebras, bats, and whales… just to name a few. Let me briefly describe some of the more interesting and impressive migratory patterns below: • Loggerhead Turtles – these creatures migrate 8,000 miles all the way across the Atlantic Ocean.

• Eurasian Crane – 2,500-mile migration • Snow Goose – 2,500 miles • Female Olive Ridley turtles – 200,000 of them migrate from North and South America to a shoreline in Costa Rica in December when there is a ¾ moon. Now, that is a long hike!

• The spiny lobster larva (small at 0.06 inches) hitches a ride on a jellyfish. The jellyfish will travel thousands of miles from its starting point. It can molt up to eleven times during this migration.

• North American and European eels that hatch in the Sargasso Sea near the West Indies travel across the Atlantic Ocean or up the coast of the United States. Seven to ten years later, as adult silver eels, they find their way back to their birth place in order to begin the next cycle of their lives.

• Ladybugs fatten up on Aphids in the hot deserts of Arizona. Then, they migrate to the cooler Santa Clara mountains in California.

The reason for adding “migration” to this topic is because this capability seems to defy an evolutionary mechanism to account for it. How in the world do mutations in DNA, for example, enable a bird or land animal to inherently know that its birthplace is at a specific place on earth thousands of miles from wherever they may be at the time? By what evolutionary mechanism are they able to navigate thousands of miles to a place that they have never seen before? How does evolution use magnetism to help many migratory creatures in their journey? There are other similar questions that would really make me wonder… if I did not already know that evolution actually was not involved in the migrations of these birds and land animals.

252

Chapter 22:

Human Eye:

As an ophthalmologist, this particular chapter holds a special interest to me. Everyone from the Darwin to the modern-day evolutionist and to those scientists who recognize the obvious need to reference an Intelligent Designer for the Universe and all life, they all recognize that the human eye and all of the many components of the entire visual system are a particularly amazing combination of structures and systems. The list of the more than two dozen parts to this visual system follows: remember that IC = Irreducibly Complex 1. The cornea – this is the circular, clear “window” into the eye that it located right in front.

Without this clear structure, no image could pass through to the back of the eye; therefore, no vision would be possible. It begins the focusing of the optical image coming into the eye. Of course, this clear structure would be completely without merit without all the retina, optic nerve and most of the other components of the visual system to be mentioned below. Hence, this is one of the many parts to this IC visual system.

2. The iris – this structure functions as a fancy curtain that will dilate or constrict to control the amount of light getting through to the retina. It has a very impressive structure that allows for a circular opening in its middle section. Its importance can be appreciated when a person has to deal with the photosensitivity after they have had their eyes dilated to undergo a retinal exam. Also, there are some that require a medicine that will constrict their pupils and they often complain of poor vision in low lighting situations. However, even this impressively designed structure would be less than irrelevant if there was not a clear cornea in front of it and a functioning retina behind. It too is part of this IC system.

3. The lens – the lens is located just behind the iris. It is clear like the cornea. Like the cornea, it focuses the light rays that come into the eye. By an involuntary act, the degree of focusing of the lens can be controlled by a circular muscle (ciliary body). That is why, under normal circumstances, a young person can focus totally clearly at distance and then virtually immediately, focus clearly to read up very close to the eyes. This capability requires the lens to change its focal length in the “blink of an eye.” Again I say, this entire structure of the lens would be worthless without the rest of the visual system being intact – it is one more part of this IC system.

4. The pupil – Mentioned already above, the circular pupil is a critically important structure in the eye to allow for the image to pass through to the retina. It too is in the IC system.

5. Ciliary body – the impressive circular muscle that goes around the edge of the lens and controls by its contraction and relaxation the amount of focusing the lens will do. It also controls the size of the pupil.

6. Zonules – these fibers connect the outside edge of the lens to the ciliary body. They keep the lens in its proper position and they change the focusing power of the lens via the tension they put on it. There would be absolutely no reason for zonules without a lens and ciliary body. However, they must be in existence when the lens and ciliary body are in place.

253

7. Retina – this is a very complex structure of ten layers that is the portion of the eye that receives the light input and then sends an appropriate electrical signal out to the optic nerve, out of the back of the eye and on its way to the occipital cortex. This structure requires a mechanism for light to get to it… hence, it requires that the lens, cornea, and vitreous be in place or else it would be useless. It also needs a mechanism to allow for the light stimulated retinal fibers to come together and exit the eye through a hole in the back of the eye… this would be the optic nerve.

8. Optic Nerve – the structure that collects the retinal fibers into a neat bundle and brings these visual fibers back toward the optic chiasm. It has approximately 1.2 million fibers in it. This is worthless without a functioning eye… but, absolutely necessary when there is a working eye/retina.

9. Macula – This very important structure is in the center of the retina and allows for the best/acute vision as well as the color vision of the eye. It is composed of a special type of cell called a cone.

10. Rods – located in the periphery and equatorial area of the retina… giving the person peripheral vision and its best night vision.

11. Cones – located in the macula and is good for color vision and acute vision. Not any good for night vision.

12. Pigment Epithelial Cells – an important part of the retinal area immediately behind the ten-layer sensory retina. It serves to help maintain and protect the sensory retina in a variety of ways.

13. Eyelids – very important to protect the eye in the day and while asleep. Of course, they need to be innervated by the 3rd nerve so that they can open and close. Without the 3rd nerve and without a functioning eye, the eyelids are worthless.

14. Eyelashes – these are important to help protect the eyeball from small debris. Of course, they are of no need at all unless there exists eyelids and an eyeball.

15. Orbit – this is the impressive bony structure that contains the eye and protects it from harm. Although, many people will get a black eye at some point in their life, the orbit keeps the eye from becoming crushed and the person losing their vision. Of course, the orbit is worthless without an eye and it needs many other things within it to allow it to function properly – such as retro-orbital fat to serve as a cushion and all the blood vessels to service the eye and its muscles 16. Eye Muscles – all six of them in each eye – I have placed these together to discuss as they all basically do the same thing… they each move the eye that they are attached to in a particular direction. It is interesting to realize that when the right eye needs to send a message to its lateral rectus muscle to contract so that the right eye will look to the right, the left eye has to have a nerve impulse sent to its medial muscle to constrict as well. The muscles on the left side of each eye need to get nerve impulses to relax. What an IC system that is! It would be ridiculous for a human to suddenly have a series of mutations to develop a lateral rectus muscle… unless at least another batch of mutations caused the 254

sudden development of the medial rectus muscle and, hopefully the same two muscles on the other eye plus the needed 6th and 3rd nerve innervation of the muscles. In other words, this situation will not happen secondary to evolution.

17. Cranial Nerve II – this is the optic nerve (1.2 million nerve fibers). It collects all of the retinal nerve tissue that is required to send visual messages to the brain. It then extends from the back of the eyeball toward the optic chiasm where it meets up with its opposite optic nerve. There, the fibers from the right optic nerve divide in half in order to send the fibers that will send the visual message from the right side of the retina to the right optic tract and the left sided visual fibers will cross over in the optic chiasm to take their visual message to the left optic tract. The opposite is true for the left eye. This is a complicated process… the cross-over aspect in the chiasm would not occur via evolution… no way.

18. Cranial Nerve III – This nucleus has several important jobs to do: i.e. innervate the medial, superior, and inferior rectus muscles of the eye; provide innervation of the pupil via the Edinger Westphal nucleus (it constricts the pupil when needed and it also provides for focusing of the lens), it innervates the upper lid to allow one to raise it when needed. this is a very important nerve. It supplies four eye muscles and, of course allows their muscles to function properly. It also brings in nerve fibers that control the contraction of the pupil (i.e. the pupil size) and contributes to the ability to focus on objects. Lastly, it controls the movement of the upper lid. Imagine the number of mutations that would be required to build this structure given all of the things it is required to do for the eye. In order to do its job, it requires an upper lid, four different eye muscles, an iris (that leads to a pupil). Now that is really an IC system.

19. Cranial Nerve IV and VI – these two nerves supply two specific eye muscles. The IV Cranial Nerve allows for movement of the superior oblique muscle that gives the eye some important diagonal movement; the VI Cranial Nerve plugs into the lateral muscle allowing the eye to look laterally. Of course, neither of these nerves need exist unless there also was an eye and eye muscles. The need for their existence is irreducibly complex.

20. Cranial Nerve V – supplies sensation to the cornea. Without this nerve, the cornea decompensates over time. This nerve also supplies sensation to the skin around the eye.

21. Cranial Nerve VII – this nerve is needed for the proper blink reflex and to properly close the eye. Without this nerve, the eye will not close properly when the person tries to sleep. Exposure problems to the clear cornea can be serious.

22. Retro-orbital adipose tissue – this fatty tissue is an important contributor to the health of the eyeball. It will help absorb the force of any oncoming blow to the eye and also helps smooth the movement of the eye.

23. Tears - a critically important constituent of the visual system. They keep the cornea moist and comfortable. Without tears, the cornea would decompensate in a very short time resulting in blindness. Of course, without a functioning eye, they are excess baggage.

255

24. Blinking capability – also, very important in order to make sure that the tears coat the cornea continuously and completely. People typically blink about seven times per minute.

This capability is also not needed unless so many of the other visual components are in place such as the lids, the entire eyeball, the optic nerve, etc.

25. Occipital Lobe of brain – the back portion of a human’s brain is called the occipital lobe. This is the final destination of the visual fiber input and the beginning portion of the output after this lobe “interprets” what the eyes have seen. Then, it will send the needed messages to other portions of the brain so that the person can act upon what he/she has just seen. Pretty amazing… and incredibly IC. 26. Optic Chiasm – the cross-over portion in the middle of the skull/brain that allows visual information from each eye go to the appropriate side of the occipital lobe.

27. Optic Tract – this portion of the visual system takes the electrical information from the optic chiasm and takes it toward occipital lobe. The visual fibers go to the lateral geniculate bodies located on each side of the brain. The fibers then continue on posteriorly. Obviously, this is an incredibly IC system. It is critically needed for proper visual function but totally unnecessary without any eye.

28. Optic Radiations – this is the final portion of the tract taken by the visual fibers from the eye to the occipital lobe. These fibers go from the lateral geniculate body to the occipital lobe.

29. Edinger Westphal Nucleus + third nerve nucleus– This is the name given to the parasympathetic component of the oculomotor (3rd nerve) nucleus. It constricts the pupil when needed), it also provides for focusing of the lens, •

All of these components of the visual system are, at least, to some degree, irreducibly complex. Many of them require a series of many other components to be of any value to the person. In any case, anyone can see just how incredibly complex this entire system is and that there is no way that it could be constructed one item at a time as required by Neo-Darwinism. God created our visual system.

R.L. Wysong calculated that for the eyeball alone to be created by evolution, it would have only one chance in 10266. Another big problem is that it supposedly has been created via the so-called parallel evolution in the human, the squid, the vertebrates and the arthropods. Hence, supposedly a major series of favorable mutations has led to an eyeball in several different animal species.

I am totally convinced that the visual system I just briefly described has zero chance of being put together through an evolutionary process… ZERO. Charles Darwin – “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”171 256

Footnotes: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47. Huse, Scott, The Collapse of Evolution,1986. p.18 48. ibid, p.18 49. Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. P.209 50. Lennox, John, God’s Undertaker, 2009. P.112 51. Dembski, William, Uncommon Dissent, 2004. p.

87 52. Dembski, et. al., Signs of Intelligence, 2001. p.45 53. ibid, p.44 54. ibid, p.92 55. Moreland, J.P., Ed., Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p. 292-293 56. Meyer, Stephen, Darwin’s Doubt, 2013. p.3 57. Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution, 2002. p.34 58. Dembski, et. al., Signs of Intelligence, 2001. p.138 59. ibid, p.138 60. Dembski, William, Uncommon Dissent, 2004. p.

27 61. Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. P.211-212 62. ibid, p.211 63. ibid, p.212 64. ibid, p.213 65. ibid, p.214 66. ibid, p.215 67. Ibid, p.216 68. Moreland, J.P., Ed., Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p. 279 69. Meyer, Stephen, Darwin’s Doubt, 2013. p.69 70. ibid, p.70 71. ibid, p.71 72. ibid, p.72 73. Meyer, Stephen, Darwin’s Doubt, 2013. p.7 74. ibid, p.11 75. ibid, p.12 76. ibid, p.15-16 77. Dembski, et. al., Uncommon Dissent, 2004.

P.265 78. Meyer, Stephen, Darwin’s Doubt, 2013. p.17 79. ibid, p.17 80. Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution, 2002. p.44 81. ibid, p.81 82. Meyer, Stephen, Darwin’s Doubt, 2013. p.52 83. ibid, p.71 84. ibid, p.96 85. Moreland, J.P., Ed., Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p.277 86. ibid, p.279 87. Meyer, Stephen, Darwin’s Doubt, 2013. p.109 88. ibid, p.106 89. Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 1993. p. 94 90. Bird, Origin of Species, Revisited, p.96 91. Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 1993. p. 96 92. ibid, p.96 93. Moreland, J.P., Ed., Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p.280

Moreland, J.P., The Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p.174 Thaxton, et.al., Mystery of Life’s Origin,2019. p.400 ibid, p.400 ibid, p.402 Ross, Hugh, The Creator and the Cosmos, 2001. p.32 Thaxton, et. al., Mystery of Life’s Origin, 2019. p.240 Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. P.188 ibid, p.222-223 Moreland, J.P., The Creation Hypothesis,1994.

P.191 Ankerberg, John, Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998.

P.175 ibid, p.182 Lennox, John, God’s Undertaker, 2009. p. 78 ibid, p.178 Ankerberg, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. p.148 Lennox, John, (God’s Undertaker, 2009. p.100 ibid, p.100 Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. P.149 Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. P.171 Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. p.149 ibid, p.148 ibid, p.150 ibid, p.150 ibid, p.150 ibid, p. 149 ibid, p. 149 ibid, p. 149 ibid, p. 148 ibid, p. 149 Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. P.218 ibid, p.225 ibid, p.221 ibid, p.222 ibid, p.172 Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. p.315 Lennox, John, (God’s Undertaker, 2009. p.114 Ibid, p.113 Ibid, p.113-114 Huse, Scott, Collapse of Evolution, 1986. p.58 ibid, p.57-58 ibid, p.58 Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 1993. p. 96 ibid, p.96 Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. p.98 ibid, p.99 ibid, p.109 ibid, p. 109-110

257

109. Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. P.204 (Raup and Stanley, Principles of Paleontology) 110. ibid, p.204 (Woodruff, Evolution: Paleontologist View) 111. ibid, p.204 (Earl Core – General Biology) 112. Ibid, p.204 113. Behe, Michael, Edge of Evolution, 2007. p.61 114. ibid, p.72,83 115. ibid, p.101 116. ibid, p.124-125 117. ibid, p.117 118. Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. P.204 119. Behe, Michael, Edge of Evolution, 2007. p.186 120. ibid, p.193-194 121. Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. P.206 122. ibid, p.206 123. ibid, p.206 151. ibid, p.82 152. ibid, p.91 153. ibid, p.93,94 154. ibid, p.97 155. ibid p.103 156. ibid, p.111 157. ibid, p.116 158. ibid, p.122 159. ibid, p.124 160. Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. p.221 161. ibid, p.221 162. Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution, 2002. P.152 163. Ibid, p.152 164. Ibid, p.161 165. Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. p.208 166. Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. p.243 167. Ibid, p.246 168. Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 1993. p.107 169. Pun, Pattle P.T. Evolution, 1982. P86-87 170. Ankerberg, John, et. al., Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. p.234 171. Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. P.41

94. ibid, p.280 95. ibid, p.281 96. Jeffrey, Grant, The Handwriting of God, 1997. p.

248 97. Moreland, J.P., Ed., Creation Hypothesis, 1994. p.280 98. ibid, p.288 99. ibid, p.292 100. Denton, Michael, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p.101 101. ibid, p.101-102 102. ibid, p.104 103. ibid, p.143 104. ibid, p.147&151 105. ibid, 151 106. ibid, p.306 107. Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box, 1994. p.39 108. ibid, p.39

124. Jeffrey, Grant, Creation, 2003. p.172 125. ibid, p.180 126. ibid, p.159 127. Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box, 1994. p.27 128. ibid, p.28 129. ibid, p.26 130. Meyer, Stephen, Darwin’s Doubt, 2013. p.171 131. ibid, p.177 132. ibid, p.183 133. ibid, p.110 134. ibid, p.116 135. ibid, p.119 136. ibid, p.120-121 137. ibid, p.125 138. ibid, p.132 139. ibid, p.132 140. ibid, p.125 141. ibid, p.220 142. ibid, p.232 143. ibid, p.233 144. ibid, p.241 145. ibid, p.264 146. ibid, p.273 147. ibid, p.356 148. ibid, p.359 149. Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution, 2002. p.81 150. ibid, p.82

258

Section 4 - Historical Evidence for God… In the previous three sections, I believe that I have presented a great deal of evidence to convince the vast majority of open-minded people that God exists. Indeed, simple logic tells us that there must be an uncaused cause to create our Universe… that cause is typically referred to as God. Not only that, but discoveries over the last one hundred years have revealed scientific evidence that our Universe did not always exist… it was created very, very suddenly approximately 13.8 billion years ago. I have shown in a fair amount of detail, this sudden explosion onto the scene of our Universe was associated with an amazing number of “coincidental” features of the laws of nature, our solar system, and the earth itself, that God used to create the necessary circumstances for life to flourish on the planet Earth. And last, but not least, the information presented in Section 3 revealed that God had to be intimately involved in the origin of life and all aspects of its development. Please understand that I added so many quotes from famous cosmologists and biochemists to show that they also recognize that there must be a God to account for all of these incredible findings.

This final section is extremely important because in it I will give a variety of reasons and evidence to show that this God of creation is the God of the Holy Bible. I will also present to the reader just what God would have us do once we recognize Him for who He is. God loves His creation, in particular mankind, and wants to have a loving relationship with each and every individual. Now, let us take a look at what the Bible has to say to us.

259

Chapter 23

The Unique Christian God

Many years ago, I wrote a book entitled The Uniqueness of Christianity. In this book, I compared and contrasted ten popular religions. Recognize that each one of these religions have unique enough doctrines that no more than one of the ten could be a true religion… i.e. the religion that has a proper conception of God, heaven, eternity, etc. It is true that all ten of these religions could be false… however, it is possible that one of the ten is the true religion… the religion with the proper concept of God. It was my contention that there was indeed one true religion… Christianity. I also evaluated each one of the ten with respect to the following topics: • •

• •

How each one of these religions was founded… including biographical information on the individual or individuals who founded each religion Any positive or negative information that would suggest whether that religion could be true. For instance, if a particular religion prophesied that something would happen in the future… and it did not, that would be a serious strike against it. If its prophecies consistently were correct, that would be a significant plus toward its evaluation as being the one true religion.

Each religion’s concept of eternity, salvation, heaven, and hell.

I recommend my book, The Uniqueness of Christianity for those of you who want to see why it is that so many of the world’s popular religions believe in doctrines that are so obviously incorrect. I explain the fallacies in religions such as the Mormon religion, Jehovah Witness, Scientology, Christian Science, Buddhism, Hinduism, New Age, and Islam. It really does surprise me that so many obviously intelligent people put their faith in religions that, on just a reasonable level of inspection, are false. Of course, it is certainly true that it might be an extremely difficult thing to change from one religion to another when one’s entire family is adamant concerning a particular religion. On the other hand, there really is no more important decision in life than deciding upon who the one true God is… and then following that God in faith.

I used portions of that book while writing this Section 4. Of course, I also added several things as well. So, in the following chapters of this book, I will go into a fair amount of detail to show why it is that I am convinced that the God of the Holy Bible, the Christian God, is the one true God. Interestingly, this God is a triune God. That is a God of one perfect essence, but manifesting in three persons, God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. My prayer and hope for the reader is that by the conclusion of this book, you will be convinced that this Christian God is your God and will turn to Him in faith. More on that topic later.

The Christian religion, of course, is centered around Jesus Christ. Christians are “followers of Christ”. The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms how to become a Christian. C. S. 260

Lewis, arguably the most important theologian/philosopher of the 20th century, notes what a Christian is in his classic book, Mere Christianity. He chose this title for a reason. There are so many Christian denominations these days… unfortunately, this situation causes some folks in one denomination to believe that they are, so to speak, ‘special’ when compared to another denomination. Somehow, they feel that they have totally figured out what the Bible states in every instance (and, in some cases, they may even suggest that the Bible really did not mean something that it did actually say, oddly enough)! But Lewis was only concerned with the “bottom line” – what does it really mean to be a Christian… hence, the title, Mere Christianity.

So, what does the Bible tell us a Christian is?

•

• • •

•

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3: 16-18 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

1 Timothy 2:5 “Jesus said unto them, I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” John 14:6 “For Christ sent me… to preach the Gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 1: 17-18 “For by Grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not of works lest any man should boast.” Eph 2: 8-9

Just what does it mean to believe on Jesus? The following is one way of explaining the gospel message… telling people the good news of following Jesus: People become Christians when they recognize that they, as individuals, are sinners and are unable to save themselves no matter how hard they try. God is perfect and heaven is a place of perfection. No sin, and no sinner, is allowed into heaven, at least without the penalty for the sins of that sinner being paid. In the Old Testament, God laid down many laws that people were supposed to follow, without exception. No one has ever been able to follow these laws perfectly except for Jesus Christ. God also provided for a sacrificial system to allow people to get temporary forgiveness of their sins via the sacrifice of animals such as lambs… these animals were supposed to be “perfect”… that is, without blemish. The point of this Old Testament system was, in fact, to point all people toward the ultimate Sacrificial Lamb, Jesus Christ. He was to come on the scene many years later.

There were many reasons for the Old Testament system. For one thing, God wanted to demonstrate just how fruitless it was for people to ever think that they could actually live a 261

perfect life. It certainly is appropriate to try to be a person of high integrity, sinless as possible, humble, and as much like Jesus as one can be, but no one will ever be able to live a perfect life.

Unfortunately, no one can enter heaven unless they are sinless or they have paid the penalty for their sins. This certainly presents a serious problem. No one is able to lead a sinless life, and the penalty for sin is death!

Therefore, God needed to provide another mechanism for us to get to heaven. Jesus. The “perfect, without blemish lambs” of the Old Testament were pointing towards the actual Perfect Lamb to come… Jesus. Only Jesus would, in fact, be capable of sacrificing Himself and thereby paying the penalty for sinful man… as God required a PERFECT sacrifice … His Only Son. So the gospel, or ‘good news’, is that Jesus is God (one part of the Holy Trinity – i.e. God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit). Jesus came to earth born of a virgin, led a sinless life, was crucified on a cross to pay the penalty for mankind’s sins, then was buried, only to rise again on the third day. Jesus later ascended into heaven as the first fruits of our salvation. Those who recognize that they are sinners in need of a Savior, and turn in faith to Jesus, are indeed Christians and will one day also enter into heaven and into eternal life with Jesus, their Savior.

As one can see, the entire Christian religion rests on one individual, the God-Man Jesus Christ. If Christ were a liar or a lunatic, the entire Christian religion fails horribly and millions of people over two thousand years have been hoodwinked into believing a useless lie. If Jesus is who He says He is, then the world has the solution for all of its problems. Hopefully, the evidence will demonstrate that Jesus is indeed God, Himself! This evidence will be discussed at length at a later point in this treatise.

Now, let’s take a look at the Christian Bible. Importantly, the early books of the Bible were written by Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy) nearly 1500 years before the last book was written by John (The Revelation was written in approximately A.D. 95). It is not known exactly how many authors contributed to the Bible. However, as already mentioned, there were approximately thirty Old Testament writers. The Christian Bible adds a New Testament with its approximately eleven authors. As we will see in our studies to come, all 66 of these books have a common thread running through them – from the earliest chapters of Genesis all the way through the last chapter written by John (The Revelation). Let me mention just a few of these common themes throughout the Bible: • Jesus the Messiah is referenced throughout the Old and New Testament • the absolute critical need for faith • the need for a sacrificial lamb to shed its (or His) blood for our sins • the need for our total dependence upon God for all of our needs • the fact that when we get out of the will of God, bad things will happen to us as individuals and as a nation • staying in the will of God is always proper and will eventually result in good • eventually, all those trusting in Jesus will live for eternity in heaven

262

These are just a few of the common themes that course through the Bible – there are many more that demonstrate this uniformity and consistency of message that suggest strongly that there was actually only one true writer of the Bible, the Holy Spirit. God led each man to write down those words that He wanted all of mankind to read and to learn about Him… including His plans for us.

The New Testament concerns itself with presenting Jesus to the world. As everyone knows, it starts with a little baby being born in Bethlehem which was prophesized in Old Testament times. The four gospels then present the life and teachings of this God-Man Jesus.

He tells everyone that He is God, and that everyone should trust in Him and follow Him forevermore. In fact, Jesus states that He is “the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6) Of course, this is quite the statement! In the last section of this treatise, I will present much of the evidence that is in support of this bold claim.

Jesus appointed twelve apostles to accompany Him and learn from Him throughout His short three to four-year ministry. Upon His horrific death up on the cross, his followers were shocked and confused. They were truly puzzled as to what had just happened. Although He had warned them that He would have to die for all mankind, they never really thought the whole idea through to its logical conclusion. Was this all that would be? This was their Messiah after all!

Why hadn’t He brought in His kingdom at that time? The days went by as they mourned. Day one. Day two. Day three arrived… but, then Jesus did arise from the dead! This incredible event changed history and the world! Due to this wonderful show of power over death, the apostles experienced a markedly changed attitude concerning Jesus and their own lives. When the Holy Spirit came upon them just seven weeks later, they were given the power to change the world for Christ… and they went out into the world and preached the gospel to all people… in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to a large portion of the civilized world of that time. They did change the world. Many of these apostles also wrote concerning Jesus, His life, death and resurrection. Hundreds witnessed His resurrected body. Tens of thousands turned to follow Jesus in that first century. Christianity was born. This New Testament was written within approximately a 45-year period (approx. 47-95 A.D.) by some of these apostles. All who wrote the New Testament were either eye witnesses of Jesus and His resurrection or were intimately involved with those who had seen the risen Jesus.

Over the course of the next few hundred years, the New Testament Church (that is, the Christian Church) grew to be the largest Church in the world. This was done despite great opposition for centuries from the Roman Empire. Tens of thousands of people were willing to die martyr’s deaths for their faith in Jesus Christ… and they did indeed give their lives for Christ.

Apparently, the evidence that Jesus was who He claimed to be (i.e. the resurrected Lord and Savior for all those who believe and accept Him into their hearts) was so great, that it was worth giving their earthly lives… even via the painful death of a martyr. This is a powerful statement, considering the massive numbers of those who were martyred. Certainly, the truthfulness of the Christian message is worth considering.

263

Christianity: The God of the Jews in the Torah is the same God that Christians worship with one very important caveat. Christians believe that the Jews did not actually understand the true nature of the God of Abraham. It is the Christian belief that God is a triune God - the Father (that portion of the Trinity that the Jews recognize), the Son, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. This fact was a “mystery” revealed approximately 2,000 years ago with the birth of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

That is, God is one God with three manifestations, the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost. This is known as the Trinity. One should look at this concept by simply recognizing that the essence of this triune God is the same although He is manifest in three different persons. No person can totally understand the concept of the Trinity.

The fact is that the Christian conception of God as an all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent Creative force that has existed since eternity past, and the Creator of our Universe, is perfectly consistent with modern day science and philosophy.

In fact, Jesus was the Messiah that was predicted in the Jewish (and Christian) scriptures – the Old Testament also known as the Jewish Torah and writings of the Prophets. Jesus is wholly God and wholly human – another “mystery”, yet fact. God as Jesus came to earth to reveal Himself to mankind and to give us a perfect example of how to live our lives. The ultimate reason for Jesus’ incarnation was to provide the only necessary and sufficient sacrifice for mankind’s salvation – His own tortuous death on the cross. This was followed by His resurrection and later ascension into heaven!

The attributes of God include His personal nature, His omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. God has existed from eternity past and will exist forever. He exists outside of creation and is the Creator of all things. He is also a God of love. In fact, God is Love.

The following is a very brief description of the Christian conception of heaven, salvation, and eternity: Heaven: A wonderful, beautiful actual place somewhere; its location is not given. It may even involve other dimensions since we know that there are many more than the four dimensions we can experience at this time. God, his angels and all Christians will live there through eternity – Christians will also spend time in places such as the New Earth as well.

Salvation: Christians are saved by the Grace of God, not by any works. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:8-10) Anyone who trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation will be saved. This faith is evidenced by their recognition that they are sinners and not able to save themselves. They must believe in faith: Jesus is God incarnate, He gave His life and shed His blood on the cross to pay the penalty for mankind’s sins, and that He rose again and now sits at the right hand of God in heaven. God gives salvation to anyone who accepts this free gift… but, one must believe the gospel and accept the gift in order 264

to possess it. Those people who reject the gift of Jesus will spend eternity separated from God in a place called hell.

Eternity: The Christian view parallels that of the Orthodox Jew as far as creation is concerned.

The future, however, is different as follows: after Jesus (who is fully God) returns to earth at the Battle of Armageddon, He will easily defeat Satan and his evil forces. The saved in heaven (i.e. the Christians) will come with him from heaven at that time. For one thousand years, Jesus will rule and reign with help from his ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ (Christian saints – i.e. saved people).

After this millennium, God will banish Satan and his demons to eternal damnation. God will reform the heavens and Earth into a New Heaven and New Earth where all the angels, Christians and the Holy Trinity (God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit) will live in perfect peace, joy and harmony forevermore!

Judaism: Given the fact that the Christian Bible includes the Jewish scriptures and so much of Christianity is entwined with Israel and the Jews, I believe that it is imperative that I review the basics of Judaism. The orthodox Jews (the most zealous adherents to their scriptures of the Jewish sects) believe in a monotheistic God. Their God certainly is consistent with current scientific and philosophical understanding of our Universe. That is, God exists outside this Universe, he has power over this Universe (in fact, He is the Creative force behind it). God did not have a cause Himself… He has always existed. All of these beliefs are perfectly consistent with those of science today. By the way, even if they were not, it would not necessarily make these beliefs untrue. Please always keep in mind how often mankind’s scientific beliefs have changed over the centuries. On the other hand, it is somewhat more difficult for any religious system to hold tenants that go against the principles of human logic. In the case of the Jews beliefs concerning God, they all line up nicely scientifically and logically.

Amazing unity of the Jewish scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament): One very important aspect of the Old Testament relates to its authors. A completely unique situation exists when we look at how these thirty-nine books came into existence as compared to all other religious writings (excluding Christianity). Most other “Holy Books” are written by one man or woman. That should make it easy to be consistent with the message.

Even given this, there tended to be many contradictions and historical errors in all of the religions whose scriptures were written by one individual (Islam, Scientology, Jehovah Witnesses, the Mormons, Christian Science). For example, when we look at the Muslim religion, Muhammad is solely responsible for their scriptures. Joseph Smith wrote the holy books of the Mormon religion (not including the Bible) – if he was wrong, the religion is false.

On one man, that religion rests. The same could be said for Christian Science, Scientology, Buddhism, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The New Age movement is a very nebulous movement with no purported divinely inspired scriptures.

265

On the other end of the spectrum is the ancient religion of Hinduism. The Hindu religion has a massive amount of scriptures written by many people over the millennia since approximately 1500 B.C. Even in Buddhism, after Buddha’s death, a vast quantity of new scripture material has been written. Much of this material is different than the earlier writings of Buddhism. Consistency is missing. The same is definitely true with respect to the Hindu scriptures. That brings us to the Jewish Holy Book… the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings – the Old Testament. Most of it was written in Hebrew. A small amount was written in Aramaic.

Job was probably the oldest book written. This may have been written as far back as 2100 B.C. The Torah, written by Moses, was written around 1400 B.C. The last book, Malachi, was completed in 432 B.C. Approximately thirty people wrote these books over approximately 1000 years or longer.

These writers differed in station markedly… some were kings, others were priests, still others were farmers, scribes, soldiers, etc. Yet, the story line was remarkably consistent. The story reads like a beautifully edited history of mankind. There is a cohesive theme that runs through each chapter. The theme is of a loving God who tells his beloved creation how they must live to achieve everything He has in mind for them. He shows them how to do this, gives them perfect guidelines to follow. As they follow these instructions, everything goes beautifully. Yet, they always eventually turn away from Him and His instructions. This always eventually results in painful loss. When they ask for forgiveness, it is granted. When they need another chance, they are given one. The method for forgiveness of their sins is given… the turning away from their sins, asking for forgiveness and the blood sacrifice of a “perfect lamb”. This theme runs through the entire Old Testament… even though it was written by thirty different people over a thousand years or longer. This is truly remarkable. In addition, there is always the message that someday a Messiah will come to rescue His chosen people (the Jews) from their oppression and rule benevolently over the entire world – where everything will be perfect as it was in the beginning of the world… the beginning of Genesis. In the meantime, the message runs throughout the Old Testament that this same God will eventually turn His back on His people because they will continue to reject His Law and reject God Himself. Eventually, the Assyrians conquer the northern ten tribes of Israel; the Babylonians capture the southern two tribes. Although some of the Jews do return to Jerusalem, most of the people in the twelve Jewish tribes were dispersed throughout the world as the Jewish Scriptures came to a close.

The fact that these scriptures were written over such a long period of time and by so many different authors is certainly unique when compared to other religions (although the Christian religion shares this trait with the Jewish religion). Incredibly, as one reads and studies from Genesis to Malachi, there is a beautiful continuous thread running throughout from one book to the next. There are no contradictions. There are the same important themes that run throughout the entire text. As will be shown later, there are many evidences of a Divine force behind these thirty-nine different books that show the obvious reason for their continuity and truthfulness – they were God “breathed”. It is highly unlikely that this would have happened without the direction of God Himself.

266

Christian Apologetics – Evidence of Biblical Veracity: It will be important to spend at least some time demonstrating the incredible accuracy of biblical prophecy. Of course, since the Bible is ultimately written through the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, perfection is exactly what one would expect and require. However, it is still worth pointing out several of the many impressive examples of this predictive accuracy that have already come true.

Not only is the Bible demonstrably true when one analyzes its prophetic passages, but there are several other reasons that an objective person should conclude that Christianity is the one true religion. Let us review some of the arguments people have used through the centuries to prove the veracity of the Holy Bible.

Actually, there are many different methods used to show that the Bible is the actual Word of God and that Jesus is God incarnate. Let me list the following six: • Hundreds of God’s prophecies can be shown to have come true exactly as predicted in the Bible (in the Old and New Testaments). None have proven false! This is obviously evidence for the Bible being the Word of God. Who else but God can accurately foretell the future with 100% accuracy? The vast majority of other religions do not engage in prophetic messages as they know they will not come true – unless, of course, if they make them very vague. In the occasional religion that ventures into making a prophetic statement or two (such as the Mormons and Jehovah Witness and even Islam), these prophecies fail to come true; hence showing that religion to be false.

• There are dozens of intriguing types in the Old Testament that found their actualization in the life of Jesus (the concept of types will be defined in a later paragraph). These interesting Old Testament examples are another mechanism that God uses to show that His word in true.

• There are certain changes that take place in the lives of the apostles that give excellent evidence for the divine nature of Jesus Christ as well as His resurrection from the dead.

These will be reviewed to show just how they point to Jesus being the Son of God. • C.S. Lewis popularized an excellent logical argument concerning Jesus that also leads to the conclusion that Jesus must be the Christ… and God the Son. • Historical and archaeological evidence suggest strongly that the Bible is true.

• An analysis of the human writers of the Bible and certain intriguing aspects of the content that runs through the entire length of the Bible leads to additional evidence that it is the Word of God. These concepts will be discussed as well.

• The lives, words, and testimonies of many great Christians lead credence to the truth of the Bible.

I will write in some detail on the first four topics above. As the point will have been already made after that review – i.e. that we can trust the Bible, I will then only briefly comment on the last three areas of evidence.

267

Chapter 24:

Fulfilled Prophecies

In showing why people can trust the Bible, it is certainly appropriate to spend a significant amount of time writing about some of the already amazing fulfilled prophecies of the Scriptures. It is not reasonable to list all of these prophecies as they run into the hundreds!

However, I will point out several dozen to show that the God of the Bible is the one and only true God. I am reasonably certain, that an open-minded person will view the prophecies noted in the next few pages as excellent evidence that these biblical predictions could only have come from God. The Bible predicts the future on a wide variety of different subject matter. I will divide up those prophecies that will be mentioned below into five different categories: • Prophecies concerning the future of Israel • Prophecies concerning other nations • Prophetic events relating to Israel and their relations with other nations • Messianic prophecies (those that relate to the coming Messiah) • The prophecies of Jesus

Prophecies Concerning the Future of Israel: There are scores of prophetic verses in the Old Testament predicting with 100% accuracy what will happen to God’s “chosen people”, the nation of Israel. Many of these prophecies relate to what will happen to the people and the land of Israel in the latter days. These will be reviewed in some detail in the following portion of this treatise. A selection of approximately ten of God’s prophecies relating to Israel will be featured below to demonstrate why we all can have the utmost faith in His Word – it has always proven to be true.

1). "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Gen 12:2-3 In the early chapters of Genesis, God called out Abraham (named Abram originally) to take his family and move west from the region called Ur of the Chaldees to a land that God would show him. That land was also referred to as the “land of promise” and eventually became known as Israel. God promised Abram, later Abraham, several things: • • • •

God would make Abraham’s name great Abraham would be a blessing to the world All the people of the earth would be blessed through Abraham God would bless those nations and people who blessed Abraham (and his seed) and curse those who cursed Abraham (and his seed)

Certainly no one would seriously argue that the name of Abraham is not great and that he has not been a blessing to the world through his offspring. King David, and more importantly, Jesus, is from the line of Abraham. Please take note of how nations from the times of Abraham 268

to the present day have been blessed or cursed based to some degree upon how they have treated Israel… the seed of Abraham. That is, all four of the prophetic statements in the verses above have come true.

2). “it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring." Gen 21:12-13 In this communication to His servant Abraham, God tells Abraham that He will make a special nation from the seed of his son Isaac… not from Ishmael. Abraham was concerned about the future inheritance of his first son, Ishmael, whose mother was Hagar the Egyptian. God promised him that He would make a nation from this offspring as well, only not the promised nation that would eventually produce the Messiah. Many Arab people and Palestinians trace their heritage back to Ishmael.

3). As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the LORD said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. Gen 15:12-14 God tells Abraham in a dream that his descendants will one day be slaves in a foreign country. This country was, of course, Egypt. After spending the predicted four hundred years in that foreign land, Moses led Israel out of Egypt, eventually leading them back to their land of promise. They were able to take much with them as promised in this prophecy. Egypt suffered the consequences of their mistreatment of Israel. Many historians say that Egypt reached the zenith of their world power during the time when they began the enslavement of Israel.

However, after this gross sin, Egypt saw their power progressively lessen. Never has Egypt regained their position of world dominance since that time. Remember that God will curse those who curse Israel.

4). if you do not obey the LORD your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: Deut 28:15 The LORD will drive you and the king you set over you to a nation unknown to you or your fathers. There you will worship other gods, gods of wood and stone. Deut 28:36-37 Then the LORD will scatter you among all nations, from one end of the earth to the other. There you will worship other gods--gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. Among those nations you will find no repose, no resting place for the sole of your foot.

There the LORD will give you an anxious mind, eyes weary with longing, and a despairing heart.

Deut 28:64-65 God warns the Israelites to be careful not to reject Him and His commands. God tells them specifically what will happen should they not continue to follow Him… they would be scattered to other nations. The last prophecy above had its fulfillment several hundred years after these words were written as the people of the divided kingdom were captured and scattered by both the Assyrians and the Babylonians. Not only that, but ever since Rome leveled 269

Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the Israelites have been wanderers throughout the world. Nearly twentyfive hundred years went by (since they were captured by the Babylonians) before they were officially given back the home that God had promised them over 4,000 years ago.

5). “Behold the days are coming when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated, until this day, shall be carried to Babylon, nothing shall be left.” Isaiah 39:6 This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Jer 29:10-11 Here in Isaiah, is the prophecy that everything in Judah will be captured and brought to Babylon… this included both people and possessions. This verse actually implies that the Temple will be totally destroyed… and it was. Nothing was left. The Lord also told the Israelites in Judah that they would remain under captivity for seventy years. After this amount of time, God would come and bring them back to Jerusalem. This is what happened. Judah was captured by Babylonia is 606 B.C. They were given the decree to return to Jerusalem approximately 70 years later. The Temple was destroyed in 586 B.C., and the rebuilding of the new Temple was complete by 515 B.C. – also about 70 years later.

6). "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, Isaiah 45:1 I am the Lord…….who says of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd and will accomplish all that I please; he will say of Jerusalem, "Let it be rebuilt," and of the temple, "Let its foundations be laid."'

Isaiah 44:28 Here are two incredible prophetic verses found in the book of Isaiah. That great prophet of God wrote over 150 years before the actual event occurred in history that a king named Cyrus would be responsible for allowing the Temple of God to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. This prophetic word came long before the Israelites were captured and taken to Babylon. Isaiah wrote these words over 100 years before King Solomon’s Temple was destroyed! Most amazing was the naming of the actual king who would send out the Israelites to rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem.

Almost 300 years later, the history of these events was written in the Old Testament…

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying, Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD God of heaven has given me. And He has commanded me to build Him a house at Jerusalem which is in Judah. 2 Chron 36:22-23 It is interesting that this amazing prophecy, where God actually names the foreign king that He would enlist to carry out His will, is found right in the middle of several verses where God also points out that He is the only one who can foretell the future. He states this as blatant 270

evidence of His omniscience and omnipotenceâ&#x20AC;Ś and as evidence of being the only true God of the Universe. He states this in verses such asâ&#x20AC;Ś the former things have come to pass, And new things I declare; Before they spring forth I tell you of them." Isaiah 42:9 For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' Isaiah 46:9-10 7). "O altar, altar! Thus says the LORD: 'Behold, a child, Josiah by name, shall be born to the house of David; and on you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and men's bones shall be burned on you.' " 1 Kings 13:2 In the early days of the Divided Kingdom of Israel, God pronounced judgment on the pagan alter that the new King Jeroboam had built in Bethel. The king had placed golden calves as idols on an altar in the Northern Kingdom in an attempt to appease his followers and hopefully keep them from returning to Jerusalem for proper worship experiences. This happened in the first generation following the death of Solomon. Approximately 300 years later, this prophecy of judgment came true as reported in 1 Kings. Josiah was the king from the house of David at that time.

Even the altar at Bethel, the high place made by Jeroboam son of Nebat, who had caused Israel to sin--even that altar and high place he demolished. He burned the high place and ground it to powder, and burned the Asherah pole also. Then Josiah looked around, and when he saw the tombs that were there on the hillside, he had the bones removed from them and burned on the altar to defile it, in accordance with the word of the LORD proclaimed by the man of God who foretold these things. 17 The king asked, "What is that tombstone I see?" The men of the city said, "It marks the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and pronounced against the altar of Bethel the very things you have done to it." 18 "Leave it alone," he said. "Don't let anyone disturb his bones." So they spared his bones and those of the prophet who had come from Samaria. 19 Just as he had done at Bethel, Josiah removed and defiled all the shrines at the high places that the kings of Israel had built in the towns of Samaria that had provoked the LORD to anger. 20 Josiah slaughtered all the priests of those high places on the altars and burned human bones on them. Then he went back to Jerusalem. 2 Kings 23:15-20 As is noted above, God did leave undefiled the tomb of the ancient Israeli prophet who had warned King Jeroboam. However, all those involved in the previous sacrilege had their remains defiled.

8). When King Hezekiah's officials came to Isaiah, 6 Isaiah said to them, "Tell your master, 'This is what the LORD says: Do not be afraid of what you have heard--those words with which the underlings of the king of Assyria have blasphemed me. 7 Listen! I am going to put such a spirit in him that when he hears a certain report, he will return to his own country, and there I will have him cut down with the sword.'" 2 Kings 19:5-7 271

There is an intriguing story of an amazing event involving the Assyrian invasion of Judah just after Israel (the Northern Kingdom) fell to Assyria in 722 B.C. King Hezekiah, the King of Judah, was forced to pay tribute to the Assyrian King Sennacherib in an ever-expensive method of keeping that king from taking away more and more of the land of Judah. Eventually, the Assyrian king sent some of his henchmen to attempt to intimidate Hezekiah into surrendering Jerusalem, the capital city of Judah. Sennacherib’s power, previous string of victories, and almost 200,000-man army certainly had the Jewish king mightily concerned. However, the great prophet Isaiah spoke the calming words noted above as well as …

"Therefore this is what the LORD says concerning the king of Assyria: "He will not enter this city or shoot an arrow here. He will not come before it with shield or build a siege ramp against it. 33 By the way that he came he will return; he will not enter this city, declares the LORD. 34 I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant." 35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning--there were all the dead bodies! 36 So Sennacherib king of Assyria broke camp and withdrew. He returned to Nineveh and stayed there. 2 Kings 19:32-36 The Assyrian king never did defeat Jerusalem. Instead, as Isaiah prophesied, King Sennacherib returned to Nineveh and, soon thereafter, was murdered by his sons! This is well documented in secular history.

9). 'For thus says the Lord GOD: "Indeed I Myself will search for My sheep and seek them out.

12 As a shepherd seeks out his flock on the day he is among his scattered sheep, so will I seek out My sheep and deliver them from all the places where they were scattered on a cloudy and dark day. 13 And I will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land; I will feed them on the mountains of Israel, in the valleys and in all the inhabited places of the country. 14 I will feed them in good pasture, and their fold shall be on the high mountains of Israel. There they shall lie down in a good fold and feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. Ezek 34:11-14 "Thus speaks the LORD God of Israel, saying: 'Write in a book for yourself all the words that I have spoken to you. 3 For behold, the days are coming,' says the LORD, 'that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah,' says the LORD. 'And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it.' " Jer 30:2-3 "I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph. I will bring them back, because I have mercy on them. They shall be as though I had not cast them aside; Zechariah 10:6 As can be seen, many Old Testament prophets spoke of the day when God would “roundup” His people, the “chosen people” of Israel, and bring them back to the “promised land”. As we shall see in a later section of this treatise, this and many other prophecies along this line have already recently come to fruition.

272

Prophecies Concerning Other Nations: Josh McDowell does an excellent job collating the prophecies against the following cities in his book, A Ready Defense: Edom/Petra: The nation of Edom came primarily from the progeny of Esau. It was destined to be at odds with the Israelites throughout the majority of its history… and it has been.

Several of the Old Testament prophets have written many prophecies concerning Edom. Several are listed below: • Thorns will overrun her citadels, nettles and brambles her strongholds. She (Edom) will become a haunt for jackals, a home for owls. Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; Isaiah 34:13-14 • "Edom will become an object of horror; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. As Sodom and Gomorrah were overthrown, along with their neighboring towns," says the LORD, "so no one will live there; no man will dwell in it.

Jer 49:17-18 • the Sovereign LORD says: I will stretch out my hand against Edom and kill its men and their animals. I will lay it waste, and from Teman to Dedan they will fall by the sword.

Ezek 25:13 • I will make Mount Seir a desolate waste and cut off from it all who come and go. I will fill your mountains with the slain; those killed by the sword will fall on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines. I will make you desolate forever; Ezek 35:7-9 • From generation to generation it will lie desolate; no one will ever pass through it again. Isaiah 34:10 • For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in Edom. Isaiah 34:6 Obviously, the Lord had every intention to destroy Edom completely and let its land lie dormant down through history. Indeed, that is what has happened. Josh McDowell notes that a visitor to these ruins, Capt. Mangles, described the sight when viewing Petra in the following manner, “the screaming of the eagles, hawks, and owls, who were soaring over our heads in considerable numbers, seemingly annoyed at anyone approaching their lonely habitation, added much to the singularity of the scene.” (A Ready Defense, p. 69) There are many lions, leopards, scorpions, wild goats and other wild animals in and around Petra. Edom is now a wasteland… just as God said it would become.

Tyre: In the eleventh year, on the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,' therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations, and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Ezek. 26:1-6 273

Then they will know that I am the LORD. "For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; Ezek. 26:7-9 14

I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. Ezek. 26:14 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign LORD." Ezek 26:21 Note the following fulfillment of prophecies: • •

• • •

God is against Tyre since they were against Israel.

Many nations will come against Tyre – Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia came against Tyre and succeeded in demolishing mainland Tyre. Most of the people had moved to an island off the coast. Alexander the Great, 250 years later, laid siege to that island by using stones and rocks from the mainland debris, and built a causeway across to the island. He scraped the mainland clean (like a “bare rock”). After an impressive battle, Alexander was victorious because he was able to bring in an effective naval force to put down the resistance of Tyre. By 332 B.C., Tyre lay in ruins.

“The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock.” (Philip Myers, secular historian, General History for Colleges and High Schools, Boston, 1889) It is now a place where fisherman literally spread their nets to dry.

Tyre has been deserted for many centuries – it now lies in ruins, never having been rebuilt since its last known activity during the Roman Empire

Sidon: The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, set your face against Sidon; prophesy against her 22 and say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "'I am against you, O Sidon, and I will gain glory within you. They will know that I am the LORD, when I inflict punishment on her and show myself holy within her. 23 I will send a plague upon her and make blood flow in her streets. The slain will fall within her, with the sword against her on every side. Then they will know that I am the LORD. Ezek 28:20-23 Note the following concerning this prophecy: • There is no mention that this city will be abolished (as with Tyre) – Sidon still stands today) in the same place as when this prophecy was given by Ezekiel.

• Blood and destruction will come to the inhabitants of this city – In 351 B.C., while under attack from the Persian king, 40,000 of the citizens of Sidon killed themselves by setting fire to their own houses. They chose this end rather than face the torture from their Persian enemies. As the Bible had predicted, many were slain and blood flowed in the city streets.

274

Egypt: "Egypt is a beautiful heifer, but a gadfly is coming against her from the north.

The mercenaries in her ranks are like fattened calves. They too will turn and flee together, they will not stand their ground, for the day of disaster is coming upon them, the time for them to be punished. 22 Egypt will hiss like a fleeing serpent as the enemy advances in force; they will come against her with axes, like men who cut down trees. 23 They will chop down her forest," declares the LORD, Jer 46:20-23 21

I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth.

He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. Ezek 29:19 'Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: At the end of forty years I will gather the Egyptians from the nations where they were scattered. 14 I will bring them back from captivity and return them to Upper Egypt, the land of their ancestry. There they will be a lowly kingdom. 15 It will be the lowliest of kingdoms and will never again exalt itself above the other nations. I will make it so weak that it will never again rule over the nations.

Ezek 29:13-15 The essence of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prophecy against Egypt is that it would never again become the great and powerful nation that it had been for so many centuries up to the time of these prophecies. There is no mention that the nation of Egypt would be destroyed, as with so many of the other nations surrounding Israel in that time. Yet, God did punish this nation for their attitude and actions against Israel. In fact, Egypt has become the type of nation pictured in these prophecies. It has never again ruled over other nations.

Samaria: The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." Hosea 13:16 I will make Samaria a heap of rubble, a place for planting vineyards. I will pour her stones into the valley and lay bare her foundations. 7 All her idols will be broken to pieces; all her temple gifts will be burned with fire; I will destroy all her images.â&#x20AC;? Micah 1:6 Note on Samaria: Samaria was the capital city of the Northern Kingdom, Israel. It fell by the sword numerous times in its history. In 722 B.C., Assyria came and defeated the Northern Kingdom and its capital city. Alexander the Great also conquered this city in 331 B.C. In 120 B.C., John Hyrcanus lay siege and took control over the city. All of these wars resulted in much bloodshed and suffering.

Although Samaria was a great capital city of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and rose again to become an impressive city during Herodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s time, Samaria would fall, as the prophecy foretold. It has now become only a huge heap of stones. Much of the ruins of that ancient town have rolled down the side of a hill. These stones are now scattered all over that area. The shafts of about one hundred of what must have been grand Corinthian columns are still standing, and attract much attention, although nothing definite is known regarding them. Note how this is 275

exactly what the prophecy stated would happen. John Urquhart, in his book The Wonders of Prophecy wrote that the foundations of Samaria have been discovered and that now portions of old Samaria are covered with corn and olive gardens. Again, this is consistent with the Old Testament prophecies.

Gaza/Ashkelon: I will send fire upon the walls of Gaza that will consume her fortresses.

I will destroy the king of Ashdod and the one who holds the scepter in Ashkelon. I will turn my hand against Ekron, till the last of the Philistines is dead," says the Sovereign LORD. Amos 1:7-8 8

For the day has come to destroy all the Philistines and to cut off all survivors who could help Tyre and Sidon. The LORD is about to destroy the Philistines, the remnant from the coasts of Caphtor. 5 Gaza will shave her head in mourning; Ashkelon will be silenced. Jer 47:4-5 Gaza will be abandoned and Ashkelon left in ruins. At midday Ashdod will be emptied and Ekron uprooted. 5 Woe to you who live by the sea, O Kerethite people; the word of the LORD is against you, O Canaan, land of the Philistines. "I will destroy you, and none will be left." The land by the sea, where the Kerethites dwell, will be a place for shepherds and sheep pens. 7 It will belong to the remnant of the house of Judah; there they will find pasture. In the evening they will lie down in the houses of Ashkelon. The LORD their God will care for them; he will restore their fortunes. Zeph 2:4-7 In these three different books in the Old Testament, we see the future of several cities foretold by God: • Philistine will be destroyed and no Philistines will remain. In fact, there are no remnants of the Philistines alive today anywhere in the world.

• The original city of Gaza, the one described in these verses, is now covered by sand… looking sort of like a “bald man” – one with a shaved head, as noted in Jeremiah above.

• Ashkelon was left abandoned for centuries. Recently, however, Israel has restored this territory into a garden city. It was prophesied by Zephaniah that this land would belong to the remnant of Judah. This has now come true.

Nineveh: One of the most incredible cities in the ancient world was the city of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria. It was founded by Nimrod. In its heyday, it was a massive and beautiful city. It was located on the eastern bank of the Tigris River and during the mid-7th century B.C., it was the largest city in the world. It was protected like no other in those days. It had an amazing inner city wall that was wide enough for three chariots to race one another, side by side.

It was 100 feet high and it had 1200 towers and 14 gates. In addition to this protection, it had an outer wall around the city, also very impressive. In other words, it was seemingly impregnable to foreign attacks. Sennacherib had markedly improved and expanded the city and its defenses during his reign. The Israeli prophet, Nahum, was sent by God to pronounce judgment on this wicked city less than 100 years after Jonah had evangelized them and they had turned to God. By the mid-7th century, however, this city had returned to its wicked ways. This city would fall in 612 B.C. There were many judgments pronounced on Nineveh by God through Nahum. All came true. Six of the more impressive were as follows: 276

•

•

•

•

•

•

The city gates would be destroyed. The gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; The river gates are thrown open and the palace collapses. Nahum 2:6; 3:11 The Hatamti Gate was the main breach point of the enemy attack.

Many of the Assyrian soldiers would be drunk during the final portion of the attack.

They will be entangled among thorns and drunk from their wine; you too will become drunk; you will go into hiding and seek refuge from the enemy. Nahum 1,10; 3:11 The historian, Diodorus, reported this in his writings.

A flood would play a prominent role in their defeat. with an overwhelming flood he will make an end of [Nineveh]; Nahum 1:8 Massive rains during the battle for the city resulted in the breaking of portions of the walls and flooding of the city.

Fire would also destroy portions of the city. "I will burn up your chariots in smoke, They look like flaming torches; the gates of your land are wide open to your enemies; fire has consumed their bars. Nahum 2:4,13-14 Evidence of this has been found in excavations.

The people of Nineveh would be massacred. Many casualties, piles of dead, bodies without number, people stumbling over the corpses-- Nahum 3:3 Diodorus, an ancient historian, wrote that the slaughter was so great that the rivers were colored red (from blood) for a period of time.

The city would never be rebuilt. "Although they have allies and are numerous, they will be cut off and pass away. The LORD has given a command concerning you, [Nineveh]: "You will have no descendants to bear your name. Nahum 1:12,14 He will stretch out his hand against the north and destroy Assyria, leaving Nineveh utterly desolate Zeph 2:13 Even within a few hundred years, the destruction was so complete that when Alexander the Great passed through that area, he did not even know a city had ever existed at that site! In fact, it wasn’t until 1840 that the covered ruins of the city were positively identified.

Babylon: I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah. She will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations; no Arab will pitch his tent there.

Isaiah 13:17-20 "I will cut off from Babylon her name and survivors, her offspring and descendants," declares the LORD. "I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland; I will sweep her with the broom of destruction," Isaiah 14:22-23 I will send foreigners to Babylon to winnow her and to devastate her land; they will oppose her on every side in the day of her disaster. Jer 51:2

277

It is time for the LORD's vengeance; he will pay her what she deserves. Babylon was a gold cup in the LORD's hand; she made the whole earth drunk. The nations drank her wine; therefore they have now gone mad. Babylon will suddenly fall and be broken. Wail over her! Jer 51:6-8 I will dry up her sea and make her springs dry. Babylon will be a heap of ruins, a haunt of jackals, an object of horror and scorn, a place where no one lives. Her people all roar like young lions, they growl like lion cubs. But while they are aroused, I will set out a feast for them and make them drunk, so that they shout with laughter-- then sleep forever and not awake," declares the LORD. "I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams and goats.

Jer 51:36-40 The historical account of the downfall of Babylon is very intriguing. Many of the prophecies above have been fulfilled very impressively. On the other hand, there are a few that have yet to come true. Let us take a look at those that have already come to fruition. For example, in 539 B.C., Cyrus the Mede planned a very impressive sneak attack to gain victory over an unsuspecting Babylon. He used two Babylonian traitors on the inside of the city walls in addition to his own troops. His soldiers dug huge ditches to divert the flow of water from the Euphrates River. By doing this, he was able to gain entrance into that incredibly fortified city via its temporarily dried river bed. That allowed the entrance of enemy soldiers who could now simply walk on into the city! All of this activity took place at night while Belteshazzar was giving a ribald, drunken party for his guests. Intriguingly, Daniel was called to interpret the “writing on the wall” while this siege was going on in the waterways outside and under the city.

Daniel noted that the unsuspecting King of Babylon was about to meet his “Waterloo” before the morning sun came up. Cyrus had conquered Babylon without having to knock down any of its famous walls or fortifications. As one can easily see, many of the aforementioned prophecies were fulfilled during that Babylonian defeat. For example: • God said in Isaiah… I will stir up against them the Medes.

• God spoke of the plan to dry up the river bed… I will dry up her sea and make her springs dry.

• All this would take place in one night while the Babylonians were involved in a drunken party… I will set out a feast for them and make them drunk, so that they shout with laughter. Babylon will suddenly fall and be broken.

For most of the twentieth century, the land that had once been home to an incredibly impressive city-state lay desolate. Lions, jackals and wolves roamed the region. The land was uninhabited, even by tent-dwellers. Much of the old city was swampland. This was what Isaiah and Jeremiah prophesied that the city would one day become. Also note how this situation is so unlike present-day Egypt. Both were great powers 2500 years ago. God pronounced different judgments on each nation; both judgments came true.

However, certain items of the prophets’ prophecies must not be overlooked. In particular, Isaiah did say that this city would one day reach such desolation that it “will never be inhabited or lived in through all generations.” This prophecy of total devastation and desolation for all time seemingly presents a problem. Why? Well, beginning in 1983, Saddam Hussein 278

poured millions into the reconstruction of this once great city as he planned to build another one right on top of that old city’s foundations! He actually got a pretty good start. However, that rebuilding project was left unfinished at the time of his execution in late 2006. Currently, the United Nations is contributing money for Babylon’s restoration. In the past twenty years, close to one billion dollars has gone into the rebuilding of temples, palaces, theaters, and other structures in this impressive building project. Not only are many other countries helping out with the new Babylon, but the United States military is opening a base there. Of course, that means many more dollars and many more people will move into the area. There are actually plans to turn Babylon into a major tourist attraction very soon.

This rebuilding does make sense given that certain prophecies are yet to be fulfilled. In particular, as just noted, God said that there will come a time that the destruction of Babylon will be so complete that it will never again by inhabited. Well, it certainly is not like that today.

However, as it turns out, in The Revelation of Jesus Christ, Jesus speaks of a time during the Great Tribulation when Babylon will once again be a very significant city on the world scene.

Not surprisingly, the Babylon of that time will be completely destroyed and left uninhabited… leaving it in the final condition written about by the prophets in the verses above. Hence, all of the prophecies concerning Babylon will come to pass!

The Empire of Alexander the Great: Alexander the Great was one of the more interesting characters ever to enter the world scene. Many historians consider him to be the greatest military commander in history. He was only 22 years old when, in 332 B.C., he began a campaign to conquer much of the civilized world of those days. This eventually led him as far east as India and south to Egypt including all points in between. The Bible prophets, Daniel and Zechariah, had much to say about this powerful young man.

After the prophet, Daniel, described the dual empires of the Medes and Persians in Daniel 6&7, the vision turned to describe the young Alexander: suddenly a male goat (Alexander the Great) came from the west, across the surface of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes.

6 Then he came to the ram that had two horns (Medo-Persia), which I had seen standing beside the river, and ran at him with furious power. 7 And I saw him confronting the ram; he was moved with rage against him, attacked the ram, and broke his two horns. There was no power in the ram to withstand him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled him; and there was no one that could deliver the ram from his hand. 8 Therefore the male goat grew very great; but when he became strong, the large horn was broken, and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven. Dan 8:5-8 Daniel’s vision describes the meteoric rise of Alexander followed by his death and succession by his four top generals (Cassandra, Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus). The prophet Zechariah goes into more detail concerning the southern campaign of this young warrior that brought him to Jerusalem. He wrote about 20 years after the prophet Daniel had written his prophecy on this topic.

279

The word of the LORD is against the land of Hadrach and will rest upon Damascus-- for the eyes of men and all the tribes of Israel are on the LORD-- 2 and upon Hamath too, which borders on it, and upon Tyre and Sidon, though they are very skillful. 3 Tyre has built herself a stronghold; she has heaped up silver like dust, and gold like the dirt of the streets. 4 But the Lord will take away her possessions and destroy her power on the sea, and she will be consumed by fire.

5 Ashkelon will see it and fear; Gaza will writhe in agony, and Ekron too, for her hope will wither. Gaza will lose her king and Ashkelon will be deserted. 6 Foreigners will occupy Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. 7 I will take the blood from their mouths, the forbidden food from between their teeth. Those who are left will belong to our God and become leaders in Judah, Zech 9:1-7 Simply put, the verses above catalog the southern course of Alexander as he went along the Mediterranean coast adding one city after another to his empire. History confirms that this was indeed the exact course that Alexander took during his incredible victory march. However, history also tells us of an intriguing thing that happened when the young general rode west on his famous stead, Bucephalus, and came to Jerusalem.

I will camp around My house because of the army, because of him who passes by and him who returns. Zech 9:8 The famous Jewish historian, Josephus, tell us the details of what happened when Alexander came to Jerusalem and set up camp outside the walled city. God gave a dream to Jaddua the high priest instructing him as to what to do. This included the people praying and offering sacrifices to God while the priest led a contingent of holy men dressed in white robes to meet and talk with Alexander. God also gave a dream to Alexander to expect this same type of meeting – i.e. holy men in white robes coming out to meet with him. Alexander properly interpreted the dream that God wanted him to spare this Holy City from his reign of conquests.

Jerusalem was left untouched. Instead, he just “camped around My house.”

It is almost assuredly no coincidence that the very next verse in Zechariah tells of the future time when Jesus will be the true “just” King that will not just camp around the city but will ride into Jerusalem on a donkey bringing salvation with Him. Then one day in the future, He will enter that same city as its true King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

No more shall an oppressor pass through them, for now I have seen with My eyes. 9 "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey. Zech 9:8-9

Prophetic events relating to Israel and their relations with other nations: Although there are dozens of prophecies that concern the relations between Israel and other nations, I want to just review one particular chapter in the Old Testament at this time.

Chapter 11 of Daniel is a particularly amazing chapter of prophecy. As will be shown, this chapter goes into much specific detail concerning what would happen to Israel over the next 300400 years following the vision given to Daniel by God. The chapter begins: 280

And in the first year of Darius the Mede, I took my stand to support and protect him.

"Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will appear in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. Dan 11:1-3 Here we see that Daniel is being given a vision concerning the future kingdoms of the world… those that will arise after the fall of Babylon and after Darius the Mede. The four kings that followed in succession after this vision were Cambyses (529-522 B.C.), Psuedo-Smerdis (522-521 B.C.), Darius I Hystaspes (521-486 B.C.), and Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.). Xerxes was the ruler who fought against the Greeks as the verses above suggest. He certainly did “stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece”. (Ahasuerus, who is named in the book of Esther, is another name for Xerxes I). Daniel then says that another king will come on the scene at some point in time that will be mighty and rule with such power that he can do just as he pleases.

Alexander the Great is the “mighty king” that came along and ruled with “great power”.

However, he did not live a long life. Alexander died in 323 B.C. He had no sons at the time of his death that could inherit his power. His son, Hercules, was murdered by a man named Polysperchon. Therefore, his kingdom was divided among his four top generals: Ptolemy took possession of Egypt, Cassander took control over Macedonia, Seleucus ruled over Syria and Babylon, and Antigonus declared himself king over Asia Minor.

This is written about in the next several verses…

After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others. Dan 11:4 "The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. 6 After some years, they will become allies. Dan 11:5-6 The king of the south (i.e. Egypt) was almost assuredly Ptolemy I Soter (323 -285 B.C.).

The commander who became stronger than Soter was most likely the king of Syria, Seleucus I Nicator (312-281 B.C.). Secular history tells us that both of these kings were allies for a time… however, they eventually became rivals. Daniel 11:5-35 reads like a detailed history book. A careful study of this chapter in Daniel will reveal even the various political marriages of convenience between women such as Bernice, who married Antiochus II Theos in 252 B.C. and, later, Cleopatra to Ptolemy V Epiphenes in 192 B.C. Note the following passages: The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power will not last. In those days she will be handed over, together with her royal escort and her father and the one who supported her.

281

Ptolemy II Philadelphus arranged the political marriage of his daughter, Bernice, to be the wife of Antiochus of Syria. Antiochus had to divorce his first wife, Laodiceia first. Ptolemy died only a few years after this marriage. Laodiceia promptly arranged for the murders of Antichus, Bernice and that couple’s young son. Seleucus II Callinicus, the son of Laodiceia, then became the King of Syria. However, the brother of Bernice came to power to challenge Callinicus… successfully…

"One from her family line (i.e. Ptolemy III Euergetes) will arise to take her (Bernice) place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. 8 He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. Dan 11:7-8 Egyptian forces did attack and defeat the Syrian army as prophesied here in the Bible.

Ptolemy returned with his bounty to Egypt awaiting the next move by his northern neighbor.

If the main purpose of this treatise was to study the book of Daniel, all of the remaining verses in this chapter would be studied and shown to “forecast” history in an amazing fashion.

My purpose, however, was just to demonstrate how accurately detailed some portions of biblical prophecy can get at times. I believe that has been accomplished.

This chapter extends its prophecy all the way up to the infamous Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Antiochus erected a statue of Zeus inside the Temple and sacrificed a pig on the altar on December 16, 167 B. C. in honor of the birth of the sun god. This terrible incident in biblical history is known as the abomination of desolation. It was a foreshadowing of a similar event that will happen during the Tribulation at the hands of the Antichrist. This so incited the Jews that they began a revolt which ended in Jewish independence for the first time since 586 B.C. This end of foreign rule has been celebrated as the important Jewish festival of Hanukkah, meaning “dedication” (of the sanctuary) from December 25, 164 B. C. until today.

The verses in Daniel 11 have been dissected by Bible scholars for millennia. All agree, both liberal and conservative, that these verses are perfectly and incredibly accurate in their description of the political intrigue that took place between Egypt and Syria (and their effects on the nation of Israel) from the late-fourth to the mid-second centuries B.C. The difference comes with the interpretation of this fact. Generally speaking, there are three ways this chapter has been interpreted over the years: • Those theologians who simply do not believe that God ever predicts the future simply believe that these verses were written after all of the historical events that they describe took place.

• Another group of Bible students believe that someone added this chapter to the book of Daniel at a late date (a short time after the events described in this chapter). These individuals do not necessarily discount that God has given prophetic statements elsewhere, but they do not believe that God tends to be as incredibly detailed and specific in His prophecies as seen here in Daniel 11.

282

â&#x20AC;˘

The conservative Bible believing scholar believes these verses to be the Word of God and to have been written by Daniel near the end of his life. Certainly, that is what I believe to be true, for a variety of reasons. Simply put, God is all-powerful and easily capable of providing these prophecies. Jesus could very well have told His disciples, and therefore the rest of the world, that this chapter of the Scriptures was not appropriate to be included in the Bible. Jesus instead quoted frequently from the Old Testament and gave His stamp of approval to all of its words. Therefore, the conclusion simply is that this chapter of Daniel is just one more impressive reason to trust in the power of God! There is one other important point to make concerning this interesting chapter in Daniel.

As is so often the case with the prophecies of God, there is a short-term fulfillment and an endtimes fulfillment. We see here in Daniel 11, that verses 36-45 have a dual meaning, a short term and long-term fulfillment for these prophetic verses. Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the actual man of history that did those things just a few hundred years after they were prophesied by Daniel in these ten verses. However, virtually every prophecy scholar also views these verses as being prophetic of the future Anti-Christ who will come on the scene in the end-times and also desecrate the re-built Temple. Not only that, but the other verses apparently not only point to the political turmoil in that 2nd century B.C., but also to the tribulation period still to come. Note the reference to the end-times in the verses themselvesâ&#x20AC;Ś"At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. Dan 11:40 The fact is that many of Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s prophecies have these dual fulfillments. Jesus, Himself, gives many examples of this throughout the Gospels.

I wrote a book, Fifty Signs of the End Times, Are We Living in the Last Days, several years ago. In this book, I show how fifty prophesies relating to the time period near the time when Christ will return have actually come to fruition within the last seventy-five years. If interested in this book or any of ten others that I have written on biblical topics, take a look at my web site, nicholsbiblestudies.com.

283

Chapter 25:

Messianic Prophecies

The Old Testament contains over 300 references to the Messiah. Jesus fulfills these prophecies. There are none that are contradicted in His life. There are still some that are awaiting fulfillment during His Second Advent.

1). "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 Here we see that Micah, the Old Testament prophet, prophesied that the Ruler and future King over Israel would come out of the little town of Bethlehem. Of course, there were many cities and towns in Israel. Statistically, there would have been very little likelihood for the Messiah to be born in this little town. It would be akin to predicting that the greatest president that the United States will ever produce will be born in Hialeah, Florida sometime in the future… and have this prediction come true!

Micah goes on to say that this Ruler will have always existed… that is, this Ruler will be God, Himself. God is the only individual that has existed from eternity past.

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem.” Matt 2:1 2). “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Isaiah 7:14-15 Seven hundred years before the birth of Christ, Isaiah predicted that some day in the future a virgin would conceive and bear a son who would be named Immanuel… and who would actually be God. “In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.

But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?" The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.”’ Luke 1:26-35 Immanuel is translated as “God with us” – that is, Jesus had come to earth and into existence as a human being… born as a baby. He did this in order to accomplish the tasks necessary for our salvation. He led a perfect life, allowed mankind to actually view God in the person of Jesus, taught us how to live, and then gave Himself as the one and only perfect sacrifice for our sins.

284

3). “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice." Gen 22:18 God tells Abraham that all mankind will be blessed because of a future descendent from Abraham. God bestowed this blessing upon Abraham because he trusted and obeyed the Lord God. Quite obviously, Jesus fulfilled this prophecy.

4). “But God said to Abraham…it is through Isaac that your offspring (seed) will be reckoned.”

Gen 21:12 Since the first patriarch, Abraham, God repeatedly promised that the promised Messiah would come from His seed. Not just any of Abraham’s offspring, but specifically through the line of Isaac. Several chapters later, God continued to define the lineage from which the Messiah would come…

5). “And God said to him, "Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be called Jacob anymore, but Israel shall be your name." So He called his name Israel. 11 Also God said to him: "I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come from your body.” Gen 35:10-11 "I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and batter the brow of Moab, and destroy all the sons of tumult….. Out of Jacob One shall have dominion,” Num 24:17-19 Here we see that God pointed out that the future King, the Star of the Universe, who will destroy all evil at some point in the future, would come from the heirs of a particular son of Isaac, the son named Jacob. The fine tuning of the ancestry of the Messiah continued as the time passed during the Old Testament days…

6). “There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him,” Isaiah 11:1-2 "Behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; A King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.” Jer 23:5 Here we note that God told His prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah that the Messiah would come from the line of David (Jesse was David’s father). So what was the actual lineage of Jesus?

“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers. Judah begot Perez and Zerah by Tamar, Perez begot Hezron, and Hezron begot Ram. Ram begot Amminadab, Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon. Salmon begot Boaz by Rahab, Boaz begot Obed by Ruth, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David the king. David the king begot Solomon………….” Matt 1:1-7 285

“Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, ……….. the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, ……. the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” Luke 3:23-38 Two different genealogies are given above; one shows the lineage from Adam through David to Mary while the other shows the lineage from Abraham to David to Joseph, the earthly step-father to Jesus. The verses point out that the prophesied lineage of the Messiah was found in the person of Jesus Christ. So far then, the Old Testament has revealed to the Jews that their Messiah would be born of a virgin in Bethlehem and will also come from the “house of David”.

This certainly already narrowed the possibilities markedly.

7). “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert.” Isaiah 40:3 This verse seen in Isaiah heralds the coming of the cousin of Jesus, John the Baptist.

John was to prepare the way for the Lord and he did so very well. He was a Nazarite and lived a rugged type of existence as an adult. Indeed, he did live much of the time in the deserts of Judea where he preached a message of repentance as he exhorted the people to return to their God. “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight.' "And John himself was clothed in camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.” Matt 3:1-4 8). “Behold, your God will come with vengeance, with the recompense of God; He will come and save you." Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, And the tongue of the dumb sing.”

Isaiah 35:4-6 Isaiah also prophesied that the Messiah would come some day to save His people. He would heal all manner of sickness. Of course, we know that is exactly what Jesus Christ came to do… and He did it exceedingly well.

“Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.”

Matt 9:35

286

And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins." Matt 1:21 9). The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me; because Jehovah hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the year of Jehovah's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; Isaiah 61:1-2 Isaiah wrote that a day would come when the Messiah would be sent from heaven, anointed by God, the Father, to preach, teach, and help mankind in innumerable ways. Jesus later referenced these exact words while preaching in His home town of Nazareth… ending with the bombshell announcement that He was the Messiah Himself!

And he opened the book, and found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears. Luke 4:17-21 While appearing in the synagogue in His hometown of Nazareth, Jesus directly stated that He was the individual that the prophet Isaiah was referring to in the Messianic prophecy above.

Not only that but Jesus concluded His reading without mentioning the fact that the Messiah would one day proclaim the vengeance of the God. This was significant because Jesus was alluding to the fact that on His first visit to earth He would not be the conquering King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He would not bring judgment onto the people of the earth at that time. That judgment would have to wait for a later time… until the “Day of the Lord.”

10). "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.” Zech 9:9 This Old Testament prophetic passage was fulfilled on Palm Sunday…

“So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road; others cut down branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then the multitudes who went before and those who followed cried out, saying: "Hosanna to the Son of David! 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!' Hosanna in the highest!"

Matt 21:6-9 11). I will praise You, for You have answered me, and have become my salvation. The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. Psalms 118:21-22

287

"See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation; the one who trusts will never be dismayed. Isaiah 28:16 Jesus referred to the verse quoted from the Psalm above to identify Himself to the crowd of Jews who had rejected Him just days before His crucifixion in Jerusalem…

Haven't you read this scripture: "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone.” Mark 12:10 Many people, both Jew and Gentile, accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior after His death and resurrection. However, there were more and more of His Jewish brothers and sisters who began to reject Him and His message as the years went by. By the late A.D. 50s, most new converts were Gentiles. The majority of the Jews rejected Jesus and still do today. As Peter wrote in one of his epistles…

"Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." (Isaiah 28:16) Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” 1 Peter 2:6-8 Jesus quoted from Psalms to show the error that the people were making by rejecting Him. Of course, this was just one of the dozens of prophecies concerning the life of Jesus that would come to pass…

“Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner”. Matt 21:42 As can be seen, Peter quoted from Isaiah to show that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the first two verses noted above. Jesus was and is the chief cornerstone of His Church. Anyone who puts their trust in Him will never be sorry. Unfortunately, Jesus became a stumbling block to the majority of the Jews as they could not seem to accept Him as the Messiah… and, even more importantly, most were unable to recognize Jesus as God. Of course, the great early evangelists were all Jews… the apostles. God has stated on more than one occasion that there will always be a remnant of Israel who will remain faithful to Him. This means believing on the Lord Jesus for salvation in these New Testament times… not the Law. 12). The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”

Psalm 110:1 Here we see where David was writing an intriguing passage. He said that his Lord was spoken to by his Lord. The first person, God the Father, was speaking to David’s Lord Jesus, God’s only begotten Son. He told Jesus to sit at His right hand until that time when all of the enemies of Jesus would be vanquished.

288

“What think ye of the Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto him, the son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet? If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son? And no one was able to answer him a word” Matt 22:42-46 In these verses in Matthew, Jesus is pointing out to the Pharisees, who had just told Jesus that the Messiah would be the son of David, that David had also referred to the Messiah as being his Lord. He asked them to explain that interesting point. They remained silent. The explanation, of course, is that Jesus was indeed from the line of David (He was David’s son), but, of course, Jesus was the Lord over David as well.

13). It is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. Isaiah 49:6 As we all know, Jesus came to save all mankind, not just the Jews. Isaiah had prophesied this fact several centuries before the birth of the Messiah, (i.e. Jesus). Luke wrote that Paul preached about how Jesus had fulfilled this prophesy…

I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come; how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.

Acts 26:22-23 Isaiah: 53 – the greatest Old Testament Messianic prophecy The prophet, complaining of unbelief, gives reasons for the shame of the cross 1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Christ's passion foretold 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD 289

hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. and the sacrifice of the Righteous Servant 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

(Isaiah 53:1-12) The 53rd Chapter of Isaiah is the greatest Old Testament chapter with respect to Messianic prophecy. Interestingly, this chapter was commonly used to teach about the coming of the Messiah by Jewish interpreters of the Old Testament scriptures before the coming of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus did not fit their idea of what the Messiah should be like, they have since stopped teaching that this chapter referenced the Messiah. Now, their interpretation typically suggests that the suffering refers to the Jewish nation… not the Messiah. Unfortunately for them, however, is the fact that the language used by Isaiah, when writing of the suffering servant in this chapter, is always in the third-person singular (ex. “he”, “his”, “him”) instead of the way he always wrote concerning the nation of Israel (or the Jewish people). In these instances, Isaiah used the first-person plural, “our” and “we”. Not only that, just a careful reading of this incredible chapter makes it obvious that Isaiah is speaking of an individual not a nation.

Several more intriguing prophecies from the Psalms and from Zechariah speak to the last days in the life of Jesus. There are approximately thirty of these predictions in the Old Testament, many of these noted below: 14). “mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, Who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.” Psalms 41:9 Obviously, this verse suggests that one day Jesus will have a trusted friend (Judas) betray Him… even one who had shared bread with Him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. He leaning back, as he was, on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it? Jesus therefore answereth, He it is, for whom I shall dip the sop, and give it him. So when he had dipped the sop, he taketh and giveth it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. John 13:21,24-26 290

15). If ye think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. Zech 11:12 Here we see an uncanny prophesy relating to the thirty pieces of silver that was paid to Judas as payment for his betrayal of Jesus. Matthew records the exchange between Judas and the chief priests.

What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. Matt 26:15 16). And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them unto the potter, in the house of Jehovah. Zech 11:13 Of course, Judas soon realized the gravity of his actions and proceeded to discard his illgained bounty, prior to committing suicideâ&#x20AC;Ś And he cast down the pieces of silver into the sanctuary, and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. And the chief priests took the pieces of silver, and said, it is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is the price of blood. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Matt 27:5-7 17). He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted he opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

Isaiah 53:7 Jesus was the true, one and only, sacrificial Lamb of God. He refused to defend Himself at the multiple trials that He was dragged into the night before His crucifixion. The whole trial process was a sham. Regardless, Jesus was ready and willing to go to the cross in order to suffer and pay the penalty for all of mankindâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sins.

Now Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest. And when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing. Then saith Pilate unto him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee? And he gave him no answer, not even to one word: insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly. Matt 27:11-14 18). But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53:5-6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting. For the Lord Jehovah will help me; therefore have I not been 291

confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame.

Isaiah 50:6-7 Jesus was beaten unmercilessly by the Roman soldiers. His body and back were scourged. They pushed a crown of sharp thorns upon his head causing the blood to run down His torn face. They beat Him as He dragged the cross up to Golgotha. Then they pounded nails into His feet and wrists. Jesus was certainly “bruised for our iniquities”. Not only that, but Jesus took the wrath of God upon Himself as He paid the penalty for all the sins of mankind… past, present and future. God cannot let sin go unpunished.

“Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head” John 19:1-2 “Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands” Matt 26:67 19). “They pierced my hands and my feet.” Psalms 22:16 “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem” Zech 12:10-11 Although the ancient Israelites did not crucify their criminals, the psalmist, David, and Zechariah both were told by God to write that the Messiah would one day die via this ignominious manner.

And when they came unto the place which is called the skull, there they crucified him.

Luke 23:33 20). “He poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors: yet he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” Isaiah 53:12 The Holy Spirit directed Isaiah to write these details concerning the death of Jesus. Yes, Jesus was crucified between two thieves. The point of the whole crucifixion is made in the latter portion of the twelfth verse, Jesus through His suffering and death made intercession for the transgressors, for all mankind. That is His gift to us… we just have to accept it.

Then are there crucified with him two robbers, one on the right hand and one on the left.

Matt 27:38 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

Luke 23:34

21). He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not. Isaiah 53:3

292

It is obvious that Jesus fits this description very well. Although there was a remnant of the Jews that did accept Jesus as their Messiah, most did not. Certainly, the religious leaders not only did not look at Him as the Messiah, but they were out to destroy Him. Jesus brought a message that was so different than what they had been teaching to the masses of people. Jesus was not yet ready to assume His rightful position as the King of the Jews… at least in the manner that they expected. He was not the political and military leader that most wanted at that time. Of course, Jesus had a much more important task to perform on that first coming… He was going to save mankind from their sins through His sacrificial death on the cross. However, He certainly “was rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief… [they] esteemed Him not.”

“He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.”

John 1:11

He began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Matt 26:37-38 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Luke 22:44 So, His brother Jews, as a whole, would reject Him as their Messiah. In fact, they would push for His crucifixion and succeed in having the Romans put Him to death on the cross. As can be seen from the verses above, Jesus suffered unimaginable grief and pain in the hours before and during the actual crucifixion. It must be remembered that Jesus was not only God the Son, but also a man. As such, He was subject to the same feelings as other men. Of course, Jesus was able to control Himself and His actions so as to lead a perfect life.

22). And I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; And for comforters, but I found none. They gave me also gall for my food; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

Psalms 69:20-21 Jesus hung from the cross with only His friend John and a few very dear women, including His mother, at its base to comfort Him through this very difficult and painful time. All of His other friends had scattered like frightened rabbits. When He became thirsty, He asked for something to drink…

“They gave him wine to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted it, he would not drink.”

Matt 27:34 23). “They part my garments among them, and upon my vesture do they cast lots.” Psalms 22:18 True to the prediction in the Psalms, the soldiers decided to cast lots for the garments of Jesus.

The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also the coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top

293

throughout. They said therefore one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be John 19:23-24 24). My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Psalms 22:1 Into your hands I commit my spirit. Psalms 31:5 Of course, we all know that these were some of the famous words that Jesus cried out to His Father just before He died. Here we see them written in two different Messianic Psalms a thousand years earlier!

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt 27:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last. Luke 23:46 25). “He protects all his bones, not one of them will be broken.” Psalms 34:20 They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. Zech 12:10 Here we see the prophecy that none of the bones of Jesus will be broken. Instead, Jesus will be pierced with a sword, His body fluids (including blood) flowing out onto the ground.

But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. John 19:33-35 26). "In that day," declares the Sovereign LORD, "I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight. Amos 8:9 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. Matt 27:45 This is an incredible prophecy. There is definite secular historical evidence of the fact that between the hours of noon and 3:00 P.M. on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, an “eclipse” of the sun occurred in Palestine. The Greek historian, Thallus, wrote in his historical account of that time, “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness and the rocks were rent by the earthquake and in many places in Judea and other districts rocks were thrown down.”

Phlegon, another Greek historian, also reported concerning this “eclipse”; “This great extraordinary eclipse of the sun distinguished among all that had happened and it occurred in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (A.D. 32). Four other historians concurred: Eusebius, Origen, Tertullian, and Lucian of Antioch. Lucian suggested to his readers that they verify the fact by looking it up in the Roman “Annals and Archives”. In summary, there is extensive secular evidence that there was a great earthquake and an “eclipse” of the sun that accompanied the death of the Lord Jesus.

294

One last point should be made clear. Italics were placed around the word “eclipse” in the paragraph above due to the fact that there was no possibility of an actual eclipse of the sun at the time of the crucifixion. Due to the method of determining the Passover day, the sun, and earth would have been unable to align in the manner required to result in an actual eclipse. Obviously, God intervened supernaturally with the signs of an earthquake and the darkening of the sun to clearly demonstrate the enormity of the occasion of His Son’s sacrificial death.

27). You will not leave My soul in Sheol; nor will you allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

Psalm 16:10 In this Messianic Psalm, we see the prophecy that God would not abandon His Son, Jesus, to the grave. Instead, Jesus would arise from the dead on Easter morning, His body never to see corruption.

“Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.” Acts 2:31 28). The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." Psalms 110:1 This is a verse that was mentioned earlier in connection with teaching the Pharisees that Jesus was David’s Lord as well as David’s Son. Here it is used to show simply that the Holy Spirit had predicted that Jesus would someday be called up into heaven to take His appropriate seat at the right hand of His Father.

“After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.” Mark 16:19 29). “The kings of Tarshish and of the isles will bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba will offer gifts.” Psalms 72:10 (the Wise Men) 30). “And I will put enmity between you and the woman [Mary] and between your seed and her Seed [Jesus]; He shall bruise your head and you shall bruise His heel.” Genesis 3:15 (God talking to Satan immediately after the “fall of mankind”) There are scores more fulfilled prophesies in both the Old and New Testaments. Entire books have been written on these prophesies. The Encyclopedia of Prophecy discusses 8,352 predictions in the Bible! Wow! They found no prophetic error… not one. Of course, some are still to be fulfilled. Actually, I wrote and published a book, Fifty Signs of the End Times, that goes into detail on fifty important prophecies that were meant to be fulfilled just prior to Christ’s Second Coming. There certainly is much evidence to suggest that this world may be seeing the Messiah again in the not too distant future.

295

Chapter 26:

Prophesies Made By The Lord, Jesus

Jesus spoke many prophecies while He was on this earth. Although many will not come to fruition until the latter days, as will be discussed in the third and fourth sections to come, He did make several important predictions that came true not very long after He made them. Let me just mention a few below.

1). "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Matt 12:39-40 Here we see Jesus telling His disciples that He will suffer a fate similar to that of Noah.

Instead of being totally enclosed in the belly of a great fish for three days, Jesus would be enclosed in a tomb, His body having been crucified. Both would come up out of their grave (Noah’s “grave” being the great fish) after three days, alive and well!

2). As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." Matt 17:9 3). When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life."

Matt 17:22-23 4). "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!" Matt 20:18-19 5). "As you know, the Passover is two days away--and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified." Matt 26:2 In all four verses above Jesus tries to prepare His disciples for His coming betrayal, beatings and death. He goes even further by also telling them clearly that He will not lose the battle to Satan and death. Instead, He will arise on the third day. He will be “clothed” in His new glorified body and will visit with them for several weeks. In these four verses, we see mention of His betrayal, condemnation by the chief priest, scribes and Pharisees, being turned over to the Romans, His beatings, being put to death, and then His resurrection. Those are six different prophecies!

6). Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Matt 26:23-24

296

7). Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"

Matt 26:25

Jesus is specific about his betrayal. He even tells Judas that He knows that Judas is the traitor that will turn Jesus over to the Romans.

8). Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' Matt 26:31 "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, Zech 13:7 Using the above Old Testament verse as His prophetic source, Jesus explains to His disciples that they will all scatter when He is arrested and put to death. They will fail Jesus at that time. Later, they will regain their faith and power and become great evangelists for the remainder of their lives.

9). "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times." Matt 26:34 This prediction is the famous one concerning Peter, who was very sure that he would never do anything of the kind. He would be right there fighting and defending Jesus to the death.

Jesus, of course, knew better.

10). "Therefore, I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Matt 21:43 Jesus tells the Jews that the kingdom of God would soon be given to the Gentiles since the vast majority of the Jews of that time in history would reject Jesus as the Messiah and God the Son. The Gentiles would go throughout the entire world… over time… and win hundreds of millions to Christ. It is also true, as will be shown later in this treatise, in the end-times there will be an awakening among the Jews as they finally recognize the true identity of Jesus. Then, they also will produce much fruit for the Kingdom.

11). Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down." Matt 24:1-2 This prophecy by Jesus is also mentioned by Luke…

For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation." Luke 19:43-44 In this impressive prophecy, Jesus tells His disciples that the Temple would soon be destroyed. Not only that, but this destruction would be so complete that the structure would actually be totally leveled to the ground. This happened exactly as Jesus said it would in A.D. 70, approximately 40 years after His prophecy.

297

12). "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." Matt 11:21-24 Our Lord, Jesus Christ spent much of His ministry teaching and preaching in the towns surrounding the Sea of Galilee. Many of those same towns stand today. On the other hand, we see that in the verses quoted above, Jesus pronounced judgment on three cities in this region: Korazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. So what has happened to these cities since the time of Jesus? Let us take a look at them one at a time: •

•

•

Korazin – If one looks on the Internet for this location, there are one or two sites that suggest they are showing a few ancient stone buildings on what used to be the town of Korazin… not far from Capernaum. No one knows for sure where this old village was located… only that it has long since been destroyed.

Bethsaida – There is virtually no evidence of the location of this ancient site. Different people have differing opinions concerning its previous location. It is, of course, on the northern shores of the Lake of Galilee near the towns of Korazin and Capernaum.

However, it has been destroyed just as Jesus prophesied.

Capernaum – Just as Jesus prophesied, this city has been destroyed even to the point where its original location is not absolutely certain. Most people now believe that it lay under the ground where archaeological digs now take place called Tel Hum. In any case, the city of Capernaum is no longer.

One Final Prophecy: Before moving on to the next topic of discussion in this first section, I will present another of the more famous prophecies in the Old Testament for consideration. This prophecy is often referred to as the “70 Weeks Prophecy.”

Sometime in the year 538 B.C., Daniel had been studying the scrolls written by the prophet Jeremiah when he came across the portion Jeremiah had written about Israel being exiled for 70 years due to their turning away from God. They had failed to respect and honor the Sabbath years on 70 different occasions since the time that Moses had instructed them to do so many centuries earlier. (By the way, that does mean that they did allow the land to lay fallow for approximately 50 years as there were about 120 sabbatical years from the time of the edict from Moses to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity). For that reason, they were defeated by Babylon and placed into exile for 70 years – the number of Sabbath years that they had failed to observe. The chapter begins…

In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom-- 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. 3 So I turned to the Lord God and pleaded with him in prayer and petition, in fasting, and in sackcloth and ashes. Dan 9:1-3

298

Realizing that they had already been in captivity for just under 70 years, Daniel went to God in prayer to ask what events were on the horizon. He knew that certain important events were about to begin…

Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, O Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary. 18 Give ear, O God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. 19 O Lord, listen! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hear and act! For your sake, O my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name."

Dan 9:17-19 Daniel was pleading with God to remember that His Holy City was still lying desolate and that the Temple had yet to be rebuilt. While Daniel was in the middle of this prayer, God sent Gabriel to give him certain answers to his questions. Gabriel told Daniel that he had been sent from heaven by God to give him a message concerning Daniel’s people (the Israelites) and the Holy City of Jerusalem. Gabriel then began to tell Daniel about the message he had from God. Before breaking down this prophecy, two things must be made clear: •

•

When the Bible uses the term 70 “7’s” or 70 “weeks of years,” it means 70 periods of 7year increments. That is 70 x 7 = 490 years. This terminology is used in many different books of the Bible.

When dealing with prophecy, the Bible uses 360 days for a prophetic year… not 365 ¼ days as is the actual number of days in a calendar year. Examples of this are also seen in several areas of the Bible. For example, when the Bible talks of one-half of the Tribulation which is 3 ½ years, it actually also notes that this is equal to 360 days x 3.5 years = 1260 days. Therefore, most biblical scholars use the figure of 360 days as equaling one prophetic year when calculating the time periods of prophetic messages.

The reason I mention this will become clear below. Let’s look at the prophecy…

While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the LORD my God for his holy hill-- 21 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice.

22 He instructed me and said to me, "Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding. 23 As soon as you began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you, for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and understand the vision: Ok, so now Gabriel is about to explain the vision to Daniel… and to us…

24

"Seventy 'sevens' (70 x 7 = 490 years) are decreed for your people (Israel) and your holy city (Jerusalem) to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy (until the coming of the Messiah in the end-times… when the Messiah will assume His leadership role in the Millennial Kingdom). 25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing

299

of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One (the Messiah), the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens’(49 years), and sixty-two 'sevens’ (434 years).

Gabriel told Daniel that from the decree given to rebuild Jerusalem to its completion would be 49 years. The rebuilding of the city would begin in 445 B.C. and would be completed 49 years later, in approximately 396 B.C. The verses in Nehemiah below show where these dates can be found in the Old Testament…

In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes (his reign began in 465 B.C. therefore this would have been in 445 B.C.), when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. Neh 2:1 The king said to me, "What is it you want?" Then I prayed to the God of heaven, 5 and I answered the king, "If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city in Judah where my fathers are buried so that I can rebuild it." 6 Then the king, with the queen sitting beside him, asked me, "How long will your journey take, and when will you get back?" It pleased the king to send me; so I set a time. Neh 2:4-6 The decree to rebuild and restore the city came on March 14, 445 B.C. Historians say that it took about 49 years to clear the city streets and rebuild the walls and buildings of the city of Jerusalem to make it a thriving city once again. To continue in Daniel…

It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two 'sevens’, the Anointed One will be cut off (the Messiah will be killed) and will have nothing.

The next verse states that the Messiah will be killed after 483 years (49 years + 62 x 7 = 483 years) have passed from the order to rebuild Jerusalem. When doing the calculation using 360 days for one prophetic year, the year that is predicted as the year for the Messiah being cut off is approximately A.D. 32. (Actually, the exact date is April 6, A.D. 32, very likely the Sunday Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey). Certainly, this date is amazingly consistent with the date we know Jesus was crucified. No one knows exactly when Jesus died. Most believe that it was somewhere between A.D. 30-33. What we can say for sure is that this predicted date is extremely close to the actual known date for Christ, the Messiah, being “cut off”. Certainly, this shows that this prophecy is quite impressive to say the least!

The people of the prince (the Romans) who is to come will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the Temple). Daniel 9:26 After Jesus was crucified, this prophecy notes that the Romans will come and destroy Jerusalem and the Temple of God. This actually took place in A.D. 70. As with so many prophetic passages, the next verses seem to relate to the future end-times. They tell us what will be happening during the last week of years (i.e. the last 7 years) of the 70-year prophecy…

The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He (the Anti-Christ) will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven’ (this is the last “week” of years… the 7-year Tribulation). In the middle of the 'seven' (3 ½ years into the 7year Tribulation) he (Anti-Christ) will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing [of the

300

temple] he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him" (the Anti-Christ will desecrate the Temple). Dan 9:20-27 Most prophecy scholars believe that there is a long pause, that is a “skip period”, from the death of Jesus until the beginning of the last seven-year period (the last “week’ of years). This skip period of time would correspond to the Church Age or Age of Grace. This does make sense in that all of these “weeks of years” relate to the dealings of God with His “chosen people”, Israel. Up until the death of Jesus, God was mainly dealing with the Jews. However, since the beginning of His Church, God has primarily turned His attention to the Church. After the Rapture, God will once again turn His full attention back to Israel and, most believe, the “time clock” of this prophecy will again begin for the final seven-year period to run its course… the time of the Tribulation. The Rapture of the Church just precedes this period; the coming of Christ with His saints to defeat the Antichrist and Satan at Armageddon will conclude it.

For added confirmation of the fact that the Old Testament scriptures tell us that Jesus will be crucified prior to the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, let us take a look at this prophecy from Genesis: The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh come. Gen 49:10 First of all, Shiloh has always been taken as a reference to the Messiah by both Jewish and Christian commentators. Therefore, this verse is saying that the tribe of Judah would not lose its tribal identity until after the Messiah came. It is true that Judah and the other twelve tribes did lose their sovereignty when captured by Babylon in 606 B.C. However, all twelve tribes did keep their tribal identity during the entire period of their captivity. While in Babylon, the Jews still had their own lawgivers and judges.

The scepter only began to depart from Judah during the days of Herod the Great. He succeeded the Maccabean princes, who were from the tribe of Levi. They were the last of the Jews to reign in Jerusalem. Herod came in to power and restricted the powers of the Jews. The Sanhedrin were no longer able to pass the death sentence. This was a big deal to them. When the Romans passed the laws limiting the powers of the Jewish courts, the Sanhedrin were extremely upset. They actually covered themselves with ashes and sackcloth and shouted, “Woe unto us, for the scepter has departed from Judah, and the Messiah has not come!” (Jesus Before the Sanhedrin, pp. 28-30, 1886) What the Sanhedrin had failed to realize is that the Messiah had indeed come, exactly as God had prophesied in Genesis. They, unfortunately, had just failed to recognize Him… He was, of course, Jesus of Nazareth.

Forty years after the resurrection of Jesus, the Temple was demolished completely and Jerusalem was demolished as well. All of the prophecies requiring the coming of the Messiah to the Temple while it is still standing (ex. Mal. 3:1, Psalm 118:26, Daniel 9:26 above, Haggai 2:79, Zech. 11:13) had to have been fulfilled before that date. It was very puzzling to the Sanhedrin who did not recognize that the Messiah had already come when the Temple was obliterated in A.D. 70. Of course, if they only realized who Jesus was, they would have understood completely. Jesus is the only individual in history that fits the prophetic identity of the Messiah.

Paul spent most of his life preaching about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God. Many accepted Him as Savior and Lord. Unfortunately, Jesus was a stumbling block for many Jews.

301

Chapter 27:

Old Testament “Types” of Jesus:

One other very interesting evidence for the veracity of the Bible is God’s use of “types” in His Scriptures. “Types” can be defined in the following manner: a “type” is a man, institution, or event in Old Testament scriptures that, due to God’s providence, prefigure a future aspect of a corresponding man, institution, or event in the New Testament… typically in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, who would then be referred to as the “antitype.”

There are an amazing array of Old Testament people and events that mimic certain important events in the life of Christ… so many and so closely that it is very hard to believe that they are just coincidences. There are literally hundreds of types that have been described in various books by a multitude of authors. It is my goal here to choose just a handful of good examples of types in order to demonstrate their use by God to show mankind, in an intriguing manner, that His Word is true. In a real sense, the typology that is seen in the Holy Scriptures is another form of prophecy… just presented in a very unique way. Now, let us take a look at several interesting types below beginning with a great Old Testament prophet of God… Joseph: Probably the one individual in the Old Testament that prefigures Christ in more ways than any other person is Joseph. There are books that point out scores of similarities between Jesus and Joseph. I will certainly not point out that many common aspects in their life and person, but the list that follows will clearly show how God used this great patriarch as a type of His Son, Jesus.

1. Both Joseph and Jesus were their father’s beloved son.

Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons Gen 37:3 "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matt 3:17 2. Both Joseph and Jesus were sent by their father to serve their Hebrew brothers.

"Go and see if all is well with your brothers and with the flocks, and bring word back to me." Then he sent him off from the Valley of Hebron. Gen 37:14 "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Matt 15:24 3. Both Joseph and Jesus were shepherds.

Joseph, a young man of seventeen, was tending the flocks with his brothers Gen 37:2 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

John 10:11 4. Joseph and Jesus, both excellent young men, were handed over to be killed. they saw him in the distance, and before he reached them, they plotted to kill him.

Gen 37:18 all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death.

Matt 27:1 5. Both Jesus and Joseph were betrayed for money as well as jealousy.

Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?" His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.

Gen 37:10-11

302

his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver to the Ishmaelites, Gen 37:28 Judah hatched this plan. they counted out for him thirty silver coins. Matt 26:15 by Judas (Judah in Hebrew) For he knew it was out of envy that they had handed Jesus over to him. Matt 27:18 6. Joseph and Jesus were both stripped of their robes.

So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe--the richly ornamented robe he was wearing-- Gen 37:23 they took off the robe (a scarlet robe) and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him. Matt 27:31 7. Both Joseph and Jesus were prophets.

God has shown Pharaoh what he is about to do. Seven years of great abundance are coming throughout the land of Egypt, but seven years of famine will follow them. Then all the abundance in Egypt will be forgotten, and the famine will ravage the land.

Gen 41:28-30 There are many other examples of prophetic utterances by Joseph and dozens by our Lord Jesus (e.g. Matthew 24).

8. Joseph and Jesus both had dealings with two fellow prisoners. In each case, one of these prisoners ended up dying, while the other was saved.

Within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your position.

(Cupbearer) Gen 40:13 Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree. (Chief Baker) Gen 40:19 Two criminals were crucified on either side of Jesus. Only one asked for help.

Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. " Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." Luke 23:42-43 The other criminal mocked Jesus and did not ask, or receive, forgiveness. He now resides in Hades.

9. Both Joseph and Jesus resisted great temptation.

And though she spoke to Joseph day after day, he refused to go to bed with her or even be with her. (Potiphar’s wife) Gen 39:10 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. Matt 4:1-2 Jesus was taken to various places by Satan himself and tempted three times. Jesus resisted by using God’s Word as a weapon over Satan.

10. Both Joseph and Jesus were falsely accused as noted in the verses below.

That Hebrew slave you brought us came to me to make sport of me. But as soon as I screamed for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house." Gen 39:17-18 Actually, Joseph ran out of the house to avoid confrontation with Potiphar’s wife.

And they began to accuse Him, saying, "We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar Luke 23:2 many bore false witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree. 57 Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying… Mark 14:56-57 11. Both Joseph and Jesus were put in charge of the “kingdom”.

Joseph found favor in his eyes and became his attendant. Potiphar put him in charge of his household, and he entrusted to his care everything he owned. Gen 39:4 303

You shall be over my house and all my people will be ruled according to your word…

So Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt."

Gen 41:40,41 The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in his hands. John 3:35 He [Jesus] will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. 1 Tim 6:15-16 Jesus Christ, …. has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. 1 Peter 3:21-22 12. Joseph and Jesus were sent by God to save their people.

God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. Gen 45:7 Joseph said these words to his brothers.

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners 1 Tim 1:15 13. Joseph and Jesus were about 30 years old when they began their service.

Joseph was thirty years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Gen 41:46 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. Luke 3:23 As there were very many aspects of the life of Joseph that typified the life of the Messiah, there were certain facets of his life that are yet to be seen in the life of Jesus. These will be seen in the future.

14. For example, Joseph was not recognized by his brothers when they first came to Egypt.

However, they finally did recognize him on a subsequent visit.

On their second visit, Joseph told his brothers who he was… Acts 7:13 Jesus was not recognized as the true Messiah by the vast majority of people at His First Advent. There is no doubt that He will be recognized to be the Messiah on His return to earth, as well as God the Son. 15. The brothers of Joseph eventually bowed down to him many years after they first rejected him by selling him into slavery.

When Joseph came home, they presented to him the gifts they had brought into the house, and they bowed down before him to the ground. Gen 43:26 Jesus was rejected by His brothers as well; many were directly involved in the trial that led to His crucifixion. Yet, one day, every knee shall bow to Jesus.

'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me.’ Romans 14:11 There are literally dozens of additional similarities that can be listed and discussed in regards to Jesus and Joseph. In fact, one author went so far as to list one hundred of them! I think that is stretching the typology somewhat, but there is little doubt that God presented his prophet Joseph as a type of His coming Son, Jesus. Certainly Joseph had many important things to accomplish during his lifetime… providentially, Joseph was an excellent type of the Messiah that was to come.

304

In the New Testament, Paul alludes to the concept of types that are seen in the Feasts of Israel when he writes in Colossians…

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. Col 2:16-17 These feasts constitute another excellent example of types of Jesus. Let us take a look at some of the specifics found in the first four of these feasts which are celebrated annually by the Jews…

The First Passover: The First Passover provides an excellent foreshadowing of the future sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross. In the days of Israeli captivity in Egypt, Moses had already placed nine different plagues on the Egyptians in an effort to make the Pharaoh release the Israelites from their bondage. Each time the Pharaoh refused. Finally, God told Moses to present an extremely powerful ultimatum to the Egyptian Pharaoh. He was to release the hostage Israelites or God would send the most devastating plague of all… the firstborn son of each household would die!

"This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. Ex 11:4-5 After Moses delivered this ultimatum, he gave the Israelites specific instructions detailing how to avoid this deathly curse. He spoke of a lamb, without spot or blemish that must be sacrificed in a specific manner: It had to be chosen, killed, prepared and eaten. All of several specific details needed to be followed. The shed blood of the lamb had to be placed above the doorframe (the lintel) and on each side of the frame. The lamb must not have any bones broken.

This all had to be done on specific days.

"This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year.

Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household.

The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Ex 12:2-3,5 It is no coincidence that Jesus presented Himself, the Lamb of God, on Palm Sunday.

Jesus entered Jerusalem and went to the Temple, which was the house of God, and went on “public display” there for four days, from Nisan 10 to Nisan 14. This period of time that Jesus awaited His capture and eventual crucifixion - from Palm Sunday until the Passover - was equivalent to the time that the lamb was kept by families until it was eventually sacrificed in Old Testament times (as noted in the verses below). By keeping the lamb for four days until it was killed, the families would better understand the import of their sacrifice. Many would become somewhat attached to the lamb during those four days, especially the children. Therefore, the 305

sacrifice took on greater significance. These sacrifices were to remind the people of the cost of their sin in their lives.

By the first century A.D., over 250,000 lambs were sacrificed every Passover day! The amount of blood that was spilled for the sins of the people every Passover day was incredible.

Hopefully, the lessons of that day would be learned. Sin could not go unpunished. During one Passover week almost two thousand years ago, the sins of the people would cost God the life of His only Son â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Jesus would shed His precious blood for us.

Then as Passover approached, all of the people were given further instructionsâ&#x20AC;Ś Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs Ex 12:6-7 "It must be eaten inside one house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones.

Ex 12:46 This first Passover and subsequent Passovers were to occur on the 14th day of the Hebrew month, Nissan (sometime in March or April on our calendar). In fact, this was to be such an incredibly important event that the entire calendar of the Jews was to change at this time. The time of Passover was to be called the first month of the Jewish year.

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. Ex 12:1-2 The LORD's Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. Lev 23:5 Twilight was equivalent to 3:00 P.M. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah." Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink. The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him." And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Matt 27:46-50 The ninth hour noted in the verses above was also 3:00 P.M. Again, not coincidentally, the time that Jesus gave up His spirit and died on the cross was the time that the lamb was sacrificed on that first Passover. Josephus wrote that the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed sometime between 3:00 and 5:00 P.M. Jesus, as is clearly seen again, is the anti-type of the lamb. The shed blood of that first Passover lamb was used by those Israelis with faith to save their firstborn sons. Jesus gave His life and shed His blood for all mankind. In an analogous manner, any and every man or woman may save themselves simply by trusting in His shed blood on the cross.

The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt. Ex 12:13 306

Jesus is the fulfillment of this First Passover type as can easily be seen…

Jesus was called the Lamb of God as He began His ministry.

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! John 1:29 Paul also pointed out that Jesus is our Passover Lamb. Jesus was sacrificed to save us from our sins. God would “pass over” all who placed themselves “under” the blood of Jesus.

On one very special Passover, God would allow His only begotten Son to be crucified for the sins of mankind. The blood of Jesus would be shed to save those who would only accept this free gift.

Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 1 Cor 5:7 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 1 Peter 1:18-19 Interestingly, on that first Passover, only those people who were willing by faith to apply the blood of the lamb were saved. It took an act of faith and obedience for the Israeli people to apply the blood over their lintel and on their doorposts. Without this action, salvation would not have been obtained. That need for trust and faith is still required today. Salvation is potentially for everyone… yet only those who will “apply” the blood of Jesus, through faith, to their lives will gain entry into heaven. We must ask Jesus to save us and trust that He will.

As an intriguing point of interest, it may also be significant that the blood on that first Passover was applied above the doorframe and on each side doorpost. Note the picture that this “paints” – that of the cross!

Let us return for moment to the topic relating to the selection and the sacrifice of the lamb during Passover week. There are some scholars, such as John MacArthur, who believe that Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem on Monday instead of the traditional date of Palm Sunday.

Since it is the consensus that Jesus died on the cross on a Friday (14th of Nissan), Monday would fall on the 10th of Nissan in A.D. 33. That would seem to be a perfect fit in regards to Jesus being the antitype for the Passover lamb. Monday was the day that people in Jerusalem would have selected their sacrificial lamb. As previously noted, they would keep the lamb for the next four days to become somewhat attached to it so that when it was sacrificed the loss would be more significant to them. Of course, not every event in the life of Jesus has to exactly duplicate every aspect of a particular Old Testament type… which is in this case, the Passover Week.

Therefore, Jesus may very well have entered into Jerusalem on the traditional Palm Sunday.

There is one more intriguing aspect in the typology of the Passover Lamb. This relates to the actual celebration day of the Passover itself. Jesus and His disciples celebrated this supper on Thursday evening. On the other hand, many other Jews celebrated this important feast the next day, Friday. Why the difference? John MacArthur, noted that Galileans and Pharisees calculated the day of Passover to extend from Thursday morning to Friday morning. The Jews living in and around Jerusalem (the Judeans) as well as the Sadducees celebrated it from 307

sundown Thursday to sundown Friday. In both cases, the people had to have consumed the lamb by midnight by Jewish law – midnight Thursday for Jesus and His disciples, midnight Friday for the Judeans. Taking this information into consideration, things really become very interesting.

Because Jesus and His friends continued with their traditional date for the Passover Feast, Jesus was still alive and able to bring to His followers the important lessons gained that Thursday night during what is now known as the Lord’s Supper. Yet, Jesus still fulfilled His role as the Passover Lamb on the actual Passover Day as well! Friday, as we have just noted, was considered to be Passover Day by all of the Judean Jews, the Sadducees and many others. So while tens of thousands of lambs were bleeding and dying in the Temple that Friday afternoon, the real Lamb of God was shedding His blood for the whole world up on the cross at Calvary.

This situation is just one more example, albeit an outstanding one, of God using His providential care to accomplish His desired result on this earth. In this case, He was providing His Son to be the perfect, one and only, anti-type of the Passover lamb. Jesus was able to save those who would trust in Him because of “the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect”.

1 Peter 1:19 .This difference in Passover time for Judeans vs. Galileans also allowed for Jesus to transform the Passover into the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus was able to do this and still shed His blood on the cross the following day. This is a superb example of God’s providential workings in His Universe. Before moving on to the next example of types in the Old Testament, a final comparison of the sacrificial lambs of God to the true Lamb of God is in order. Note the following chart:

The lamb

Jesus

Without spot or blemish

Without Sin

The lamb was “tested”

Tested in all things

The lamb was sacrificed

Jesus died for our sins

Blood was shed

Jesus shed His blood

Blood must be applied

A person must believe

Must be eaten

The Lord’s Supper

Hove no bones broken

Jesus - no broken bones

One Year old

Jesus - young and pure

308

The Feasts of Israel: There are seven major feasts of Israel. The first four of these feasts that are celebrated on the Jewish calendar year are known for certainty to be types of extremely important events in the life of Jesus. There is excellent evidence to conclude that each of these feasts has had their fulfillment in certain events in Jesus’ life (or death). Let me just point out a couple of things.

Recall what the Passover was all about. Those people who “covered” themselves with the blood of a lamb, would not perish, but live. Recall that Jesus was celebrating Passover the night before His death on the cross… where He shed His blood so that those who were “under His blood” would never perish. Secondly, Jesus was sinless. Unleavened bread was a symbol for the lack of sin. The sinless Jesus was in the grave like a kernel of wheat during the first days of this feast.

He was waiting to burst forth on the Feast of First Fruits, i.e. Easter Sunday. Jesus was resurrected on this day as the “firstfruits” of the righteous… those that would put on the “Righteousness of Christ”. This concept continued as the giving of the gift of the Holy Spirit coincided with Pentecost. Now let us take a closer look at these interesting Old Testament types that are seen so clearly in the many feasts of the Jewish people.

• Passover: (observed on the 14th day of Nissan) We have just discussed the Passover Feast. Passover celebrates the night when God “passed over” those homes where the “blood of a spotless lamb” had been applied to the lintel and doorposts in the manner directed by God. Almost 1500 years after that first Passover, Jesus sat with His disciples to partake in another very important Passover Feast. Our Lord used this occasion to institute a poignant Christian ordinance, the Lord’s Supper. Jesus became the ultimate fulfillment of this sacrificial event as He became the Lamb of God. He shed His blood on the cross to save any person who would only place their faith in Him. It is definitely true that Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples on the night before His crucifixion. In fact, Jesus went into significant detail in that particular Passover to teach about the import of the next day’s events. He spoke of how He would sacrifice His body and shed His blood as the only effective and final sacrifice to save every person from their sins… if only they would accept His free gift of salvation by faith.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:26-28 It is also true that Jesus actually was nailed to a cross on Friday and died approximately six hours later at 3:00 P.M. – also on Passover. Jesus was our Passover Lamb. How could He celebrate the Passover (and institute the important ordinance of the Lord’s Supper) with His disciples and still be the Passover Lamb as well?

As was pointed out above, it turns out, in the times of Jesus at least, there were two different time periods during which Passover was observed. Remember, one group of Jews, including the Pharisees and the Jews from Galilee, observed Passover day from sunup on the 14th of Nissan to sunup on the 15th of Nissan. The Judeans and the Sadducees observed that day from sundown on the 14th to sundown on the 15th. This is 309

confirmed in the Jewish Mishna (codification of Jewish Law). This fact allowed for Jesus to observe Passover and be nailed to the cross as the Passover Lamb just twelve hours later! This is just one of an infinite number of examples of the providential care of God in this world He created and sustains.

•

Feast of Unleavened Bread: (begins on the 15th day of Nissan and runs for seven days) During this time, Israel was to eat unleavened bread. This was done in remembrance of the time, during their exodus from Egypt, when they quickly baked bread without leaven in their haste to leave that sinful nation and their state of slavery.

As we know, God often uses leaven is a symbol for sin. By eating only unleavened bread over the period of seven days, Israel would be given the opportunity to concentrate on their need to keep sin out of their lives.

Then Moses said to the people, "Commemorate this day, the day you came out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery, because the LORD brought you out of it with a mighty hand.

Eat nothing containing yeast. Ex 13:3 Jesus often identified Himself as the Bread from heaven. In a sense, He was the Unleavened (Sinless) Bread from heaven.

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." John 6:51 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are.

For Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Cor 5:7-8 So, the Bread from heaven was sacrificed for the world. Jesus, of course, was without sin. During the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Israel was asked to remember their exodus from sinful Egypt. They had gained their freedom from bondage. Egyptian bondage symbolized mankind’s bondage to sin. On the first day of Unleavened Bread, Jesus was buried. He noted how this was necessary. Although He would be buried, He would soon have victory over sin and death. He had sacrificed Himself for the sins of mankind, paid the penalty required for these sins… and next He would rise from the dead to show His victory over sin and death.

It is interesting that the piece of unleavened bread used by Jewish families during the week of Unleavened Bread really is a symbol of Jesus. Matzoh is striped, as was Jesus when He went to the cross. It is also “pure” (without leaven) as Jesus is without sin.

There is a ceremony wherein the middle of three Matzoh pieces (i.e. Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is broken in half and then hidden (buried) somewhere in the household. The children of the family are given the opportunity to find it. This piece is eventually found and “raised” from its “burial” place. Although this is a ceremony taking place typically in Jewish homes, it surely seems to represent what Jesus did for His children. In any case, Jesus noted how His death and burial is necessary to yield a great harvest of souls…

310

•

Feast of Firstfruits: (observed on the 17th day of Nissan) This festival is held on the Sunday following the beginning of Unleavened Bread.

It celebrates the fertility of the land that God had given to the Israelites. The priest was to wave a sheaf of the first grain of the spring harvest…

'When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. He is to wave the sheaf before the LORD so it will be accepted on your behalf; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath (i.e. Sunday). Lev 23:10-11 Of course, this day was the day that Jesus rose from the dead… Easter Sunday.

Jesus was the firstfruits of God’s resurrection from the dead. Obviously, Jesus was the ultimate “firstfruit” of the righteous… those that would put on the “Righteousness of Christ”. Just as many other sheaves would follow that first sheaf that the priest waved before God, Jesus was only the first to be raised from the dead and enter heaven. Anyone who will put their trust in Him, will follow Jesus into heaven one day…

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 1 Cor 15:22-23 Jesus pointed out the reasons behind His death and subsequent resurrection when He stated…

"The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. John 12:23-24

•

Feast of Pentecost, also known as the Feast of Harvest (Shavuot): (observed on the 50th day after the Feast of Firstfruits – the 6th day of Sivan) This feast marked the second harvest of the year… the summer harvest. Two very important gifts were given to mankind on the day of Pentecost. First, it should be noted that the Law of Moses was given on Pentecost. This Law was the basis for how the Jews were to live their lives all the way up until the sacrificial death of Jesus.

Unfortunately, it became all too apparent that no one could keep the Law… therefore, no one could be justified by the Law. Then, God changed the method of how believers were to live. They were now expected to live through the power of the Holy Spirit. This great Law sent down to Moses on Mount Sinai had fulfilled its purpose. Everyone now should understand that only through the grace of God could anyone ever be saved. Paul spoke on this subject in much detail in his epistles to the Galatians and Romans. He made it abundantly clear that those who turn to Christ must live by faith (with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit), not by the Law… by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Romans 7:6 through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.

Romans 8:2-3 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." Gal 3:11 311

the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Gal 3:24-25 if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. Gal 5:18 People have always been saved through faith. This is the clear teaching of the Holy Bible. However, since the time of Jesus, this faith must now be placed in the Lord’s finished work on the cross. God gave man a New Covenant through Jesus. God sealed this New Covenant with a wonderful gift… the “Comforter”. The coming of the Holy Spirit into the lives of believers came on the day of Pentecost, just 50 days after Jesus rose from His grave. Just before Jesus left to rejoin His Father in heaven, He told the apostles of the soon coming gift of His Spirit…

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. Acts 1:8-9 Almost immediately after the Holy Spirit came upon Peter, he began to preach to the people there in Jerusalem. The Bible says that on that very first day… the day of Pentecost, 3,000 people came to a saving relationship with Jesus. This very large harvest of souls was certainly a great beginning for the Church! The indwelling power of the Holy Spirit, just sent by Jesus, was behind this extremely auspicious beginning.

Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Acts 2:2-4 In summary, it is not a coincidence that both the Law of Moses and the Holy Spirit were given to mankind on the same day called Pentecost. The first revealed God’s plan for His people for those Old Testament times… they would live under the Old Covenant.

God’s greater gift, the gift of Himself (the Holy Spirit) living within His people, revealed the New Covenant relationship that would exist after His Son’s wonderful gift to all men and women that He gave on the cross. In the earlier case, there was a mystical union of God – the Law – Israel. In the latter case, there was a mystical union of God – the Holy Spirit – the Church. Both came with great fanfare and power on the day of Pentecost!

The Law was given to help guide, teach and lead God’s people… to teach them the truth and to convict them of sin. The Holy Spirit is also now given as an even better Leader of Christian lives… if only the Christian will turn their lives over to the promptings of the Spirit of God. God had always had this intention, even in Old Testament times as noted

by His words…

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” (Jer 31:33) Since that first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus, Christians have had the Law written “on their hearts”.

There are three other major feasts that are celebrated yearly by the Jews. So far, there are no apparent events that relate to Jesus that one could say serve as their anti-type.

312

It is interesting to contemplate whether or not one day Jesus will fulfill any or all of the three. History certainly suggests that He will. These feasts are: • The Feast of Trumpets • The Day of Atonement • The Feast of Tabernacles There are many who enjoy this subject matter that like to contemplate just what event in the future may correspond to each of these festivals. I will not pursue that issue in this treatise.

The Relationship of Abraham and Isaac: A third type of Jesus found in the Old Testament is seen in the relationship between the patriarchs Abraham and his only son by Sarah, Isaac. The Lord God promised Abraham that he would one day become the father of a nation of people too numerous to count. "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.”

Gen 12:2 Many years passed and Abraham remained childless. He became restless to the point that he thought that God might be planning on allowing a servant from his household to be the heir of promise. God said this was not His plan. the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Gen 15:4-5 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." Gen 17:7-8 A child finally came to Abram via his wife’s Egyptian maidservant, Hagar. His name was Ishmael. God again told Abram that this was not the child of promise either. A son would result from the union of Abraham with his wife Sarah, regardless of their old age. Finally, in God’s time, Sarah bore Abraham a son… they named him Isaac.

Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

Gen 17:19 It is important to understand just how long this elderly couple waited upon God to provide them with this very special son. Isaac was the son of promise. The great nation of Israel would come from his union with his future wife, Rebekah. However, an amazing test of Abraham’s faith would come while Isaac was still a young man.

313

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Gen 22:1-2 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. Gen 22:6 Isaac asked his father where the sacrificial lamb was…

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son."

Gen 22:8 Abraham tied his son to the altar they had built. Just before Abraham was going to sacrifice his son, God intervened and provided a substitution for a sacrifice.

On the chart below, many of the similarities between Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac and God’s sacrifice of His Son Christ are listed…

Isaac was the only son (of promise) of Abraham (i.e. his only son through Sarah) He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son. Heb 11:17

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 Isaac was the son of promise Jesus is the Son of promise.

Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will The promises were spoken to Abraham and to bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to will establish my covenant with him as an seeds," meaning many people, but "and to everlasting covenant for his descendants after your seed," meaning one person, who is him Gen 17:19 Christ.

Gal 3:16 Jesus was crucified on Calvary… which is on Mt. Moriah and he rose on the 3rd day.

Then Solomon began to build the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah 2 Chron 3:1 The Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12:40 Isaac was the willing sacrificial lamb awaiting Jesus was willing sacrificial Lamb of God death without fight or argument. went to the cross to die for the sins of man.

For three days, Abraham assumed his son would die on an altar as he travelled to Mt. Moriah.

On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place (Mt. Moriah) in the distance.

Gen 22:4

Isaac carried the wood on his back to his place of sacrifice.

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. Gen 22:6 God provided the sacrifice for Abraham.

Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over

Jesus carried the wooden cross on His back.

Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). John 19:17 God provided the sacrifice for the world – His Son, Jesus. In both cases we see that God

314

and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. Gen 22:13

provides the sacrifice. God’s grace is the only method through which man can be saved.

Abraham did not withhold his son, the son that he loved. He was willing to sacrifice Isaac as God had requested.

God the Father did not withhold His Son. He was willing to sacrifice Jesus. He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all. Romans 8:32 Because Abraham was willing to offer up Because God allowed for the sacrifice of His Isaac as a sacrifice to God, his descendants Son, the entire earth will be blessed. would be blessed. "I swear by myself, Because you were slain, and with your blood declares the LORD, that because you have you purchased men for God from every tribe done this and have not withheld your son, and language and people and nation. 10 You your only son, I will surely bless you and have made them to be a kingdom and priests make your descendants as numerous as the stars to serve our God, and they will reign on the in the sky and as the sand on the seashore…….. earth." Rev 5:9-10 through your offspring all nations on earth will be

blessed, because you have obeyed me."

Gen 22:16-18

Manna: God first provided bread for the Israelites soon after they were led out of Egypt. They were hungry and needed sustenance. God provided. There was a lesson in this gift as well…

He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. Deut 8:3 Jesus frequently referred to Himself as the bread of life. He had very important lessons to teach on this subject as noted below. Manna from heaven was an Old Testament type that pointed to the day when mankind would get the required “bread” from heaven… Jesus. This would be the “bread” that would be able to give eternal life!

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. John 6:32-35 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." John 6:57-58 Jesus asks His followers to celebrate and remember Him by observing the Lord’s Supper: And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." Luke 22:19 315

Jonah: The incident where Jonah is swallowed up by a great fish and spends three days in its belly, is a type of Christ that even Jesus, Himself, references.

Jonah is thrown into the Mediterranean Sea, on his own orders, in an attempt to pacify God. God had sent a great storm into the sea because Jonah was running away from his obligation to God. After it became obvious to Jonah that God would not calm the sea while he remained on the ship, he told the sailors to throw him overboard. They were very reticent, but finally did do it…

Then they cried to the LORD, "O LORD, please do not let us die for taking this man's life. Do not hold us accountable for killing an innocent man, for you, O LORD, have done as you pleased."

Jonah 1:14 Interestingly, they tried to “wash their hands” of this murderous deed. Many centuries later, Pontious Pilate attempted to “wash his hands” after sending Christ to His death.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," Matt 27:24 Jonah was promptly swallowed up by a great fish… the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights. Jonah 1:17 You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me. I said, 'I have been banished from your sight; Jonah 2:3-4 Jonah spent three days inside this potential grave. At times, he felt completely abandoned by God. Jesus spent three days within the earth. His death was preceded by the terrible ordeal of actually having God “turn His back” on His only Son while Jesus hung on the cross.

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt 27:46 Then, just as Jonah was brought out of his “tomb”, God raised Jesus from His tomb.

But you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD my God. Jonah 2:6 And the LORD commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land. Jonah 2:10 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12:40 Angels reminded the terrified woman, who did not find Jesus in the tomb on that third day, of the words Jesus had told them earlier…

'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'" Luke 24:7

316

Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day. 1 Cor 15:3 So, as can be seen, the story of Jonah in the fish is another of the many types that God used in the Old Testament to give evidence of His providential care in our Universe. God knows the end from the beginning. Obviously, when God provided the fish to swallow up Jonah, He was well aware that He would use this three day stay within the fish to serve as a type of His Son’s experience as He gave His life for all mankind’s sins – over 700 years later.

The Mercy Seat: The mercy seat was the cover that sat on top of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies portion of the Temple. It was the resting place for God’s presence. The Ark of the Covenant with the mercy seat was considered to be the throne of God on Earth. It lay between two cherubim.

The LORD reigns, let the nations tremble; he sits enthroned between the cherubim.

Psalms 99:1

In Old Testament times, on the Day of Atonement, the Holy of Holies was filled with a cloud of incense. The High Priest would then slaughter a bull and carry some of its blood onto the mercy seat. In a specified fashion, he would sprinkle the blood in order to atone for his own sins and the sins of the people of Israel. God was above the mercy seat. The Law which man had been unable to keep lay beneath. The sprinkled blood temporarily covered the sins of man.

However, his sins were still not ultimately forgiven. Entrance into heaven would have to wait until the penalty for all of man’s sins was paid.

The Greek word used for mercy seat is hilasterion. This word can be translated as mercy seat or propitiation. It is used often in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. This same word is used twice in the New Testament – it is used in Hebrews 9:5 (where it is used for the actual mercy seat) and Romans 3:25. In Romans, it is used to show that Jesus has become our Mercy Seat (i.e. propitiation)…

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Romans 3:22-25

Hundreds of years after the original mercy seat was placed in the Temple, God sent His only begotten Son into the world to be the actual, total, and final sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Only Jesus was able to live a perfect life on this earth. Only Jesus could satisfy the demands of the Law. Only Jesus was qualified to be the total propitiation for the sins of mankind. The sacrificial death of Jesus, through His shedding of blood, obtained forgiveness for those sinners who would place their faith and trust in Him. God’s divine justice had been satisfied. Jesus’ atoning blood does not require repeat administration upon an altar each year to

317

satisfy the demands of God’s justice. He shed His blood once and for all. His sacrifice will be effective for all time and for all who put their faith in Him. The mercy seat was a shadow (or type) of what was to follow… that is salvation through Jesus. The blood of a lamb that was sprinkled on the mercy seat which sat on top of the Ark was a forerunner of the final, perfect blood of the Lamb that would be sacrificed for all people on the cross. The sins of man had earned him death as penalty. Only Jesus could stand in mankind’s place; only He could substitute for sinful man. Fortunately, he was willing to pay the enormous cost for our salvation. He suffered and died for our sins. He shed His precious blood for our sins. Jesus became our Mercy Seat… He now stands between us and God as our defense attorney. He is the propitiation for our sins. When God looks at the believer in Christ, His Son, He sees that person as if He were looking at Jesus, Himself. Through faith in Jesus, we have the righteousness of Jesus attributed to us by God. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last. Romans 1:17 The Brazen Serpent: At one point while Moses was leading the Israelites through their forty year desert sojourn, because of their sin God sent a plague of fiery serpents among the people.

And the people spoke against God and against Moses: "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread." 6 So the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and many of the people of Israel died. Num 21:5-6 These serpents, and the pain and death that they caused, were symbolic of how sin and Satan cause pain and death in the life of all mankind. It is common knowledge that God chose the serpent to symbolize Satan in the Garden of Eden. How could a person during those days there in the wilderness, surrounded by killer serpents, be saved? How can a person in the wilderness of life here on earth today save themselves from their sins. God used one of His many typological examples to show His people what they must do to be saved. First of all, the people professed sorrow and repented of their sins. Then Moses prayed to God for forgiveness and for salvation from the death caused by the serpents.

The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people. Num 21:7 God, in His grace, provided a way of salvation for the people of Israel. Please note that there was nothing that the people could do in the wilderness to save themselves. They were surrounded by the serpents, and they had no answer. The mechanism that God chose to offer them salvation seemed odd to many, if not all, of the people. God called for them to trust Him and look upon a bronze serpent that Moses had lifted up onto a pole. Bronze was a symbol of judgment. The serpent was a symbol for sin. Sin would have to be judged by a righteous God… at some point. The penalty for all the sins of the people would have to be paid… at some point.

318

Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived.

Num 21:8-9 The serpent on the bronze pole was lifted up by Moses and everyone in the camp was given the opportunity to gaze upon it. Certainly no one was coerced to do so. In fact, some did not look as they thought it a foolish idea. There were assuredly many reasons people chose not to look to the uplifted pole. However, many did choose to trust in God and by faith looked upon the fiery serpent upon the pole. Those that did this were immediately saved. After that gaze upon the uplifted pole, the snakes had no power over them.

Approximately fifteen hundred years later, Jesus provided the anti-type for this image of the brazen serpent upon the pole. Jesus explained it best…

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:14 ` All those that will look to Jesus in faith will not perish, but will have everlasting life.

They will have victory over the “serpents” in their lives… they will have victory over sin. This will come by faith in Jesus, not by works of any kind.

Those Israelites in the desert could not save themselves from the serpents. However, they were certainly not forced to look upon the brazen serpent. The choice was theirs. The same situation exists today. People cannot save themselves. Hopefully, they will use their free choice and look to Jesus for salvation. Whether in the desert or in the present day, looking up to the Savior on the pole (cross) is the only way to life.

Already, many examples of types have been given. Frankly, there are scores more that could be discussed, but I believe that the point has been made. That is, God has effectively used another interesting method to demonstrate the veracity of His Word. For those who want to pursue this topic further, the following is a list of just a few other Old Testament types of Jesus and His works: • The sacrificial lamb • Moses • Adam • Melchizedek • Egypt • The Temple • Kinsman Redeemer • Water flowing from the rock

319

Chapter 28:

The Resurrection

I want to briefly discuss the foundational issue of Christianity… the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this actually happened, Christianity is true… if it did not happen, it is not true. It is as simple as that. Jesus came to earth to show us God, to teach us how to live, to be able to empathize with our problems, fears and pain… but, ultimately to give His life for us as a spotless, sinless Sacrificial Lamb. Without this sacrifice, without His shedding of blood, we would not have the remission of our sins. The Bible says, that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. (Hebrews 9:22) You will remember that at the final moments of Christ on the cross, a Roman soldier pierced him with a sword and blood and water ran out of Jesus’ side… He shed His blood for you and me.

But then what happened. This is an interesting story. Most scholars believe that Jesus went to Hades and Paradise during the days after He died on the cross and gathered up the Old Testament saints who were in Paradise (also known as Abraham’s bosom), and took them to heaven when He went there. On the third day, He arose and began His life in His glorified body… He made many appearances to his apostles and friends and other people (numbering in the hundreds)! Approximately forty days after His resurrection, He went up into the clouds as He went into heaven where He now sits at the right hand of God the Father, interceding for us while He prepares a place for all those who love Him. There are many reasons we should believe that Jesus did actually rise from the dead as the Bible says. For one thing, it would make no sense at all for the Bible to be so phenomenally correct in all the other ways we just covered and then totally break down in the most important part of the entire Book. Be that as it may, there is another powerful piece of evidence that the resurrection of Jesus actually took place… just the way the Bible says it did.

The Changed Lives of the Apostles: The response of the apostles after the death of Jesus is certainly one of main reasons, if not the major reason, why I believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that the Holy Bible is true. When a person takes the time to seriously consider the markedly changed lives of these eleven men (Judas had committed suicide) after the crucifixion, I believe that most people will realize an increased faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Therefore, let us now review what must have happened during those incredibly important years leading up to the trial of Christ, followed by His death, and then His glorious resurrection. As we see how the closest friends of Jesus reacted to His life and death, information can be gleaned (using simple human logic) that will lead to some obvious conclusions about Jesus and the events that must have surrounded His death.

In the first place, remember that all of His chosen twelve disciples (later referred to as apostles), lived with Jesus, closer than most family members, for three to four years. They did virtually everything together: slept, ate, travelled, worked, and preached the gospel. They were great friends and all had the utmost respect for their leader and Master, Jesus Christ. They loved Jesus. They also believed what He told them about Himself and His plans for the future. Of 320

course, there were some things that He spoke about that were difficult to grasp… but they did their best to understand and follow His lead in everything. Jesus surely had proven to them that He had their best interests at heart and He certainly had demonstrated the power to give them whatever He had promised. These men were good men as well (with the obvious exception of Judas). They were just like most people; they had their strengths and weaknesses. All were hoping that Jesus would soon usher in His Kingdom on earth. He had spoken of this Kingdom often. They still held out hope that He would be the “conquering Messiah” that Israel had been waiting for and praying for since the time of the patriarchs. Of course, that was not going to happen in their lifetime as it turned out. Instead, as the time for Christ’s sacrificial death came near, Jesus began to prepare them for His death.

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Matt 16:21 As the Bible tells us, Jesus attempted to prepare them for the day of His death. They certainly did not want to hear of this at all…

Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!" Matt 16:22 However, just as Jesus had prophesied, His capture, “kangaroo court” trial, and terrible beating did soon come. This was quickly followed by His sacrificial death on the cross. Where were those eleven disciples when all of this was going on? It is important to think about this point. The answer is that they were all so afraid and confused that they scattered into the night.

Peter, as we all know, even denied Jesus vehemently three times! The next morning, they still did not come to stand up for their Master. No, they were too afraid, and possibly even disappointed, to even make their presence known. The only one who came to be with Mary at the foot of the cross was John. Then Jesus was crucified and died. He was buried in a tomb.

The disciples had seen their Master die a terrible death; and now He was gone.

As they gathered together to discuss the events of the previous couple of days, imagine if you will, what they must have thought. Remember, they were so frightened the night of Jesus’ capture that they ran away from the scene. They were very worried that they would suffer the same fate as Jesus. Now, He had abandoned them. They must have thought that this man that they had come to put so much faith in, had no really significant power after all. He had not been able to stop the onslaught brought against Him. He had just stood there, seemingly powerless, while suffering terrible beatings and scourging! Then, He died up on a cross with two common criminals. Maybe there were a few who encouraged the others to hold on to their faith. Maybe John and Peter asked them to wait because Jesus had promised them to come back from the dead.

At least, they could wait to see if He actually could fulfill that promise. Maybe He was really the Messiah, God the Son. So, they waited that Friday night… then the Sabbath day as well… then Sunday came. I would suggest that those people who believe that Jesus rose from the dead Easter morning and those who believe that He never rose from the grave believe essentially the same things up to this point. From this point on, though, obviously the story would be incredibly different.

321

Before looking at the two different scenarios, I would like to point out the certain facts concerning what the apostles were like beginning fifty days after His crucifixion. Every apostle of Jesus is known to have become a very powerful and effective evangelist for the remainder of his life. They travelled throughout the Roman Empire preaching and teaching the gospel… that Jesus was the Christ (Messiah)… that only through Him could eternal salvation be obtained.

They all went to their death as Christian martyrs (with the exception of John, who also suffered greatly for His Savior, Jesus). Every one of them believed so strongly in Jesus and His gospel that they were willing to die a tortuous death rather than deny their God… Jesus Christ. This is all historical fact. The critically important, potentially life changing, question, though, is “What is the explanation for their actions?” There are two possibilities, which vary, depending on whether Jesus rose from the dead… or not.

Let me see if I can explain these two possibilities and see which sounds more reasonable: • On Easter morning, the disciples and the women friends of Jesus awoke and lived out the day as described in the Gospels. That is, they all soon came to the understanding that their Savior had risen from the dead… just as He said He would! Once they were all convinced (Thomas had to see for himself), they all were extremely happy and reassured.

Jesus appeared to them several more times in the next six weeks until one incredible day, Jesus went up into heaven through the clouds as they stood watching, while two angels spoke to them as He ascended. Just a week or so later, while they were waiting for the “Comforter” Jesus had promised, they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This event totally changed their lives forever. This all happened on the day of Pentecost. They now had the power to go into the world and preach the gospel… and perform miracles and healings which would aid in confirming this brand-new message/covenant to the world.

Because they all had seen the risen Christ, spoke to Him, ate with Him and had received the Holy Spirit into their lives, each apostle was now totally convinced of the veracity and eternal importance of His gospel message. That is why they were able to accomplish all of the things that they did during the remainder of their lives… even including the willing death by martyrdom at the conclusion of their lives on this earth. This scenario makes good sense. Now, what is the other possibility?

• Take a look at the explanation that must follow if Jesus had not risen from the grave…

After several days, all of the disciples would have eventually realized that Jesus was not coming back from the dead. They would have recognized that Jesus really did not have the power to do what He had asked them to believe. He was not really the Messiah after all. When He had told them that when they had seen Him, they had seen the Father, He was either lying or speaking as a megalomaniac. There was no other choice open.

Obviously, if Jesus had really been the promised Messiah, and God the Son, He would have been able and willing to keep His promise to rise from the dead. “So now what?” they asked…

Imagine for a moment that one of them suggested that they just continue the ruse.

“Why not? Why not just say that Jesus really did rise from the dead anyway. That would certainly create a stir, wouldn’t it?! Of course, another disciple would chime in and 322

say… “We just spent the last four years of our lives following this man, leaving our homes and families to help Him teach all around Galilee, Judea and Samaria. We kept telling everyone that He was so special… that He was the promised Messiah… that He was even God Himself! What a terrible waste! So, how can you even suggest such a ridiculous thing? Are you crazy? First of all, no one will believe us! He is still in the tomb! And don’t expect me to go up against those Roman guards for such a charlatan!

Second, we will only be getting ourselves into terrible trouble with the Romans and the Pharisees. You must be kidding or crazy to even suggest such a thing! I’ll admit, Jesus was really a nice man… at least I thought He was… but to put ourselves in that kind of danger for what turned out to be such a blatant lie… why would anyone do that? How can you even suggest spending the rest of your life spreading this lie to the world?

Actually, you must be nuts! Imagine how God would view preaching a lie like that! We would all end up in Hades and we would deserve it! Listen to me, we all know the truth now. Jesus was just deluded… or else, sad to say, he spent all those years lying to us.

Either way, it is over now. It is time to go home to our families and try to forget the fact that we gave our allegiance and time all these years to a totally unworthy cause. I surely don’t want to compound the problem!” We could reasonably assume that a conversation something like the one noted above would have taken place if Jesus had actually remained dead in His grave… and one of the disciples, for some inexplicable reason, wanted to initiate the most incredible hoax in history.

Of course, if the resurrection did not occur, all of the disciples and all of the women friends of Jesus and the many other people who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus would all have had to perpetuate this greatest ruse in human history. Paul would have had no logical reason whatsoever to change from being the man who led the persecution of the early Christians to the great evangelist he became after his encounter with the risen Christ… since Christ would not have risen! There is simply no logical reason at all for the actions of all of the apostles (including Paul) and the close women friends of Jesus if Jesus was not seen in His resurrection body that Easter morning and for several weeks thereafter. James, the half-brother of Jesus, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah and Lord prior to His death on the cross. Yet, soon after the crucifixion, James became the leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem. How can this be explained? The Bible has the only reasonable answer for this seemingly paradoxical behavior.

Jesus met with James after His resurrection as the Bible tells us. Paul noted this in his letter to the church at Cornith… “Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” 1 Cor 15:7-8 This obviously convinced James of the true identity of Jesus. James then went on to lead the important church at Jerusalem for decades, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. He then died a martyr for his unwavering belief in his half-brother’s true identity… i.e. Christ, the Lord… truly the Son of God.

323

Simply put, there is no way that so many men and women would be willing to spend the rest of their lives telling the world about someone and something that they knew was a lie… and then, to top this absurd notion off, to continue on and die an inglorious martyr’s death just to keep the charade going! The facts are, however, that all of the apostles did firmly believe that Jesus rose from the dead… because He actually did… and they witnessed this incredible miracle!

Then they willingly died painful, martyr’s deaths because of their belief!

So, what does the evidence lead us to believe? The fact of the resurrection is the only reasonable possibility that would explain the actions of the apostles and many other close followers of Jesus during the remaining portion of their lives. They suddenly went from whimpering cowards (some were even non-believers) to courageous and effective evangelists due to their witness of this incredible event, followed by their receiving of the gift of the Holy Spirit from their Lord, Jesus Christ. No other explanation makes any sense.

324

Chapter 29

Liar, Lunatic or God

C.S. Lewis was possibly the greatest Christian theologian of the twentieth century. In his seminal work, Mere Christianity, he wrote a very logical explanation concerning the divinity of Jesus Christ. As we will see, his cogent argument should lead most thoughtful and open-minded individuals to conclude that Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Son of the Living God. Let us consider the logic of Lewis’ argument in the paragraphs below.

First of all, it is important to recognize that Jesus certainly claimed to be God! Take a look at some of His own words: • The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

John 4:25-26 • I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I AM [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins." John 8:24 • "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I AM!" John 8:58 Only God refers to Himself as “I AM”… this combination of words has always been synonymous with the everlasting God of the Universe.

• “Let not your heart be troubled, you believe in God, believe also in Me.” John 14:1 • “Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither Me nor my Father, If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.’” John 8:19 • Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; John 11:25 Only God can promise this outcome.

• Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. John 14:6-9 • “Jesus answered, … I and my Father are one.” John 10:30 • Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; John 14:11 • I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." Matt 12:6,8 God is the Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, Jesus is saying that He is God. • When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

Mark 2:5 Only God can forgive sins.

• "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out 325

demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.

Away from me, you evildoers!' Matt 7:21-23 Again, only God has the “keys to heaven”… and Jesus says that He will be making these decisions.

Another point to note is that only God is to be worshipped. (“You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.” Luke 4:8) Yet, Jesus received the worship of many people on many occasions. Why did He allow this? Because He is God and certainly Jesus knew this. (see Matthew 8:2, John 9:35-39, Matthew 14:33, etc) All of the verses above demonstrate that Jesus claimed that He was God the Son. Note how in these verses He either states directly or strongly implies that He has been in existence from eternity past, that God the Father and He are one and the same, and that He is the Messiah.

He is the Lord of the Sabbath (i.e. God); He can forgive sins (only God can do that); and He is the one who decides who enters heaven. In other words, Jesus claims to be God! That brings us to the next point that Lewis wanted everyone to think about. Lewis had often heard the argument that Jesus was such a great philosopher, such a wonderful man. This point of view typically came from liberal philosophers who did not believe that Jesus was God. On the other hand, they recognized that His philosophy of life was peerless and He lived His own life perfectly. Therefore, they concluded that Jesus was certainly a great person… although they would not agree that He was God the Son. This is a common belief concerning Jesus today.

Lewis was quick to point out that in no way could Jesus be looked upon by any logically thinking person as a fine, upstanding man. No, Jesus did not leave that choice open to any reasonably thinking individual. One may ask why this is not a possibility. The answer to that question is as C.S. Lewis wrote: “Christ says that He is “humble and meek” and we believe Him; not noticing that, if he were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.” [after all, for crying out loud, He claims to be God!] C. S. Lewis continues, “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I am ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things that Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of hell. You must make your choice, either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

326

First, it must be remembered that Jesus made it clear during His ministry that He was to be followed and trusted for eternal salvation.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 In fact, Jesus stated that only through faith in Him and His finished work on the cross would a person be able to gain entrance into heaven…

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. John 3:18 He later added, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6 Of course, many people have believed His powerful words over the millennia. Because of this fact, please keep in mind that possibly as many as 100,000 people died a gruesome martyr’s death in the first few centuries after Christ’s crucifixion. These people had so much faith and devotion to their Lord Jesus that they would not deny that He was God even though that denial would have saved their lives! Not only was that true in those days, but in our times as well. Literally millions of people have died for this same faith and allegiance to Jesus over the past 100 years! Sadly, it is happening even as you read these words today. Millions of people over two thousand years have been willing to die painful deaths because they have trusted what Jesus has told them. Think about that.

If Jesus was not telling the truth, all of these deaths would have been for naught! If Jesus was, in fact, lying, no one could possibly call Him a good man, a fine man with high ideals. No, if Jesus allowed people to die for a false belief in His claim to be God the Son and Savior of the world, He would certainly not be considered a great man! Of course, this would only be a problem if Jesus were lying about His identity. He may well have been telling the truth. Maybe there was even another possibility…

Well, what are all of the possibilities to consider when evaluating the claim of Jesus that He is God and belief in Him and His sacrificial work on the cross is the only way to heaven? As we have just seen, there is no doubt Jesus claimed to be God. Of course, that claim may be true or it may be false. If it is false, there are two other possibilities. Jesus may have just been an amazing liar for all of those years He walked this earth, teaching and preaching. Or, He may have actually falsely believed that He was God because He had a severe mental illness.

Let me list the three reasonable possibilities concerning Jesus and His claim to be God: • • •

Jesus was a liar Jesus was a lunatic Jesus was God

I have not been able to think of a fourth possibility. Therefore, let us address each of the three in order to see which one is most likely to be true. Remember, only one can be true.

Was Jesus a liar? If Jesus was a liar, He was an amazingly effective liar! He certainly fooled His disciples and His brother, James! He even fooled His mother! Remember, after His death, 327

the apostles spent the remainder of their lives vouching for the honesty and perfection of character of their Master and Teacher. They certainly did not believe that Jesus was a liar.

Given all of the wonderful things that He taught, and the faultless life that He reportedly lived (no sin was ever attributed to Him), if Jesus was living a lie, He also would have had to be the greatest hypocrite that ever lived. He told everyone who would listen that they must trust in Him, and Him alone, for their eternal salvation. As mentioned above, if Jesus were lying, He was the direct cause of millions of people, over the centuries, fruitlessly dying torturous deaths because of Him… and His lie. If He was telling the truth, however, these same people would have been instantly transported into heaven! I suggest that anyone who would lie knowing that people would die horrible deaths because of that lie, would be an evil person… certainly not a great prophet. Every thinking person would agree that Jesus was very intelligent. Therefore, He would have to have known that those devoting their lives to Him would be placing their lives in mortal danger… yet, He allowed this to happen. If He did this to perpetuate a lie, Jesus would have been a very bad person, to say the least.

So, do we have any concrete evidence that He was a liar? We have already pointed out reasons NOT to believe this statement. Is there any actual evidence to lead a person to believe that Jesus was not who He claimed to be? Actually, I cannot think of any at all!

We do have evidence that this man preached on wonderfully holy and uplifting subject matter. He taught that all men should live lives of purity; even their thoughts should be pure.

All the evidence is that Jesus took pity on the poor, homeless and sick. There is evidence that He healed the sick and the lame. He was extremely kind and unselfish. Does it make sense that a lying, evil man would live such an ostensibly perfect life and teach others how to lead this same type of life? John Stuart Mill wrote, “About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight in the very first rank of men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast. When this pre-eminent genius is combined with the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer and martyr to that mission who ever existed upon earth, religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching upon this man as the ideal representative and guide of humanity; nor even now would it be easy, even for an unbeliever to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete than to endeavor to live so that Christ would approve of our life.” The life of Christ is the ultimate model for all humanity to attempt to emulate. Does it make any reasonable sense that the author of this life was Himself evil?

Certainly, another excellent reason to suggest that Jesus was not attempting to fool anyone by His claims to be the Messiah and God can be seen when we look at the last week of His life on earth. What would He have to gain by this incredible lie? While alive, maybe one could argue that He gained a measure of respect and even adoration. On the other hand, He took a lot of risks with His claim as well. However, during that last week, while He was only in His early thirties, His life was on the line. He was quickly arrested, tried and convicted (albeit unjustly). He was sentenced to die on the cross, but only after being severely beaten to a virtual pulp. All that Jesus had to do was say a few words to get Himself off the hook, and He was given many opportunities. It really does not make any sense that a lying hypocrite would be willing to go to a terribly painful death just to show how tough He was. If Jesus had been lying all along, He would have simply died and been buried and then everybody would have known 328

that He was a fake anyway. So why die to be proven a fake? Why not live to lie another day?

Maybe He could have figured out a decent story that some would have bought into. My point is, it is very unlikely that an evil, hypocritical liar would have lived the life that Jesus lived, nor would one have died the death that Jesus did. Believing this to be true, takes a great deal of faith… much more faith than I have. So what else may Jesus have been?

Was Jesus a lunatic? Maybe Jesus simply thought that He was the Messiah and the Son of God. Maybe Jesus was a megalomaniac of the first order. Maybe He was a psychotic person – a person who, by definition, had experienced a break with reality at some point in His life and now was convinced that He was God… just as some people today believe that they are Napoleon.

C. S. Lewis points out that if Jesus were not actually God the Son, and He was not performing as the liar of the millennia, He would have been “a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg.” (Mere Christianity, p. 56) This is not an absolute impossibility. However, is it at all likely?

First of all, we should take a better look at what a “lunatic” really acts like over time.

Then, we can compare that “picture” to how Jesus carried Himself over His three to four years of ministry. Fortunately, in today’s world, there are many good treatment regimens for people who have “broken from reality”. Often, these people can lead reasonably normal lives… that is, in the world as we know it today. Unfortunately, these treatments have only been around for the past several decades. The lives of delusional people in the distant past took a much different course. Typically, a delusional person who would believe Himself to be God and carry this delusion over many years… even unto death, would be schizophrenic. So what does that mean?

“Eugen Bleuler defined schizophrenia with his four "A's", referring to the blunted Affect (diminished emotional response to stimuli); loosening of Associations (by which he meant a disordered pattern of thought, inferring a cognitive deficit), Ambivalence (an apparent inability to make decisions) and Autism (a loss of awareness of external events, and a preoccupation with the self and one's own thoughts).” (http://www.cellscience.com/shdss2.html) Characteristics of a schizophrenic also include (from the same source): • • • • • • • • • •

Psychotic episodes (displacement from 'reality', inability to separate real from unreal experiences) including; delusions (false beliefs/judgment); hallucinations (strong subjective perceptions of an object or event which is non-existent that may affect any or all sensory perceptions); disorganized speech or behavior; thought disorder (cognitive dysfunction) social and occupational dysfunction Lack of motivation, loss of concentration, withdrawal Blunted affect (loss of emotional tone or reaction) Inability to articulate Paranoia Catatonia

329

In order to evaluate whether Jesus was likely a “lunatic”, it is important to know what He said and did during His amazing ministry. After thoroughly reading the four Gospels and the epistles, a good impression of the kind life Jesus led is possible. Unfortunately, often people who make comments about Jesus have never taken the time to really study His life and teachings. If they did, they would certainly know that He most definitely did NOT suffer from: •

• •

• •

Disorganized thoughts and speech (take a look at His incredible sermons, for example – no one is history had more valuable things to say, nor said them in a more effective manner) Inability to articulate (totally absurd with respect to Jesus) Social and occupational dysfunction (Jesus spent most of His time engulfed in social interaction and working with His disciples to spread the gospel throughout Judea, Samaria and Galilee) Blunted affect (take a look at how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees and the moneychangers in the Temple – certainly not with a blunted affect) Jesus did not show any of the classic four “A’s” of schizophrenia either (autism, loose associations, ambivalence, flat affect)

The point is, when a person actually evaluates whether Jesus Christ manifested the characteristics seen in people who have suffered a prolonged psychotic break from reality, he/she will find that He certainly does not. Instead, Jesus manifested emotional and intellectual characteristics that demonstrated Him to be highly intelligent, very well motivated, extremely well prepared and organized in His thoughts, speech and actions, emotional very stable, extremely talented in oratory, and excellent in His social interactions with all classes of people.

None of this is consistent with a psychotic individual.

To add a little more evidence on this point… it would be highly unlikely that His twelve disciples (reasonable men by all accounts), plus numerous other men and women friends that often were around Jesus would not have noticed the characteristic traits of a crazy person after all the years that Jesus lived with them or among them. Frankly, it typically takes less than a few hours for most people to recognize a psychotic person in their midst.

Here are a few other opinions on this matter: •

•

“The skill and depth of His teachings support the case only for His total mental soundness. If only we were as sane as He.” (p. 62, Charles Pinnock, Set Forth our Case, NY, Craig Press, 1967) “The historical difficulty of giving for the life, sayings and influence of Jesus any explanation that is not harder than the Christian explanation is very great. The discrepancy between the depth and sanity… of His moral teaching and the rampant megalomania which must lie behind His theological teaching unless He is indeed God has never been satisfactorily explained. Hence the non-Christian hypotheses succeed one another with the restless fertility of bewilderment.” (p. 113, C.S. Lewis, Miracles, NY, MacMillan, 1947) 330

•

•

•

“Is such an intellect – clear as the sky, bracing as the mountain air, sharp and penetrating as a sword, thoroughly healthy and vigorous, always ready and always self-possessed – liable to a radical and most serious delusion concerning His own character and mission?

Preposterous imagination!” (p. 97, Philip Schaff, The Person of Christ, NY, American Tract Society, 1913) “If you were to take the sum total of all authoritative articles ever written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the subject of mental hygiene – if you were to combine them and refine them and cleave out the excess verbiage – if you were to take the whole of the meat and none of the parsley, and if you were to have these unadulterated bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete summation of the Sermon on the Mount. And it would suffer immeasurably by comparison. For two thousand years, the Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here rests the blueprint for successful human life with optimism, mental health, and contentment.” (p. 273, Fisher, A Few Buttons Missing, Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1951) “Compare Jesus with liars or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche. Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most conspicuously lack: 1) His practical wisdom, His ability to read human hearts 2) His deep and winning love, His passionate compassion, His ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, His authority, “not as the scribes” 3) His ability to astonish, His unpredictability, His creativity. Liars and lunatics are so dull and predictable!

No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man.” (p. 60-61, Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, SF, Ignatius Press, 1988)

Historian Philip Schaff also wrote “The testimony, if not true, must be downright blasphemy or madness. The former hypothesis cannot stand a moment before the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in His every word and work, and acknowledged by universal consent. Self-deception in a matter so momentous, and with an intellect in all respects so clear and so sound, is equally out of the question. How could He be an enthusiast or a madman who never lost the even balance of His mind, who sailed serenely over all the troubles and persecutions, as the sun above the clouds, who always returned the wisest answer to tempting questions, who calmly and deliberately predicted His death on the cross, His resurrection on the third day, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the founding of His Church, the destruction of Jerusalem – predictions that have literally been fulfilled? A character so original, so complete, so uniformly consistent, so perfect, so human and yet so high above all human greatness, can neither be a fraud or a fiction.” Schaffer also noted, “How, in the name of logic, common sense, and experience, could an impostor – that is a deceitful, selfish, and depraved man – have invented, and consistently maintained from the beginning to end, the purest and noblest character 331

known in history with the most perfect air of reality? How could He have conceived and successfully carried out a plan of unparalleled beneficence, moral magnitude, and sublimity, and sacrificed His own life for it, in the face of the strongest prejudices of His people and ages? This is actually a rhetorical question, of course. The answer is that Jesus could not have been either a liar of lunatic. Instead, Jesus is the God incarnate. He is our Savior, God the Son. (p. 109, Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans,1910) Conclusion: One of the many ways to evaluate the truthfulness of the gospel is to evaluate the identity of Jesus Christ Himself. As C.S. Lewis notes, there are only three possibilities; Jesus is either a bold-face liar, a raging lunatic on the “level of the man who says he is a poached egg”, or Jesus is who He says He is. To continue with the comments of Lewis… “You can shut Him up for a fool; you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” (Mere Christianity, p. 56) I suggest that the aforementioned discussion should lead most open-minded people to the conclusion that Jesus, in actuality, is the Son of the Living God. Is this avenue of proof ironclad? Maybe not. However, by far the most likely choice is that Jesus is God, not a liar or lunatic. Always remember, God wants us to take that final step in belief as a step of faith.

“Without faith, it is impossible to please God”. (Hebrews 11:6) Of course, taken with the multitude of other evidences for the veracity of the Bible, no one need question the divinity of Jesus.

332

Chapter 30: The Archeological and Historical Accuracy of the Bible There are many ways to demonstrate why it makes perfectly good sense to believe the Bible is the actual Word of the only true God. Several of those reasons are being presented in this first section of this treatise. We have just looked at four of them: fulfilled prophecy, the many types of Jesus that are found in the Old Testament scriptures, the incredibly changed lives of the apostles after witnessing the resurrection, and the perfectly reasonable and logical argument that Jesus had to be actually God the Son as no other conclusion makes any sense.

There are still many more reasons to believe in the veracity of the Bible. Let us take a look at the historicity of this Holy Bible of God. In other words, does what is written in the sixty-six chapters of this collection of books line up with what is known about the world and its history? If notâ&#x20AC;Ś if there are errors made in the Bible as far as historical facts related to the actual events, nations, or people of history, then it cannot be the Word of God. God would not inspire a book that was not actually true and correctâ&#x20AC;Ś theologically, historically and archaeologically.

Before showing the amazing accuracy of the Bible, it is relevant to point out that there are other religions that actually demonstrate (accidentally) that they are not inspired by God due to their lack of historical correctness. Probably the best example of this is found in the Mormon religion (although all other non-Judeo-Christian religions fall short on this issue as well).

The Book of Mormon tells of the supposed fact that a group of Jews came to the New World around 600 B.C. It goes on to recount how the community split into two groups after landing in the Americas. One group became the Nephites, the other, the Lamanites. The Laminites eventually killed off the Nephites as these two tribes tended to fight against one another for almost one thousand years. The only group remaining, the Laminites, were what we now call Native Americans.

This book also states that Jesus came to the New World very soon after His resurrection.

Apparently, Jesus shared the gospel message at that time before returning to heaven. The people He visited were actually Jews who had come to the Americas in approximately 600 B.C. One really big problem with much of the content in the Book of Mormon is that it contains over 2,500 words that are exactly the same as seen in the King James Version of the Bible. For example, the book of Mosiah, Chapter 14, is a direct copy of Isaiah, Chapter 53. It surely is odd that the writers of the Book of Mormon would write using the King James English. Not only that, but its writers duplicated a few of the errors that were later discovered in the King James translation. It is also intriguing that the words that Peter spoke in his sermon on the very first Pentecost were attributed to Jesus as He was allegedly preaching to the Nephites very soon after His resurrection. The point is, of course, that Joseph Smith borrowed liberally from the King James Bible when he wrote his Book of Mormon.

Within this book, there are many references to historical sites that were supposedly settled and developed by the Jewish tribes mentioned above. References are also made to certain plants, animals, metals, and technology that were available to these people. Included were things such as elephants, steel, chariots, chains, brass, a compass and many others. Additional problems a serious student of the Mormons has with that religion can be stated by noting just three more things: 333

•

•

•

After extensive research by Mormon archaeologists (even those from Brigham Young University), no evidence of even one archaeological site described in the Book of Mormon has been ever been found.

There is no evidence of the previous existence of any Jewish descendents having lived in the Americas except for recent times. For example, although the Native Americans are supposed to be direct descendants of the Laminites, there is absolutely no DNA linkage between these American Natives and any Jewish person.

Numerous references to various metals, animals, plants, and several fairly modern technologies and instruments must be untrue as none of them existed in North, Central or South America until recent centuries.

Therefore, the writings found in this book cannot come from God. God would not make all of these mistakes. Hence, the Mormon religion must be untrue. Now this is just one example of how the Scriptures of a particular religion can reveal whether it may be true… or not. Time will not be taken to analyze any other religions here, except to show that the Christian Bible aligns with the historical record of the world beautifully.

Historicity of the Old Testament: There is a great deal of history written about in the Old Testament scriptures. The first five books of this Testament (aka the Torah) were purported to be written by Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If this is true, they had to be written around 1400 B.C. (they may have been written a little later as the exact date of the Exodus from Egypt is unknown). Is there evidence that the writings of the Torah came from a date so long ago? Yes, most certainly. Let me just mention a few pieces of evidence discovered in recent times that show how these Jewish writings are not only true, but evidence that they were written when the Bible says they were: ❖ Archaeology has established that the cradle of civilization is the lower Tigris-Euphrates valley – where the Garden of Eden was, according to Genesis. ❖ Farming and cattle raising have been shown to be the earliest form of mankind’s livelihood – just as shown in Genesis (Here we see how the Bible got its animal husbandry information correct whereas the Mormons, through the writings of Joseph Smith, were writing of animals that did not even exist in the New World until thousands of years after they were supposed to be there). ❖ The story of a worldwide flood is noted in ancient Sumerian and Babylonian writings – even the mention of the sending out of birds at the tail end of the flood. Apparently, this incredible flood was a well-known event among all nations. Stories of this amazing event would certainly have been passed down from generation to generation – regardless of one’s heritage or religious beliefs. ❖ Ur of the Chaldees, Abrahams birthplace, is a well known city in ancient Babylon – unearthed in recent archaeological digs (1920s – 1930s). ❖ Ancient names of cities noted in Genesis have been confirmed in data unearthed in 1975 (ex.

Megiddo, Jerusalem, Gaza, Hazor, Sodom and Gomorrah, and others). Also, names of 334

❖

❖ ❖

❖

❖

❖

❖ ❖

❖

people are found that are similar to names in Genesis – these writings are consistent with the time frame of the Torah (circa 2000 B.C.).

The remains of a burnt-out Sodom and Gomorrah have been found – evidence shows that it came to an abrupt end in an earthquake and fire some 4,000 years ago. This is exactly as reported in the Bible.

Evidence has been uncovered that corroborates the route taken by Abraham during his travels: Shechem, Canaan, Gerar, Dothan and Bethel all existed as noted in Genesis.

Evidence has been found that corroborates the exile of Israel in Egypt at the time noted in the Torah. This includes the time period from 1900 B.C. to the time of Moses. Hebrew names and titles have been unearthed in Egypt from this time period.

Importantly, Hebrew customs concerning marriage, adoption, rights of the firstborn and many other customs of the day have been uncovered in secular sources. These secular discoveries correspond to the time period of Abraham and were written about in Genesis. If this portion of the Bible had been written at a later date (say, 600-900 B.C.), the author would have had no way of knowing about these customs since they no longer existed. There are two ways that a person could have written this correct information found in the Torah… either to have lived at or near the time period… or been directed to write it down by God. Moses did not live that close in time to Abraham… but he did have God’s direction when writing the Torah.

There have been tablets discovered – the Ebla tablets – in northern Syria. The Kingdom of Ebla was destroyed in 2250 B.C. Their importance lies in the fact that they show very similar types of law, customs and names of the cities of that time. For years, many doubters had stated that the cities named in Genesis 14 were not actually in existence at the time of Abraham and therefore, had been added at a later date. Yet, the Ebla tablets mention every one of the cities (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar).

The Mari tablets (found in 1936) also demonstrates that the Genesis biblical account is perfectly consistent with the names, culture, and traditions of that day. For example, when Abraham haggled with Ephron concerning his purchase of the Cave of Machpelah, the reason for the argument is understood when one understands the customs of that time as described in the Mari tablets (these tablets are also from that time period).

Pictures of visiting Semites can be seen on the walls of a tomb at Beni Hasan in Egypt from the time of Abraham.

There is secular evidence that two other foreigners (one a Jew and the other a Canaanite) were given prominent official positions by the Pharaoh at the time the Bible says the Jews were in Egypt. Of course, the Bible says that the Pharaoh made Joseph the Prime Minister of Egypt.

Joseph was given a gold chain and ring by the Pharaoh. Joseph was buried back in Palestine as per his request. His purported burial place in Shechem (actually Nablus) was opened several years ago. The body in the tomb was mummified and a sword worn by Egyptian officials was found. This is what one would expect to find if this burial place was not only 335

the tomb of the most beloved son of one of the great Patriarchs (Jacob) but also the former Prime Minister of Egypt. ❖ Further archaeological evidence exists supporting Joshua’s conquests and the time of the Judges, including the battles between the Philistines and Israel. ❖ King Solomon’s vast empire has been confirmed in recent excavations. ❖ Many of the enemies of the divided kingdoms (and the false gods of these countries) have been confirmed. ❖ Details of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and conquest of Judah have been unearthed. ❖ There is definitive archaeological evidence that Cyrus did indeed give the decree for the Jews to return to Israel. ❖ Many of the smallest details noted in the Torah and books of the Prophets have been confirmed via archaeology. Many books have been written to cover the amazing accuracy of the Bible in its description of historical events, cities, customs, names of people, etc. The Bible always is shown to be accurate when evidence is unearthed in the search for information concerning ancient civilizations. Frankly, many dozens of more detailed examples could be listed supporting the accuracy of the Jewish Scriptures. Let me instead quote a few of the experts of archaeology: ▪ William Albright (famous archaeologist) said, “There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantive accuracy of the Old Testament”. Also, “Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details.”

▪ Merrill Unger writes, “Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner has filled in the gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of biblical backgrounds.”

▪ Yale professor, Millar Burrows, states, “Archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence of the scriptural record.’

▪ Sir Frederick Kenyon says, “The results (of archaeology) already achieved confirm what faith would suggest, that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge.”

The point is that many detailed studies of the Bible have shown it to have been amazingly accurate. This does not necessarily prove that they were divinely inspired, but it does point one in that direction. Especially when one compares these Scriptures to the other religious writings that have not proven historically accurate.

Conclusion: The Jewish scriptures end with the Book of Malachi. This was completed a little approximately four hundred years before the birth of Christ. Ever since that time, the Jews have lived in dispersion throughout the world… as predicted by many of the prophets would be the case. Also, as predicted, there would come a time when many good things would happen to the “House of Israel” – for example, let me mention just four of them…

• They would be gathered together from all around the world by the power of God and brought back into their homeland – Israel became a nation once again in 1948!

336

They would all once again speak their own language – Hebrew has successfully been introduced as the national language of Israel!

• Their land would become a great producer of crops and flowers… beautiful to behold.

After centuries of desert landscape, the Jews have cultivated their land with great ability (and the help of God) so that it is one of the leading exporters of food and flowers in the world today!

• Some day their Messiah will be coming! If the Jews are correct, He will be coming for the first time… if the Christians are correct, this will be His second visit!

Paul and his fellow apostles used the Old Testament to prove to the Jews and Gentiles of the early New Testament Church that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and their Savior. That method of preaching can certainly be used today to show the identity of Jesus.

•

Historicity of the New Testament: Since the Christian religion began only two thousand years ago, the secular history of the time of its inception is much more complete and available than that of the Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish religions. Therefore, we can draw on some of that history to either confirm or deny the truthfulness of the Christian claims.

The evidence for Christianity can be found on several different fronts. First of all, we will show that if the Christian Scriptures are true, their concept of God and eternity should indeed follow. Then, the evidence for the veracity of their Scriptures will be given. If that evidence is convincing, we will have found the one true religion of the world!

Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem a little over 2,000 years ago. It is claimed that He was born of a virgin, Mary. His true Father is God in heaven. His earthly father was a man named Joseph. When Jesus reached about 30 years of age, He began to minister to His people, the Jews. For approximately three to four years, He preached a message of love and forgiveness; this message has always been open to anyone who would believe and follow Jesus. His message was and is, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) This was and is a totally unique message in the world’s religions. There is nothing said about working one’s way to salvation. There is, in fact, no way a person could possibly work to become good enough, or complete enough, to make it to heaven. Also, there is only one life per customer… no mention of reincarnation. Our soul, spirit and body come into existence and enter into this world at birth… not as the Mormons believe (i.e. mortals pre-existed as spirits in heaven). When we die, one of two things happen. We either go to heaven or we go to hell. We do not cease to exist. We do not return for another try at this world. We do not become part of God. We certainly do not become a god! Our spirit lives on and should we go to heaven, we will someday have a glorified body that will never thirst, hunger, experience pain or want. These are some of the differences between Christian beliefs and all other religions.

No other religion believes that people will gain entrance into heaven via the sacrificial death of God (i.e. Jesus Christ). That is quite a unique concept! Christians believe that no one can enter into heaven unless that person is perfect (without sin) or has paid the penalty for their 337

sin. No person will ever live without committing sin. Since God’s penalty for sin is death and punishment for that sin, it would seem impossible for any human to gain entrance into heaven.

Yet, God devised a plan for the redemption of His creation. God allows one other way to salvation. God, Himself, came into this world to live a perfect (sinless) life as a human, Jesus.

Yet, Jesus also retained His deity. He lived a perfect life. Then, Jesus gave His life on the cross and suffered the penalty for all of mankind’s sins. He paid our penalty. His gift to all people is eternal life with Him in heaven. It is God’s beautiful gift to us. Only one thing is required by anyone who wants this gift. We do have to accept it. We do have to recognize by faith that Jesus did die for us, and that He was raised from the dead as the “firstfruits” of our salvation.

This is the gospel… the good news of our salvation.

Since within the Holy Bible there are hundreds of predictions and scores of miracles described, it is quite obvious to a logical thinking reader that if it can be shown that these Scriptures can stand the test of careful scrutiny, the God, the heaven and the eternity described in the Bible must be true. If not, they must be false. Much of that evidence has already been reviewed. As has been shown, there is a wide variety of good evidence that the gospel, and the entire Bible is completely true! However, there is even more good evidence to present!

External Evidence for the reliability of the New Testament: As we have shown, there were many historical references in the Old Testament scriptures. The writers of the New Testament were also not timid in their use of historical and geographical references. The four Gospel writers had much to say about various important people and sites in and around Galilee and Judea. Luke was replete with his references to people, topography, and other historical sites as well, not only in his Gospel, but even more so when he wrote The Acts of the Apostles. Paul’s travels are outlined in detail in the book of Acts.

Paul, himself, wrote volumes concerning the life and times of the people and cities that he encountered during his many missionary travels. Even in the apocalyptic book, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, John wrote concerning several different aspects of seven particular churches in Asia-Minor of the mid-late first century. From what is written by the various authors in the New Testament, can one say that their information is reliable? How does the historical record within the New Testament compare to that given in secular history books?

The outstanding apologist, Josh McDowell, has written the masterpiece, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In it he points out the relatively recent archaeological findings that corroborate many of previously questioned facts outlined in the Gospels and Acts. For example, no longer is there any doubt on the existence and position of Pontius Pilate, the details pointed out relating to Nazareth, Capernaum, the Pool of Bethesda, and the Seat of Moses. Many other cities, people, and items have also been confirmed. The continual confirmation of New Testament writings as more and more sites are being excavated have led many famous archaeologists to recognize it as an excellent source for study… because everything concerning its writings are being confirmed as being historically true! Let us see what some writers have had to say about this, from recent history and from much closer to the time of Jesus…

There may be no better place to begin than quoting one of the more famous archaeologists ever to have lived, Sir William Ramsay. After years of study on the topography of Asia-Minor, he came to the following conclusion, “I may fairly claim to have entered on this 338

investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory [a nineteenth century liberal form of biblical interpretation] had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely, but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations.” Ramsay went on later to say, that after thirty years of study, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.’

F.F. Bruce (University of Manchester): “A man whose accuracy can be demonstrated in matters where we are able to test it is likely to be accurate where the means for testing him are not available. Accuracy is a habit of mind, and we know from happy (or unhappy) experience that some people are habitually accurate just as others can be depended upon to be inaccurate.

Luke’s record entitles him to be regarded as a writer of habitual accuracy.”

Historian Eusebius notes, “The elder apostle John used to say this also: ‘Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that Peter mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterward, as I have said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some of the things as he (Peter) mentioned them.” (A.D.130) Iraneus, in 180 A.D., a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of John), wrote, “Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching their gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their death, Mark, the disciple of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned on His breast, himself produced his Gospel, while he was living in Ephesus.”

A.N Sherwin-White, historian: Archaeology has confirmed the historicity of the New Testament. “For Acts the confirmation is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.”

Dr. Clark Pinnock states, “There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision can be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based on an irrational bias.”

339

Josephus: This famous Jewish historian of the first century actually writes about Jesus, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ [Messiah]. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named for him, are not extinct at this day.”

Ignatius: (died 110 A.D.) Refers to Jesus as “our God, Jesus Christ.” He also wrote to Polycarp “to await Him that is above every season, the Eternal, the Invisible, who became visible for our sake… who suffered for our sake.” Ignatius mentions Christ as God in multiple other writings. All of the churches accepted the teachings of Ignatius, showing that the early Church certainly believed that Jesus was indeed the Christ as is written in the Gospels and the epistles.

Justin Martyr: (110-166 A.D.) He spoke of Jesus the Christ and Jesus who is also God. Many more quotes relating to his belief in Jesus as God are known.

Clement (died 101 A.D.) spoke also of Jesus as “Christ, the scepter and majesty of God”… and as the Lord who Malachi expected to come to the Temple.

Cornelius Tacitus: (born 52 A.D.) “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death

by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.” He also talked of the torture of Christians as well.

Julius Africanus (221 A.D.) He wrote, “Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun – unreasonable, as it seems to me” as a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of a full moon, and it was the season of the Paschal full moon when Christ died.”

Philopon and Phlegon: (first century historians) also mentioned that an eclipse of the sun occurred during a full moon at the time of Christ’s death.

Many more secular writings exist to verify the life, death, miracles and the Christian claim of the resurrection of Christ. There is no doubt that Jesus lived and died as the Bible states that He did. The only question some might have is as to whether He was indeed the Messiah, the Christ, God the Son. In the first portion of this section we reviewed in some detail the evidence for the Bible being true and, therefore, Jesus being the Messiah and the Son of God. Let us continue to look at just a little more on the significant evidence for this truth…

The Thematic Consistency of the Bible: When one studies the entire Bible, it becomes quite obvious that something about this book is very special. If a person takes the time to study the holy books of other religions, their scriptures either have many errors in them, or many inconsistencies, or both of these problems.

Many of them have blatant contradictory statements… such as some of the writings on Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, Jehovah Witness, Islam and others. This is certainly not true 340

of the Bible. Furthermore, there is a grand plan that becomes apparent that courses from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation. It is as if God wrote it… and, actually, He did! The Bible was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God, the third Person of the Holy Trinity. In other words, God made sure that what was recorded by these men was true, and it was the truth that He wanted revealed to His creation.

Although there were approximately 40 different authors over 1500 years, the message ties together beautifully. For example, God introduces the idea of the need for a blood sacrifice of a spotless lamb all the way back in the early chapters of Genesis. Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, this theme is developed. Many sermons have been preached on this very important topic. Then, Jesus enters the picture and we begin to recognize the whole point of this concept. A sacrifice is needed for salvation. Yes, it would have to be the sacrifice of a perfect “Lamb”. Yes, it would require the shedding of blood. God was showing us all the way back in the earliest times, that He knew what sinful people required to be reunited with Him in heaven. Yet, He kept the notion of the Messiah dying for us a mystery until the appropriate time.

However, it is obvious that the concept a requisite perfect blood sacrifice runs throughout the entire Bible. It is often referred to as the “scarlet thread of blood.” In fact, this theme unifies the entire Bible, and is excellent evidence for God’s authorship.

There are other major themes that God develops from the earliest chapter in the Old Testament all the way through to the last book of the New Testament. There is amazing unity in the Bible. Let me mention just a few more of the consistent themes that are found in God’s Word: •

•

The coming Messiah - The Old Testament books in the Bible contained hundreds of prophecies about an “anointed one” (“Messiah” in Hebrew; Christ in Greek) who would arrive in the future. The Messiah would “deliver” or “save” all the Jewish people, bringing them to paradise or heaven. These prophecies also stated that the Messiah would save all the other people in the world “through the Jews.” There are scores of prophecies concerning this coming Messiah and they appear in many different books.

For instance, verses telling of the coming Savior begin in Genesis (Gen 3:15, 12:3, 18:18, 49:10) re-appear in Deuteronomy (Deut 18:15-19), are all through the Psalms (2,16,22,23,24,35,41,68,69,72,118,132), are a main feature of the prophet Isaiah’s prophecies (7,9,35,52,53,55,59,61), and continue to be written about by the prophets Ezekiel, Daniel, Micah, Zechariah, and Malachi. Of course, this theme was also the main point of the New Testament. Obviously, therefore, the idea of a coming Savior is a centerpiece of the entire Bible.

The Kingdom of God – All through the Old and New Testament there are references to the Kingdom of God. These references to the Kingdom are actually to three types of related Kingdoms: a heavenly, an earthly, and a spiritual kingdom of God. There are many references in the Old Testament related to how God has prepared a Kingdom for David and his seed.

“Ought ye not to know that the LORD God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt?” 2 Chron 13:5 341

•

•

•

"For he is the living God and he endures forever; his kingdom will not be destroyed, his dominion will never end.” Dan 6:26 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God." Mark 14:25 There are a multitude of other verses concerning the promised kingdom scattered throughout the Bible. The point again is to demonstrate this as one of the major themes that the multitude of authors all were well aware of as an important part of God’s plan for humanity. It was no coincidence that the majority of them spoke of this aspect of His plan.

God’s covenants with Israel – The Old Testament is replete with references to God’s covenants with Israel, typically those made with their patriarchs. These start with the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis and continue to be developed through the majority of the books of the Old Testament. Paul writes of the covenants in his epistles, especially in the letter to the Romans. The writer of Hebrews also writes concerning these covenants.

They were a major theme running through the entire Bible. Although some of the aspects of these covenants are conditional; other aspects of them are not. One promise that God made with His “chosen people” that does not have any conditions is that He will one day gather a remnant of their people back into the land that He has promised them… Israel.

As will be discussed in the next section of this treatise, this promise was made without any conditions and God has already brought the Jews back into their land! On the other hand, there were aspects to these covenants that did have conditions placed upon them… mainly, that those Jews who did not obey and follow God would not be protected by God. These people would one day be defeated by foreign invaders and be scattered to other lands. This, of course, happened on more than one occasion (e.g. the Assyrian invasion of the Northern Kingdom, the Babylonian invasion of Judah, the crushing defeat at the hands of the Romans in A.D. 70 and A.D. 135). The point here is that the various writers of the Holy Bible were constantly aware of the covenants that God had made with Israel, and they often made reference to these covenants and the importance of their people keeping up their end of the bargain… which, unfortunately, they generally did not do.

The necessity of faith for salvation – People are saved through faith alone, not by works. This concept has its beginning all the way back in Genesis where God saved Abraham because of his faith. This concept of the need for faith to be saved is further developed in the New Testament, where it is written about in over twenty-five different verses…

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness Gen 15:6 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9 The Trinity: The concept of the Trinity permeates through the entire Bible. In every book of the Old and New Testament, God, the Father is referenced. That is blatantly obvious to anyone who has ever read the Bible. Many think of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the New Testament… and He is mentioned there often…

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit Acts 2:4 342

do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Eph 4:30 heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him Matt 3:16 However, He is also referenced quite frequently in the Old Testament… the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters Gen 1:2 "Can we find anyone like this man, one in whom is The Spirit of God?" Gen. 41:38 "Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is The Spirit, and lay your hand on him.”

Num. 27:19 "The woman gave birth to a boy and named him Samson. He grew and The Lord blessed him, and The Spirit of The Lord began to stir him..." Judges 13:24-25 "The Spirit of The Lord will come upon you [Saul] in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person." 1 Samuel 10:6 "So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on The Spirit of The Lord came upon David in power." 1 Samuel 16:13 What about the second person of the Trinity? What about Jesus the Christ?

Everyone is well aware that Jesus the Messiah (Christ) is featured all through the New Testament. What about the Old Testament? As it turns out, the second person of the Trinity is featured there as well. Many times, He is mentioned as the coming Messiah.

Sometimes, He is referred to as the angel of the Lord. It is true that the Jewish people were unaware that their Messiah would be God… but, that is, indeed the case.

"If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. Gen 18:3 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak……. Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Gen 32:24,30 Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord have for his servant?" Josh 5:14 The angel of the LORD appeared to her and said, "You are sterile and childless, but you are going to conceive and have a son (Sampson). Judges 13:3 The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they will be too numerous to count." Gen 16:7,10 "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple. Mal 3:1 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6 I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods." Dan 3:25 (Jesus was in the fiery furnace protecting Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) All of the verses above, and many others, are considered by most Bible scholars to be pre-incarnate appearances of the Lord Jesus. There is no doubt that the Old 343

Testament prophets believed that there would come a day when God would send some special Messiah to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and reign as King of Israel and the world. Jesus, who told His followers that He was that Messiah, cemented this belief when He came into the world at Bethlehem. So, as has been shown, all three persons of the Trinity are seen to appear all throughout the entirety of the Bible.

Another example of Old Testament themes that carry through the entire Bible relates to the many Feasts of Israel. God gave the Jews many special days to celebrate and remember important times in their relationship with Him. These include the Passover Feast, The Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Firstfruits, Pentecost, The Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and the Feast of Tabernacles. The first four have been described in some detail earlier. The point is that they found amazing fulfillment in certain aspects of the life and death of Jesus. That was not a coincidence. This is just one more area in the Bible that shows its unityâ&#x20AC;Ś from the earliest portion of the Old Testament to the final chapters of the New Testament.

These examples are just a few of the many ways that one can see the hand of God in the writing of His Bible. No other religion has Holy Scriptures that show such excellent evidence of truth. Fulfilled prophecy, thematic consistency, historical and archaeological accuracy, and the lives of those that wrote these Scriptures (e.g. the apostles) all suggest strongly that the Christian Bible is actually the Word of God. Certainly, there has been plenty enough evidence to convince some of the most impressive people and minds in history of this factâ&#x20AC;Ś as will be shown next.

344

Chapter 31: The Lives of Christian Believers and Their Testimonies The final topic that will be addressed in this section concerning the many reasons to trust in the Holy Bible will relate to the issue of whether it is even reasonable to believe in something that many modern day people look at as just a “crutch” or as Karl Marx put it… religion is merely the “opiate of the masses”. Marx was saying that to believe in God, any God, was only a mechanism for people, especially poor and oppressed people, to make it through life. Those that suggest that Jesus is only a crutch are really saying the same thing. However, the fact of the matter is that Jesus is, indeed, an extremely important and necessary “crutch.” Keep in mind that just because something is a called a crutch says nothing about its reality or its value. Jesus is an incredibly strong “crutch” that will help all His children through the difficulties of life. Most people would benefit greatly by someone to help them through the difficulties of life… especially if that Person is God and will use His love and power for their benefit… which He will. We have already seen a variety of very good reasons why many people have asked Jesus to come into their life.

Let us get back to the main reason for adding this last topic on this section on the reasons to believe that the Bible is actually the Word of God. Contrary to the opinion of atheists such as Marx and many others, plus some of the innuendos that one notes from watching movies and television shows, the ranks of Christians are not made up of a bunch of unthinking, sheep-like, imbeciles.

Although some people like to suggest that people who believe the Bible are somewhat weak minded or ill-informed, perhaps to be pitied for their gullibility… they should note those followers of Christ mentioned below: Sir Isaac Newton (considered one of the two greatest physicists of all time): “We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever.” & “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”

Louis Pasteur (famous scientist): "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." & "Science brings men nearer to God." Michael Faraday: (famous scientist): "The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances… For faith in the divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God, and the evidence of this faith is obedience to the commandment of Christ."

Johannes Kepler (famous scientist): "I am a Christian...I believe... only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ... In Him is all refuge, all solace."

"Let my name perish if only the name of God the Father is thereby elevated."

"God is the kind Creator who brought forth nature out of nothing."

Sir Francis Bacon (famous philosopher and scientist): “The volume of Scriptures… reveal the will of God.” & “There was never law, or sect, or opinion did so much magnify goodness, as the Christian religion doth.”

345

George Washington: “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without the Bible.”

John Adams: “The Bible is the best book in the world.”

Ronald Reagan: “Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face.”

John Wesley: “This book had to be written by one of three people: good men, bad men or God. It couldn’t have been written by good men because they said it was inspired by the revelation of God. Good men don’t lie and deceive. It couldn’t have been written by bad men because bad men would not write something that would condemn themselves. It leaves only one conclusion.

It was given by divine inspiration of God.” John Quincy Adams: “It has been my custom for many years to read the Bible in its entirety once a year.”

Queen Elizabeth: “Tell your prince that this book (the Bible) is the secret of England’s success.”

Winston Churchill: “We rest with assurance on the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture.”

Victor Hugo: “England has two books; the Bible and Shakespeare. England made Shakespeare, but the Bible made England.”

Syngman Rhee (1st president of South Korea): “Fellow prisoners held the Bible and turned the pages for me because my hands were so crushed that I could not use them. I read the Bible, and have read it the rest of my life.”

Robert E. Lee: “The Bible is a book in comparison with which all others in my eyes are of minor importance, and in which in all my perplexities and distresses has never failed to give me light and strength.”

Oliver Cromwell (English military and political leader): “He that was Paul’s Christ is my Christ too.”

Woodrow Wilson: “The Bible is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life.” & “I am sorry for men who do not read the Bible every day. I wonder why they deprive themselves of the strength and pleasure.”

Douglas MacArthur: “Believe me, sir, never a night goes by, be I ever so tired, but I read the Word of God before I go to bed.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower: “In the highest sense, the Bible is the unique repository of eternal spiritual truths.”

Benjamin Franklin: “Young men, my advice to you is that you cultivate an acquaintance with, and a firm belief in, the Holy Scriptures.”

Daniel Webster (brilliant American statesman): “I believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be the will and the Word of God.” & “Education is useless without the Bible.”

346

Patrick Henry (founding father of the United States): “This is a Book worth more than all the others that were ever printed.”

John Locke (English philosopher): “It has God for its Author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter: it is all pure, sincere, nothing too much, nothing wanting.”

Charles Dickens: “It is the best book that ever was or will be in the world.”

Abraham Lincoln: “But for this book we could not know right from wrong. I believe that the Bible is the best gift God ever gave to man.”

Helen Keller: “In the Bible, I find a confidence mightier than the utmost evil.”

Leo Tolstoy: “Without the Bible, the education of a child in the present state of society is impossible.”

I could list hundreds more quotes like these from very intelligent and sincere Christians.

I hasten to add, however, that just because there are millions of bright men and women who have placed their faith in Jesus, does not necessarily mean that the Christian religion is true. This is certainly not the case. On the other hand, considering all of the other facts that have been presented, it is no wonder that all of these people have turned to Christ as their Lord and Savior.

I do feel badly, however, for those that do somehow think that it takes a dim-witted person to believe the Bible. It is not saying much for either the intellect of the people who have this belief, or more likely, their open-mindedness. Sadly, this lack of open-minded pursuit of the truth will have dire consequences if these people do not eventually see the light. Hopefully, there will come a time in the lives of the skeptics where they do pursue the truth. God will bless them if they seek Him… just as He did former atheists such as Josh McDowell, C. S. Lewis, and Lee Stroebel.

As has been just shown, there are great people in world history who have claimed the name of Jesus as their Lord. However, as Dr. Wilmington pointed out in his comments on this topic, it would be a challenge to find a murderous tyrant that had a great love of the Holy Bible.

It would also be difficult to find a good and wise leader that was a real enemy of God’s Word.

Keep in mind, this is not saying that there are not those people who claim to be Christian but show in their actions that they are anything but a follower of Christ. As Jesus Himself pointed out…

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. John 14:23-24 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1 John 2:3-4

347

However, those people who follow the Bible and do their best to obey the commands of Jesus, never turn out to be the miserable tyrants of the world… never! Take a minute to think about this.

Summation: The purpose of the preceding pages was to show that the Holy Bible is actually the Word of God. God wants us to know that He is the One True God. Recall just some of the evidence that has been presented in this section (and there is much more that could have been added): • Hundreds of fulfilled prophecies from the Old and New Testaments • The many intriguing “types” that the God of the Bible used in the Old Testament as further proof of His reality and omniscience • The lives’ of Jesus and His friends (apostles, James, first century missionaries, the women relatives and friends of Jesus, etc.) when carefully considered points conclusively to the obvious fact that Jesus must have been the actual Messiah and Son of God. No other explanation is plausible.

• There is much historical and archaeological evidence that strongly suggests that the only true and accurate holy book is the Holy Bible.

• There is an amazing consistency and unity of subject matter all throughout the Bible. All of the human authors were used by the Holy Spirit to write a cohesive book about God and His love for mankind.

• Dozens of brilliant men and women of excellent character were presented, along with their opinions on the Bible. This was done to show that intelligent, thoughtful people have given their stamp of approval, down through the ages, on the veracity and importance of the Holy Bible.

The amazing unity of the Bible: With respect to the miracles that Jesus performed, it is fact that all of the New Testament writers believed that they witnessed countless miracles, the apostles themselves performed many miracles through the power that they received from Jesus and the Holy Spirit and, importantly, secular historians of the first century wrote of the wonders that Jesus was recognized to have performed in His lifetime. Jesus performed these miracles to help people, of course, but also to show that He was indeed God and could perform supernatural acts (acts that countermanded the laws of nature). This He could do as He was the One who created the laws of nature, so it was a “piece of cake” for Jesus to alter them from time to time.

It is important to note the differences between the Christian religion and all other major religions. Only the Christian religion centers around a living God (Jesus). For example, Buddhists and Hindus follow an idea… the concept that some day they can reach some kind of union with an impersonal God of the Universe. Muslims follow a sinful person who once lived then died on this earth (Muhammad) … not to rise again as did our Lord Jesus. People in all other major religions must work and attempt to make themselves “good enough” so that someday 348

they may be able to gain some sort of “salvation”. But, what is good enough? Who knows?

Maybe one more good deed would have been the difference between heaven and hell. Or maybe one lie too many will send someone to hell. As we have seen, many questions come up when studying the veracity of these other religions.

My major point though is that the Christian religion is centered around and is completely dependent on the living God, Jesus. Man cannot do anything to work his way toward salvation – except to trust in our Savior, Jesus. Other religions are centered on concepts of good and evil and good works… it is totally a man’s responsibility to follow a set of rules and somehow work their way to salvation. Of course, maybe if a fundamentalist Muslim is lucky enough, he can get around the difficult task of working his way to heaven by committing suicide while killing dozens or thousands of “infidels” - such as Jews or Christians.

Then he will be met by 72 virgins when he gets there… his for the taking. Now there is a loving God for you – one that would justify and reward a person for terrorist attacks! That certainly strikes one as believable, now doesn’t it?

Christianity vs. all other religions: For one thing, let us review some of the key differences between Christianity and other religions of the world. That is, what makes Christianity unique? Let me just list some of the major differences between the Christian Church and many if not all other churches in the world: • • • • •

•

Christianity is the only religion requiring the sacrificial death of God Himself – in order for mankind to achieve salvation Christianity is the only religion we studied where good works (at least in some measure) were not required for salvation The Christian God is the only God that uses prophesy as a major component of His scriptures – no other god can do so without embarrassment The Christian religion is the only religion where its founder was resurrected from the dead and rose into heaven as an example (the first fruits) to His followers The Christian religion is one of the few religions in the world that holds a view of eternity, past and present and future that is consistent with that of science and philosophy. These religions recognize that the Creator had to exist outside of the Universe we occupy. This “Creative Force” started all of nature and evidence suggests strongly that the Universe will remain forever in some form (i.e. it will not “cycle” out as the Hindu’s and Buddhist’s believe). In other words, the Christian religion is certainly consistent with the Big Bang theory that tells us that our Universe began at a certain point in time… as did time itself. Hinduism and Buddhism believe that our Universe had no beginning, but instead, has always existed.

Christianity and Judaism are the only religions that are totally consistent with historical and archaeological findings 349

• •

•

•

Christianity is the only religion based on Love and Grace and Sacrifice Christianity and Judaism are the only two religions we have studied that have no contradictions in their scriptures. Yes, there are difficult passages to understand completely, but no blatant contradictions as there are in all other religions.

The Christian God is the only God that combines omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and is described as being Love, never the author of evil, only the author of Good and the dispenser of Grace When the Christian religion began, tens of thousands of believers were so convinced of its truthfulness that they allowed themselves to be martyred rather than renounce their faith in Jesus. This is unique in its scope among all the world’s religions.

I believe that it has become quite apparent that the Christian religion is very unique when compared to the other religions in the world. More importantly, the evidence appears overwhelming that this religion was not man-made. There is a fairly famous saying that “The Bible is a book that men would not write if they could, and the Bible is a book that men could not write even if they would.” In other words, the Bible is not a religion that a typical man (or woman) would devise. On the other hand, the Mormon religion seems to be a fair effort by one man to bring a religion into the world with many of the characteristics that many would want in a religion… the ability to pray for one’s dead relatives, polygamy, various tiers of heaven… yet no one goes to a hell, good works count toward one’s salvation, etc.). Most of the other religions we studied have aspects of the “handprint of man” on them. On the other hand, there is no way anyone could devise scriptures with the prophesy that is in the Bible – the

350

Chapter 32

Conclusion: Gospel Message

THERE ARE SO many things happening in the world today that strongly suggest Jesus will soon return. The Bible gives its reader many different signs so that people can know when that time is close at hand. Although Jesus is clear about the fact that no one will know the day or hour of His return, He also says that people can and should be aware of the season of His return.

It is highly likely that many in the generation alive today will witness the Second Coming of the Lord. As I mentioned a little earlier, I recently wrote a book on the many signs that the Bible gives us that will alert the student of prophecy of the soon second coming of Christ. I found fifty in the Bible and discussed them in some detail in my book, Fifty Signs of the End Times.

Why would God give mankind all of these end-time signs? He obviously wants people to be aware of and prepare for the things to come. Remember that the world as we know it will one day suddenly change forever when the Lord comes to rapture His saints into heaven. That wonderful event will be followed by a seven-year period of Tribulation, the likes of which the world has never seen. At the conclusion of this terrible period of time, Jesus Christ will return to this earth, defeat the forces of evil, and set up a glorious Millennial Kingdom. Finally, God will introduce a new heaven and new earth where those who have committed their lives to Jesus will spend eternity in perfect peace and joy with Him forever. Admittedly, that sounds incredibly fantastic. Yet, it is absolutely true.

God says that He will honor those who seek Him. “You will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart” (Jer 29:13). I personally have many friends who have become Christians after living as atheists far into their adult lives. There is no doubt in my mind that the major reason for unbelief in the Bible is the stifling combination of human pride coupled with laziness. Many people have too much pride to question their unbelief and/or are too lazy to prayerfully read the Bible along with the many excellent books that demonstrate the veracity of the Bible. This is an eternally fatal mistake.

Although it is certainly of interest and value to contemplate the future of the Universe, it is infinitely more important and profitable to consider the future of the individual. What will happen to you when you pass from this life into the next? As a doctor for almost forty-five years, I have had the opportunity to ask hundreds of patients this question. I am not the bashful sort.

Unfortunately, the answer is almost always the same. At least 80% of the answers go something like, “I hope I am going to heaven. I have lived a good life.” Sadly, this is even the answer that many professed Christians give. This is definitely not the pathway to heaven revealed by the God of the Holy Bible. Since so many apparently do not know the path from this life to an eternity in heaven, let me now take the time to answer this extremely important question. What did the Lord Jesus Christ have to say on this matter?

Almost two thousand years ago, there was a very intelligent Pharisee, named Nicodemus, who understood that Jesus came from God with an important message to share to the world. He went to Jesus one night to inquire about these important questions concerning life and eternity.

Jesus told him, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again” 351

(John 3:3). Nicodemus did not understand the meaning of this remark, so Jesus continued on to explain that each person must have a spiritual rebirth in order to gain entrance into heaven. Jesus continued on to further explain with this most famous statement, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). The ultimate importance of this belief was then revealed when Jesus continued with, “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18). His disciple, Thomas, asked for further explanation on the pathway to heaven on the eve of the Lord’s crucifixion. Jesus replied, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Just a moment later Philip asked Jesus to show the disciples God, the Father. Jesus replied, “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father … Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? … Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves” (John 14:9-11). Here, and in many other verses, we see Jesus explaining that He is God incarnate. Interestingly, Jesus also points to the fact that He has performed many miracles to prove that He is actually God the Son. The very next day, Jesus allowed Himself to be sacrificed on the cross for the sins of mankind.

Just before He passed on from this life to the next He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). Jesus was referencing that He had just accomplished His major task, that of reconciling a sinful mankind to a Holy God. All that remains is for the individual to recognize that he/she is a sinner, repent, and accept God’s free gift of salvation.

• • •

Jesus came to earth and accomplished several important tasks: He came and gave us a model of how to live our lives while on this earth, He came and proved through His words and actions that He was God incarnate.

Most importantly, Jesus came and lived a sinless life, thus enabling Him to be the required perfect, unblemished, sacrifice for the sins of mankind.

Remember, Jesus said that in order to gain eternal life in heaven, a person must believe in Him. Believing in Jesus, is not just recognizing that He was a person of history. Satan does that.

Instead, it is accepting by the historical evidence and by faith that Jesus was exactly who He claimed to be (i.e., God) and accomplished what He came to do. Jesus is an equal member of the Holy Trinity who sacrificed His life on the cross for all those who will place their trust in Him for their salvation.

On Easter morning, Jesus was resurrected from the dead. He had prophesied that he would defeat death and Satan in exactly this manner on several occasions during His life on earth. It was no coincidence that He became the “first fruits” of salvation on the Jewish Festival of First Fruits. On that same Easter Day, the Jews celebrated their first spring harvest by waving a sheaf of their first harvested barley toward the God of heaven. Of course, much more barley 352

would immediately follow in the harvest. In the same manner, Jesus was the first of a large harvest that was to follow Him into heaven. Saints such as Abraham, David, Moses, Job, and many, many more were sure to quickly follow Jesus. Everyone who places their faith in Jesus will also follow Him into heaven one day.

Approximately seven weeks after that Easter morning, the Christian Church began on the next Jewish festival, Pentecost – again, this was not a coincidence. Jesus sent the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, to abide within all those who place their faith in Jesus. The Holy Spirit was called the “Counselor” or “Helper” by Jesus. If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for he lives with you and will be in you (John 14:15-17). This wonderful gift of the Spirit of God immediately gave tremendous power to the Apostles. All these men had such incredible faith after witnessing the resurrection of their Savior, Jesus, that they spent the remainder of their lives evangelizing their world. In fact, the evidence suggests that all (with the exception of John) eventually died a martyr’s death after a life of faithful service to the Lord of heaven. One should take a moment to inquire why all of these men, and many other witnesses of the crucifixion, would die a martyr’s death if they had not also witnessed the resurrected Jesus. Maybe there would be one, or even two, lunatics that would die for a blatant lie, but certainly not dozens of men and women. That idea makes no logical sense at all. Yet, all of these men spent the remainder of their lives telling people that they had walked and talked with the risen Lord. These men obviously had seen and spoken with the resurrected Son of God. Three thousand people became Christians on the day of Pentecost - an auspicious beginning for the church. This troubled the Jewish hierarchy greatly. Along with the Romans, the Pharisees thought they had heard the last of Jesus. Both quickly found that was not going to be the case. Therefore, the leaders of the Jews placed a young, brilliant Pharisee in charge of shutting down this new religious sect. He was known as Saul of Tarsus. Saul was highly effective in his new position. Showing initiative, as he would throughout his lifetime, he eventually travelled north to Damascus in order to put down a burgeoning Christian community in that city. Along the way, Saul had an incredible encounter with Jesus.

Although the Bible goes into much interesting detail in describing this meeting and the days that followed, the result was that Saul became an ardent believer that Jesus was the promised Messiah, God the Son. In fact, in the thirty years subsequent to that conversion, Saul (later God changed his name to Paul) became arguably the greatest Christian evangelist and teacher that ever lived. God eventually chose Paul to write a large portion of the New Testament, while under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16-17). He wrote many epistles (letters) to several of the churches of that time. Through these letters, Paul taught these new Christians many things relating to living the Christian life. His major emphasis, however, was to make sure that every believer was completely cognizant of the full meaning of the gospel 353

of Jesus Christ. As is the case today, there were false teachers in the early church who were trying to pervert the gospel. Therefore, Paul carefully explained the gospel message through his teaching and letters. This critically important New Testament teaching points the way to reconciliation between sinful man and Holy God. It teaches us how to be saved, to live forever with God and His saints in heaven. A summary of the gospel message follows: •

•

•

•

•

Man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment. (Heb 9:27) The Bible clearly maintains that every person has but one life to live. Upon death, everyone will one day stand before God and answer for their actions during their life on earth.

For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" 12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. (Romans 14:10-12) Sooner or later everyone will bow before the Lord Jesus Christ. One day, everyone will recognize that Jesus is the Messiah, God the Son. It will be a terrible thing to do this for the first time when meeting Him at the judgment – that will be too late. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice… (Romans 3:23-25) For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23) No one other than Jesus can live a life of sinless perfection. Yet, no one who has committed a sin may enter heaven… at least until the penalty for their sin has been paid.

God has provided a solution through the Lord Jesus Christ, His only Son. God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Cor 5:21) In God’s justice system, after living a sinless life on earth, God (in the person of Jesus Christ) is able to substitute Himself and pay the penalty for the sins of a repentant sinner.

If we turn to Jesus as our Savior, God credits us with His righteousness. In a sense, when God looks at a Christian, He sees the perfect righteousness of Jesus. Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. (Isaiah 1:18) But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since we have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through Him. (Romans 5:8) As already noted above, the penalty for sin is death. Jesus paid the penalty for the sins of mankind when He died and shed His blood on the cross. All those who turn to Him in faith are forgiven their sins. They will be saved from an eternity in Hell. This is the most wonderful free gift of God. No one can earn it. However, a person must accept this gift by faith. How is this done? Paul explained this in his letter to the Romans…

354

•

•

•

if you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved… 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." (Romans 10:9-10,13) Therefore, there is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1) All God asks from anyone is that they turn to Him in faith, ask for forgiveness for their sins, believing what the Bible says about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Remember, God gave the world many proofs for the truthfulness of His Scriptures. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is tremendous. God wants and requires that we turn to Jesus in faith and believe. He certainly did not mean this to be a leap of faith… only a small step of faith. That is why God gave us so much evidence to believe in this gospel message and His Son. And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who lives in you. (Romans 8:11) And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.

(Romans 8:9) Having believed, you were marked in Him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession – to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:13-14) God explains that once we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, His Holy Spirit abides within us while we pursue sanctification throughout the remainder of our lives on earth.

The indwelling Spirit of God is our guarantee of the eternal inheritance that God has promised to everyone who believes. It should be the goal of all believers to allow the Holy Spirit control over every aspect of their lives. The more successful a Christian is in this endeavor, the more peace and joy they will experience in this life on earth. In any case, all believers are promised a truly wonderful eternal life in heaven.

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1) After receiving Christ as Savior and Lord of our life, a person can rest assured that their eternal destiny is secure. This destiny is incredible, indeed. Take a look at just a few of God’s promises for the future of the believer… … we are God’s children. Now if we are children, we are heirs – heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ… (Romans 8:16-17) For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39) 355

He [God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." 5 He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" (Rev 21:4-5) These are only a few of the wonderful promises God has for those who follow Him. The Bible claims that Jesus is God Incarnate and that He came to earth primarily to be sacrificed for the sins of the world – to reconcile lost sinners to Himself. Jesus said that in order to secure forgiveness of sins and gain eternal life in heaven, a person must turn to Him in faith and be “born again.” Paul explained this gospel message in further detail.

Philosophers often ponder questions such as the “What is the meaning of life?” and “What is truth?” I suggest that Jesus is Truth and the meaning in life can be found when we make Jesus the center of our lives… when He is made the Lord and Savior of our life.

The decision a person makes concerning the Lord Jesus is, of course, monumentally important. This decision will change your eternal destiny. God gave us all the free choice to either choose Him or reject Him. When we pass from this life into the next, we will all meet Jesus. He will either welcome us into our heavenly reward, or He we will stand before Him in judgment.

Please consider all of the evidence carefully and prayerfully. Read His Word, the Bible, and understand His message of love and salvation. Remember that all Scripture is inspired by God. Do not continue to postpone this decision, as no one is promised tomorrow. In the last book of the Bible, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, Jesus said, “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock.

If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me” (Rev 3:20). Jesus loves you and died so that you might be saved. Today is the day of salvation. For anyone who has not yet asked Jesus into their heart, now is the time. Now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 6:2) Tomorrow is not promised to anyone.

356

Appendix I: Schrödinger’s Cat Although there are many examples in the sub-atomic microworld to demonstrate the effectiveness of Quantum Mechanics in representing various aspects of nature, and we have mentioned a few, there are also other examples that show how Quantum Theory cannot just blithely be used when dealing with larger objects… at times they yield results that are not only ridiculous but obviously incorrect. The famous physicist, Erwin Schrödinger, the scientist who developed the wave theory of quantum mechanics, recognized some of its limits. In fact, he is famous for a paradox that he described referred to as… “Schrödinger’s Cat.” Before outlining this example, we need to re-visit the concept discussed earlier concerning how the source of reality is in the observation of an event. Say what? Let’s return to the notion that submicroscopic particles, such as an electron, exhibit probability wave-like behavior. Recall that the quantum theorist states that the microworld exists only in a ghost-like state until someone observes it, that is, measures certain characteristics of it. Before the measurement, everything about the electron can only be described in probabilities that obey an equation known as the Schrodinger equation. But as soon as it is analyzed, its probability wave “collapses” and it then behaves in a totally different manner – it no longer follows Schrodinger’s equation. It becomes real only when something from the macroworld acts upon it! That is, there has to be measuring devices and sentient beings in order for the necessary observation to take place! Well, what if there existed a quantum measuring device? Now that would be a tiny ruler! But seriously, a mathematician in the 1930’s, John von Neumann mathematically determined that if one quantum device observed/measured another within a microscopic measuring apparatus, the act of coupling the measuring device to the electron can cause a “collapse” of only that part of the wave function that pertains to the electron, but the wave function of the whole system will not “collapse.” This makes sense in a non-sensical quantum world since nobody has yet observed the quantum measuring device! That is, the inclusion of an observer in a quantum observer/electron system does not result in the “collapsing” of the wave function of the entire system. This would require yet another outside observer to bring reality to the whole system… otherwise this coupled system would still exists in what Kitty Ferguson refers to as a ghost-like state… not in reality.

Now, let’s get back to Schrodinger’s cat. Suppose you were to put a cat under a large opaque box that also contained the following other items; a Geiger counter, a radioactive nucleus subject to decay, and a hammer that is connected to the Geiger counter that would smash and release a flask of cyanide should the nucleus decay. Should this happen, this would result immediately in a dead cat, sorry to say. With this particular nucleus, there is a fifty-fifty chance that it will decay within one minute. After one minute the experiment automatically shuts off. This parallels von Neumann’s quantum measuring system: i.e. observer =cat / electron=radioactive nucleus. The question? What happens to the cat?

Looking at this logically, we know that there is a fifty-fifty chance that the cat would die. But now let’s take a look at this through the “eyes” of Quantum Mechanics.

By treating the entire contents under the box as a coupled quantum system that is hidden from our view, an absurd conclusion results. As Paul Davies states, “if we follow von Neumann and 357

agree that the overlapping waves which represent the decayed and intact nucleus are correlated with overlapping waves describing the cat, then one cat-wave corresponds to “live-cat” the other to “dead-cat.” But these waves are both present, and interfering with one another. The state of the cat after one minute cannot be either “alive” or “dead” because of the overlap. On the other hand, what sense can we make of a ‘live-dead’ cat?”1 Put another way, “It is possible to imagine the quantum state of the nucleus to be such that after, say, one minute, it is in a superposition corresponding to a probability of one-half that decay has occurred and one-half that it has not. If the entire box contents, including the cat, are treated as a single quantum system, we are forced to conclude that the cat is also in a superposition of two states: dead and alive. In other words, the cat is apparently hung up in a hybrid state of unreality in which it is somehow both dead and alive.”2 So what is my point? The point is that scientists must be careful when they use quantum theory, which relates to the sub-microscopic world, and extrapolate it to the macroscopic world/Universe in attempts to explain certain difficult concepts. Sometimes it is useful… yet sometimes it results in absurd notions – such as a ‘dead-alive’ cat!

358

Appendix 2: Hawking’s Oscillating Universe .Stephen Hawking’s oscillating Universe theory cannot be true. Now that is a bold statement, I admit. But remember… often times scientists tend to overlook the logic of their incredibly impressive technical arguments. And I suggest that is what has been done with his “blurred” singularity/oscillating Universe theory. Let us take a step by step look at its premises and see if we can expose the flaw in its logic. Remember that one main point of this concept is to arrive at a Universe… ours… that would have an infinite amount of time to “re-event” itself so that the apparently amazing anthropic coincidences would not be unusual. They were bound to occur sooner or later in a universe that had an infinite number of “births” and an infinite number of combinations of physical constants/laws from which to choose. But let’s look at this more closely. We must remember that for each expansion phase a contracting phase must follow EVERY time or the theory is dead. That is an obvious statement, but what is not so obvious maybe… is that this is impossible with Hawking’s theory! Why not, you say? Well remember, a key to this concept is that the physical laws of nature… including the constants of nature… are free to re-invent themselves with each BANG. It was necessary to include this possibility in this theory because if these laws/constants remained unchanged with each oscillation, Hawking’s theory would have fallen victim to the same fate as the oscillating arguments of the 60’s and 70’s. The second law of thermodynamics (and the ever-increasing entropy) would have quickly dismissed the argument… as we saw a little earlier in this book. But, and this may be a hard part to understand… so stick with me here… the fact that the laws/constants of physics would change from one oscillation to the next make an infinite universe, paradoxically, impossible!

Since in an infinitely old universe, there would have to be quite literally an infinite number of combinations and permutations for these laws and constants of nature, at least one set of physical constants and laws in the infinite past would have existed that would have allowed for an open Universe (i.e. the density would not have been adequate to result in contraction). This would have happened a very long time ago, by the way. Yet, this particular BANG would have never stopped expanding! So maybe we are living in that particular cycle?

This can’t be. Our particular Universe (or cycle, if this were an oscillating Universe) is only approximately 14 billion years old… so Hawking’s explanation cannot be correct!

359

Appendix 3:

The Inflationary Universe

The earliest models of the Big Bang were first developed by cosmologists in the 1920's and 30's. Einstein, de Sitter, LeMaitre and Friedmann all produced their own version of how the Big Bang evolved. They based their views on Einstein's general theory of relativity and observational evidence coming mainly from Edwin Hubble. Georges LeMaitre originated the idea with his introduction of a beginning point, a "primeval atom.” From this inauspicious beginning, our Universe was suggested to have exploded into existence in what later was dubbed (sarcastically) by Sir Frederick Hoyle a "Big Bang.” Several mathematical models were developed that gave a reasonable description of our Universe. These included: the FriedmannLemaitre "closed" Universe, the Friedmann-Lemaitre "open" Universe and the Einstein-de Sitter "flat" Universe. These three descriptions of the Big Bang differ mainly in how they view the later stages of the Universe. In the early time period of our Universe, these models and others that are typically referred to as "classical" Big Bang models, are indistinguishable. Although I already described the basic idea of the Big Bang in an earlier chapter, I think that it is worthwhile to review it again from a different perspective as we will attempt to understand the latest theory that the typical secular, atheistic cosmologist has latched onto in an attempt to keep God out of the conversation with respect to origins. There are actually three main ideas that have been espoused over the decades as to how our Universe got here just by pure chance… or, at least without the input of a supernatural source.

Classical Big Bang models all require that the "initial conditions" at the onset of the Big Bang be set to result in the remarkable fact that our Universe is essentially "flat" and amazingly homogeneous. In other words, since our Universe currently has a mass density that is between 0.1 and 2.0 of the critical density, it required a density that was within one part in 1015 one second after the onset of Big Bang. George Smoot uses the following illustration. "If you look at the Universe today, you can very easily realize that the density in the Universe is somewhere between one percent (Alan Guth says 10%) of what is needed to cause it to collapse and twice what is needed to cause it to collapse. Now it seems like a pretty wide range - that's a factor of a hundred, right? But if you extrapolate backwards in time, you find that it gets closer and closer to being exactly the right amount, because it's an unstable situation. Even if you're only a little bit away from being exactly the right amount, it will deviate very rapidly, and either the Universe will fly apart, or it will have collapsed already. That's why we know that it's so close now, after fifteen million years."3 To paraphrase an example he gives… Imagine you have a typical sized archery target - someone fires off an arrow… it hits the target but misses the bulls eye by 3 inches… not bad, but not Robin Hood either… but wait… you find that the arrow was shot from Pluto! Now that is indeed an impressive shot, right?

Another disturbing fact to atheistic cosmologists concerning the classical Big Bang model is that it offers no reason other than coincidence that our Universe is so amazingly homogeneous. This may not seem to be much of a coincidence until we delve into it in a bit more detail. Current evidence points to the fact that our Universe is somewhere between 10-20 billion years old. If we train our most powerful telescopes out at the western sky, we will see 360

galaxies that are 10-15 billion years old. Of course, we will see that same thing if we look in the opposite direction. The disturbing thing to cosmologists is that the physical characteristics (ex. cosmic background radiation) of these two areas are the same. So what, you say. Well, the problem is that if we extrapolate back in time, even to the first split second after the Big Bang, these two areas were not located close enough together to "communicate.” By this I mean that the distance separating the matter on opposite sides of the Universe, for example, when it was 1035 seconds old, was greater than the distance that light could have travelled since the beginning of the Big Bang. This is referred to as the "horizon problem" by cosmologists - the horizon is taken as that distance that light could have travelled since the beginning of time. This is an important point as no information can travel faster than the speed of light. If these two points were close enough so that information was able to be exchanged (i.e. close enough so that light could have traversed the distance since the onset of time) characteristics such as temperature could have achieved uniformity. But this apparently was not the case. Therefore, the classical Big Bang model requires that all parts of the Universe began in a state of uniformity. This is not an impossibility by any stretch of the imagination. It would be quite remarkable, however… quite a "coincidence.”

Since scientists in general do not like to resort to explanations that intimate the existence of a supernatural force, they were not comfortable with a model of the Big Bang that required initial conditions to be set so exactly in order for our Universe to be as homogeneous as it was and so "flat" (actual density=critical density). Therefore, the search for a model of the Big Bang that eliminated the necessity for these amazingly set "initial conditions" persisted for decades.

During the 1970's, many cosmologists turned their attention to grand unified forces (GUTs). They were hoping to find a force field that would unite three of the four forces of nature… the two nuclear forces and the electro-magnetic force. The hope was to turn their attention to merging gravity into this unified field theory sometime later… a quest that has come to be called the Theory of Everything (TOE). Grand unified theories predicted certain things… some that answered previous questions and others that created new puzzles. Of course, this is typical of any new theory. One problem that GUTs (Grand Unified Theory) appeared to answer was where the excess of matter over anti-matter originated. There is a massive imbalance of matter over anti-matter in our Universe. In fact, most cosmologists believe that all of the matter in our Universe is made up of matter, not anti-matter. Until the study of GUTs, there was no understanding of why this should be the case. In the laboratory, any time that matter is created from energy, an equal amount of anti-matter is also created. This is how it should be in nature… or so scientists thought. As it turns out, GUTs predict that in the very early Universe, at the extraordinarily high temperatures found at that time (approximately 1029K), this relationship between matter and anti-matter was not present. The early Universe had a temperature in this range at about 10-39 seconds after the onset of the Big Bang. Although it must be understood that there are a variety of grand unified theories, many of them suggest a mechanism whereby an excess of matter over anti-matter was produced at this time. Most of the matter and anti-matter canceled one another out… only the excess matter produced remained and resulted in the 361

Universe we see today. The details of these theories differ, but the important point is to recognize that at least some do provide a plausible explanation for the lack of anti-matter in our Universe.

One of the perplexing attributes of GUTs was the introduction of monopoles into the picture. Grand unified theories require "magnetic monopoles" (a magnet with an isolated north (or south) pole - not two equal strength poles as in regular magnets) if they are to produce a Universe like our own. The problem is that the Universe currently does not have anywhere near the number predicted of monopoles - if any. John Preskill, a Cal Tech physicist predicted that the number of monopoles expected under the standard grand unified theories and classic Big Bang cosmology would be about equal to the number of protons and neutrons in the Universe.

Since monopoles have enormous mass, the Universe would have collapsed upon itself billions of years ago. Since it obviously did not, Preskill concluded that something was amissâ&#x20AC;Ś and hence the "magnetic monopole problem" was introduced to cosmologists in the 1970's. As a result, Grand unified theories were in jeopardy of being discarded as they predicted something that was not seen in nature - monopoles.

This is where a young post-doctoral physicist, Alan Guth (currently of MIT), entered into the picture. He had been working on this problem with his friend and colleague from Cornell University, Henry Tye. Recognizing the problem of an excess of monopoles predicted by Big Bang models of the day, Guth and Tye were convinced that one reasonable solution related to some sort of delayed phase transition and the resultant supercooling of the Universe. This phase transition is at the crux of the inflationary Universe model and therefore is worthwhile for us to understand. It is similar to what is seen when water cools below its freezing point. When a large body of water freezes, energy is released that keeps the temperature of the water that is underneath the ice at the freezing point. In fact, until the entire body of water turns into ice, the temperature does not drop significantly below 320 F. Guth and Tye believed that the early Universe had a similar phase transition take place as it cooled. This phase transition corresponded to the breaking of a state of symmetry between the nuclear and electro-magnetic forces as they separated into individual forces. A simple way to understand what happened at about 10-37 seconds into the Big Bang is to picture the Universe as an entity that can exist in more than one energy state (like water in our example above). The lowest possible energy state is the one that it is in today; but it has not always been in this condition. When the forces of nature were unified, the Universe was in a higher energy state. Grand unified theories predict that a phase transition (from high energy state to low) took place at around 10-37 seconds into the Big Bang. It was at this point in the evolution of the Universe that Alan Guth and Henry Tye felt that a "delayed" phase transition allowed extreme supercooling to occur. This meant that the Universe cooled below the normal temperature expected for the phase transition to take place.

The product of this supercooling was called a false vacuum.

This false vacuum led to some very unusual effects. There was a tremendous amount of negative pressure generated in this false vacuum. The negative pressure created a repulsive force to the gravitational field in the early Universe. This repulsive gravitational force caused the 362

Universe to expand exponentially with a doubling rate of 10-37 seconds. With this phenomenal doubling rate, the Universe was able to expand to 1030 its original size in just 10-35 seconds as this allowed for 100 doubling times! If this seems difficult to believe, keep in mind that if someone gives you a penny, then gives you two cents on day two, four cents on day three and keep up this doubling process for only 30 days (let alone 100 as in our Universe example)… you would end up a multimillionaire! Since the supercooled false vacuum is not stable, the exponential expansion rate will eventually end (by a process called quantum tunneling). By that time the Universe would have made the transition to a true vacuum - the low energy state that it is in today. It would have also have inflated to an enormous size. Alan Guth was the first to recognize the consequences of this delayed phase transition and coined the name inflation in December 1979 to describe it.

Although Alan Guth introduced the idea of inflation into the Big Bang cosmology, the details of his explanation were not exactly correct. A problem was encountered at the end of inflation epoch. He had pictured the Universe as popping out in little bubbles off the preinflation Universe as it expanded from its miniscule size pre-inflation to its enormous size postinflation. The thought was that these bubbles would somehow merge and result in the Universe we see today. This did not work out mathematically, however. For a while, the concept of an inflation was in trouble. Andrei Linde, a Russian astrophysicist and Paul Steinhard an American professor at the University of Pennsylvania concurrently came up with a better model of inflation about a year later. In 1981, Linde wrote a paper describing an inflationary model that would allow the entire observable Universe to be contained inside one bubble expanding off a miniscule segment of the pre-inflation Universe. This concept satisfied theoretical constraints and is essentially the model accepted today. As Linde puts it, "It was very difficult to abandon this simple explanation of many different cosmological problems. I just had the feeling that it was impossible for God not to use such a good possibility to simplify His work, the creation of the Universe."4 I completely understand if the explanation above on just how our Universe came to be “flat” was too difficult to understand. Heck, this stuff is high level physics! All I want the reader to recognize is that since Guth’s initial speculation on how our Universe came to be so “flat” (i.e. it has a density almost perfectly equal to the critical density--- hence, allowing for the proper development of our Universe as we have seen), other scientists have seemingly improved on his original concept. However, the idea of the early rapid inflation of our Universe leading to its flatness today, is still the accepted theory of cosmologists in general. Don’t worry about the details. The point is that this theory allows the secular cosmologist to avoid looking to God as the cause of the flatness. They would have us believe that it was all generated via the Laws of Nature. Of course, they conveniently forget the fact that Someone would need to generate these Laws that would lead to the initial rapid expansion of the Universe in order to achieve its current “flat” state. Oh well…

363

Flatness, Horizon, Monopoles In summary, cosmologists had long hoped to find a model of our Universe that would eliminate the need to postulate that the initial conditions of our Universe were set to ensure an essentially "flat" and remarkably homogeneous Universe. Remember, that situation pointed too clearly to a Creator. The inflation theory of how our Universe became flat (discussed in the paragraphs above) supplies answers to several puzzles that had plagued cosmologist for years.

Let me list these problems and answers supplied by the "inflationary epoch": 1. Flatness problem: Why is it that our Universe happens to have essentially the critical density of matter. Since this is the case, the Universe had to have almost exactly the critical density just after the Big Bang began.

Answer: With inflation, the flatness problem disappears. "The effect of gravity is reversed during the period of inflation, so all the equations describing the evolution of the Universe are changed. Instead of omega being driven away from one, as it is during the rest of history of the Universe, during the period of inflation omega is driven toward one. In fact, it is driven toward one with incredible swiftness. In 100 doubling times, the difference between omega and 1 decreases by a factor of 1060.”5 Since there were at least 100 doubling times available during this inflationary time period, the density of the Universe could have been far away from the critical density yet still been incredibly close after the inflation epoch had been completed. Therefore, there would be no longer any reason to postulate a set of initial conditions that set the mass density of our Universe at the critical density. The standard cosmological Big Bang model picks up after this inflationary period and from that time forward any deviation from the critical density would grow. However, since it would have been so close to flat at the end of inflation, it would still be essentially flat today… as it is.

2. Horizon problem: If we use the mathematics of the classic Big Bang model and trace back into time two points on opposite ends of our Universe, we will note that when the Universe was about 10-35 seconds old the two points were separated by only about 6 mm. The surprising fact, however, is that after this short period of time light could have travelled only 3 X 10-25 cm… this is called the horizon distance (the maximum distance that light could have travelled since the onset of the Big Bang). This is a problem in that since information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, there would be no physical process that could result in the homogeniety and isotropy (ex. the cosmic background radiation is the same in all directions) seen in our Universe. Up until the inflation model the only explanation for this uniformity was that it was present at the start of the Big Bang and remained that way throughout the evolution of the Universe. In other words, it was an "initial condition.” With inflation, we get a different picture.

As the position of the aforementioned two points is traced back in time, the path that they would travel is identical with the classic Big Bang model until we reach the end point of inflation.

Then the paths diverge. In other words, the two paths are the same after about 10-35 seconds.

However, when considering times prior to inflation, the distance between the two points would 364

be markedly smaller in the inflationary model than in the standard model. Since in the inflationary model, the observable Universe is incredibly small, on the order of 10-50 meters, it would be no problem for light (and heat) to traverse the distances involved. This would allow for every region to exchange information and become homogeneous. After inflation, these regions would continue to expand (in keeping with the classic Big Bang model) and keep these isotropic characteristics. In other words, in the inflationary theory, the large-scale uniformity of the Universe is a natural result of its evolutionâ&#x20AC;Ś not because of pre-set initial conditions. In this model, the observed Universe emerged from a tiny speck of the entire Universe that existed in pre-inflation times. This "speck" ballooned out to create the Universe that we see and occupy today.

3. Monopole problem: This is the problem that Alan Guth was tackling when he arrived at his inflationary theory. The problem is that there are no monopoles seen in nature yet, if grand unified theories are correct, magnetic monopoles should be produced in a fairly large abundance in the early Universe. So where are they now? The simplest way to view the situation is to recognize that although there were many monopoles in the pre-inflationary Universe, it is easily conceivable that the tiny portion of the Universe that inflated to become our observable Universe simply did not encompass any of the monopoles. In fact, any portion that did contain a monopole would have collapsed "under its weight" soon after the inflationary period (due to the fact that omega would be much greater than 1). * How is it that the Universe could have grown to a size that required a rate of expansion faster than the speed of lightâ&#x20AC;Ś doesn't this violate the dictum that nothing can travel faster than light? As it turns outâ&#x20AC;Ś no. In general relativity, space itself is plastic. What happens after the Big Bang, is that space itself stretches. It is true that no particle of matter can outrace light.

However, coupled with the stretching of space itself, this particle can become separated from another by a greater distance than light could travel in that given time period. In other words, "the distance between two particles can increase due to the stretching of the space between them, and general relativity places no restriction on how fast the stretching can occur. As an analogy, one can imaging bugs crawling on a rubber sheet. No bug can crawl across the surface of the rubber at a speed faster than that of light, but the stretching of the sheet can carry bugs apart at unlimited speeds."6 Footnotes: 1. Davies, Paul, Other Worlds, 1988. P.131 2. Davies, Paul, Cosmic Blueprint, 1987. p.169 3. Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1998. P. 212 4. Guth, Alan, Inflationary Universe, 1998. p.206 5. ibid, p. 177 6. ibid, p. 183

365

Bibliography Section 1: Philosophy • • • • • •

Section 3: Evolution •

Corduan, Winfried, Reasonable Faith, 1994.

279 pp.

Craig, William, The Kalam Cosmological Argument, 1979. 225pp.

Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 2007. 841pp.

Geisler, Norman, Christian Apologetics, 2002. 393pp.

Kreeft, Peter and Tacelli, Ronald, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, 1994. 406pp.

Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, 1952. 175pp.

• • • • • •

Section 2: Cosmology • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

•

Davies, Paul, Other Worlds, 1990. 207pp.

Davies, Paul, The Mind of God, 1992.

254pp.

Ferguson, Kitty, Fire in the Equations, 1994.

307pp.

Gribbon, John and Rees, Martin, Cosmic Coincidences,1989. 301pp.

Heeren, Fred, Show Me God, 1997. 404pp.

Jastrow, Robert, God and the Astronomers, 1978. 133pp.

Leslie, John, Universes, 1996. 228pp.

Lennox. John, God’s Undertaker, 2007.

224pp.

Moreland, J.P., Creation Hypothesis, 1994.

331pp.

Ross, Hugh, Beyond the Cosmos, 1996.

229pp.

Ross, Hugh, The Creator and the Cosmos, 2001. 266pp.

Ross, Hugh, Fingerprint of God, 1991.

233pp Ross, Hugh, Creation and Time, 1994.

197pp.

Smoot, George, Wrinkles in Time, 1993.

329pp.

• • • • • •

Ankerberg, John & Weldon, John, Darwin’s Leap of Faith, 1998. 392pp.

Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box, 1996.

306pp.

Behe, Michael, The Edge of Evolution, 2007. 320pp.

Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, 1996. 163pp.

Denton, Michael, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, 1986. 368pp.

Huse, Scott, The Collapse of Evolution, 1995. 208pp.

Johnson, Philip, Darwin on Trial, 1993.

220pp.

Margenau and Varghese, Cosmos, Bios, Theos, 1997. 285pp.

Meyer, Stephen, Signature in the Cell, 2009.

611pp.

Meyer, Stephen, Darwin’s Doubt, 2013, 2013. 540pp.

Pun, Pattle P.T., Evolution, Nature and Scriptue in Conflict ?, 1982, 336pp.

Simmons, Geoffrey, Billions of Missing Links, 2007. 283pp.

Thaxton, Charles, et. al., Mystery of Life’s Origin, 2020. 485pp.

Wells, Jonathan, Icons of Evolution, 2002.

338pp.

Section 4: Christian Apologetics • • • • • • •

366

Ankerberg and Weldon, Ready with an Answer, 1997. 404pp.

Craig, William, Reasonable Faith, 1994.

350pp.

Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 2007. 839pp.

McDowell, Josh, The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, 1999. 760pp.

Stroebel, Lee, The Case for Christ & The Case for Faith, 2006. 292pp.& 279pp.

Lewis, C.S., Mere Christianity, 1943. 190pp.

Nichols, David, Fifty Signs of the End Times, 2012. 232pp.

368

369