NEWS & VIEWS (continued)

Creation News and Views-2

See also our

MEDIAWATCH

page

Creation Resources Trust Homepage

ARCHIVE OF PAST EDITORIAL ARTICLES

Also in Creation Update No.110:

Media Watch

Creation  Moments

CRT events

Resource News

EVOLUTION is more than a scientific theory; it is an article of faith to many scientists. This means that the theory that all life, from whales to wombats, ants to antelopes, orchids to ostriches, and hagfish to humans evolved from some common ancestor that somehow emerged from non-living matter millions of years ago, just has to be true and can’t possibly be wrong, whatever the evidence suggests. This commitment to the theory has given birth to what could be called the science of “must have.” (emphases added in examples below).

CONTINUING DILEMMA

The origin of life is a continuing dilemma for secular scientists, as an article from Newsweek demonstrates: “How life on Earth first started is a mystery mankind has grappled with for thousands of years. Scientists generally agree that all life must have evolved from single-celled organisms that first emerged around 3.8 billion years ago. But how this first form of life emerged is subject of much debate.”1

 Every form of life, even the “simplest”, has coded information in the form of the genetic code. The origin of this code has baffled secular scientists who refuse to concede that all information has an intelligent source. However, an online study course from the University of Texas states: “The near universality indicates that the genetic code must have existed very early in the history of life.”2

 The mollusc family includes octopuses, squid and cuttlefish, the most intelligent of the  invertebrates. New Scientist reported that recent genetic analysis suggests these creatures are not as closely related as once thought. This “overturns our previous understanding of how they got so brainy.” So “they must have evolved their centralised nervous systems independently, at different times.”3


“EARLIER THAN THOUGHT”

It is becoming quite common in science reports to read of creatures which existed “earlier than thought”, because fossils have been found where they don’t fit in with the standard evolutionary timescale.  This, in turn, leads to many more “must have” claims.

 When fossils of a particular type of sauropod dinosaur were discovered that were “about 15 million years older than expected of a dinosaur of this type” palaeontologist Philip Mannion told the New York Times, “This means that actually a large number of different sauropod groups must have evolved a lot earlier than previously realized.”4

 According to Scientific American, the hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs means that “Feathers, once thought unique to birds, must have evolved in dinosaurs long before birds developed.”5  Bats supposedly evolved from non-flying, shrew-like ancestors, even though no “proto-bat” fossils have been found. However, according to evolutionist Darren Naish, “Such creatures must have existed, of course.”6

 One of the things that sets us apart from other creatures is spoken language, the origin of which is a mystery to evolutionists. Linguist Noam Chomsky claims that it “must have evolved fairly quickly and in one discontinuous jump”7 — which is akin to saying language was created!


WHY NOT “MAY NOT HAVE”?

The science of “must have” is actually pseudo-science. True science follows the evidence and doesn’t discount alternative explanations. True scientists should consider the possibility that things “may not have” evolved. Most of our great scientists of the past were not afraid to recognise the action of a Creator when they studied  the amazing variety of living organisms. They may well have echoed these words from the last book of the Bible: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for you created all things,  and by your will they were created  and have their being.” (Revelation 4: 11).

REFERENCES:

1. Newsweek 19th May 2017. 2. www.coursehero.com/file/p30gsei/The-Genetic-Code-Must-Have-Evolved-Very-Early-In-the-History-of-Life

3. New Scientist 16th November 2011. 4. New York Times 16th July 2018.

5. Scientific American, 12th June 2015. 6. Scienceblogs.com, 5th March 2011

7. New Scientist book review, 24th February 2016.