God’s Not Dead

God’s Not Dead

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Above image by Arek Socha from Pixabay

Did you see the movie God’s Not Dead? I watched God’s Not Dead several years ago when it first came out. I returned a few days later to watch it a second time with my son and several of his friends. This time I took notes, as well as anyone can take notes in a dark theater.

If you have watched this movie or plan on watching it, then take a moment and read this. It will help explain some of the arguments used by both the atheist, Professor Radisson, and the Christian student, Josh Wheaton. This review (if you can call it that) is far from exhaustive in covering the logical fallacies and apologetic arguments, but it may be useful for the layman.

The Most Intelligent People are Atheists

The first argument Professor Radisson used when he walked into his philosophy class was to point to a list of famous, intelligent, if not brilliant, people who were all atheists. This is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. If you come up with a list of famous, educated, or influential people who support your cause, your cause must be essential and intellectually just.

Every year in politics, you see candidates endorsed by famous actors or actresses. They do this because the Hollywood spotlight holds a position of influence over us. If a famous actor or actress supports someone, more people will vote for that individual. Both the Republicans and the Democrats use a Hollywood face or well-known sports figure to promote their campaign. The fact that both sides take part in this should tell you something. It works.

Christians could also come up with a list of brilliant minds that believed in God or the Christian worldview. In popular culture, we have Tyler Perry, Ryan Gosling, Patricia Heaton, Chris Pratt, Denzel Washington, Mel Gibson, Martin Sheen, Angela Bassett, to name a few in the Hollywood circles. They all believe in God or profess to be Christians. We could also list those famous for their towering intellect. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Newton, and Mendel, to name a few.

Appealing to authority can be persuasive, but it does not make something true. Even if everyone I listed above thought that the world was flat, it would not be true. And when Professor Radisson shows off a list of brilliant and famous people that were, or are, atheists, it does not make atheism true any more than the lists I offered make Christianity true.

The prompting is that only intelligent people are atheists, but you can see that is not the case. The suggestion is that science trumps faith, and that science and faith are at odds. Or more specifically, that knowledge and faith are on opposite ends of each other. Many atheists and even some Christians believe the less knowledge you have, the more faith you need. Please give it some thought. This is obviously not true; the opposite of faith is unbelief, not knowledge, and the opposite of knowledge is not faith, but ignorance. Throughout history and today, brilliant minds have excellent reasons and evidence for their faith.

Atheists do not have the market on knowledge, reason, and science. In my readings on apologetics, I have found tremendous support for my faith in Christ. As my knowledge has increased, so has my faith/confidence. As Josh researched the Christian worldview, no doubt his faith also increased.

I want to address two apologetic arguments Josh Wheaton used in the movie. This will help those watching the film for the first time understand the philosophy behind them. It is also important for every Christian to be familiar with them because they commonly come up when talking to skeptics or atheists.

The First Cause

The first argument Josh brought up was the Big Bang Theory.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble noticed what he called a ‘red shift’ in the color of very distant galaxies. This turned out to mean that the galaxies were moving away; in other words, the universe was expanding. Why is this significant? If we dial back time a thousand years, the universe would be smaller than it is today. If we were to go back a million years, it would be smaller still. So we could go back to the beginning and find the universe compressed into a single point that science calls a singularity. What caused this singularity? We call that God. As Greg Koukl puts it, to have a Big Bang, you must have a Big Banger.

Just a few years later, Albert Einstein came to peer through the telescope at the Wilson Observatory to confirm, at least in his own mind, the findings of Hubble. Since then, science has continued to confirm this, and the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted in the scientific community. 

I know many Christians that have been uncomfortable with this, but it plays into the hand of those who believe in God. Simply put, if the universe had a beginning, it must have been created. For centuries, scientists believed that the universe had always existed, but Genesis says, “In the beginning God created…”

One form of the cosmological argument is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and essentially it states the following premises and conclusion:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Someone might ask, “Then who caused God?” but God is an uncaused, eternal being. He stands outside of his creation, much like the author of a book stands outside of his novel. Time is inexorably tied to our universe, and God stands outside it. He is not bound by his creation any more than Thomas Kinkade is bound to live in one of his idyllic country cottage paintings.

Professor Hugh Ross, who has written several books on cosmology and lectured at over 300 campuses, wrote, “Consider the way parents prepare their children to explore and relate to the world and the rest of humanity. Step-by-step, as the little one matures, father and mother allow the world of exploration and relationships to expand. Likewise, according to the Bible, God will allow his children to move beyond their smallish playground (planet earth) into the expansive realm (the new creation) he always intended for them to experience and enjoy.”((Ross, Hugh. “Why Such a Lonely Universe.” Why The Universe Is The Way It Is, Baker Books, 2008, p.78))

Problem of Evil

Another argument Josh addressed is the problem of evil. The argument goes something like this: how can an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing God allow evil? David Hume put it this way, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”

Let me ask you, what is your purpose in life? If you hold a Christian worldview, you must understand that your purpose in life is not your happiness but to commune with God. This life does not end with our last breath but spills over and opens up a door to an eternal ocean of God’s presence and love.

The old woman in the nursing home toward the end of God’s Not Dead spells it out nicely when she says to her son, “Sometimes the devil allows people to live a life free of trouble, because he doesn’t want them turning to God.”1 Some of you may have the same experience I do when I say the times I have been the most active in prayer are when I have been going through difficulty. No doubt many of you have experienced the same thing. How many have cried out to God when encountering a sudden life-threatening experience? In times of difficulty, most everyone recognizes we turn toward God, but sometimes the answer is no, and we suffer great pain or loss. For many of us, this brings us closer to God, and a greater understanding of the purpose to our life.

Timothy Keller wrote, “For many years, after each of the morning and evening Sunday services, I remained in the auditorium for another hour to field questions. Hundreds of people stayed for the give-and-take discussions. One of the most frequent statements I heard was, ‘Every person has the right to define right and wrong for himself or herself.’ I always responded to the speakers by asking, ‘Is there anyone in the world right now doing things you believe they should stop doing no matter what they personally believe about the correctness of their behavior?’ They would invariably say, ‘Yes, of course.'”2

We are all free to do good, and we are all free to do evil. The same freedom allows us to do one or the other, but we could not measure evil without good. Without God, evil is just a behavior that some don’t enjoy, and it becomes a subjective feeling. 

Timothy Keller pointed out that without a grounding objective morality we get from God, then evil is just a point of view. If we each decide what is right and wrong, then evil is just a matter of opinion. 

Volumes have been written on the problem of evil, and it is one Christians should be familiar with because it can be one of the most challenging questions to answer when the suffering does not offer any rhyme or reason. 

See God’s Not Dead if you have not seen it. I would have enjoyed more classroom debate and apologetic arguments in greater detail, more character development. Still, it has raised awareness in Christians who might otherwise never have considered intellectual and philosophical arguments for their belief in Christ. 

Creative Commons License
God’s Not Dead by James W Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

  1. God’s Not Dead. Dir. Harold Cronk, Perf. Kevin Sorbo, Shane Harper. Pure Flix Entertainment, 2014. Film []
  2. Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God. New York: Penguin Group, 2008. Print. []
Why I Am Not an Evolutionist – Part III

Why I Am Not an Evolutionist – Part III

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Part I   Part II

I addressed the first pillar necessary for Darwinian evolution, abiogenesis in Part II. Here in Part III, we will look at the second pillar essential for Macro-evolution, the fossil record. In the last hundred years since Darwin published ‘On the Origin of Species,’ paleontologists (people who study fossils) have universally discovered that new animal forms in the fossil record appear abruptly, not gradually as Darwin predicted. Not only are the appearances abrupt, but with little connection to the life that came before.

Because this appearance is so sudden, paleontologists refer to the appearance of more than half of the major animal groups some 530 million years ago as the Cambrian explosion.((Valentine, James W. On the Origin of PhylaChicago, University of Chicago Press, 2004, pg 35)) To put this in perspective, if our planet’s history or timeline was stretched to the length of a football field, the Cambrian explosion would use up about 4 inches.

Turtles are a fine example of a group of animals that appear suddenly in the fossil record. Some 200 million years ago, they entered the stage fully developed and did not have any intermediate forms. Their top shell, called the carapace, is made up of about 50 bones covered with scutes (plates of armor) that have a layer of keratin (like our fingernails) that help protect the shell.((Meyer, Stephen C. “Fossil Succession.” Explore Evolution, Melbourne & London, Hillhouse Publishers, 2007, p 24))

How can evolution explain this? Evolutionary biologist Scott Gilbert wrote, “The turtle shell represents a classic evolutionary problem: the appearance of a major structural adaptation…[evolution] needs to explain the rapid origin of the turtle carapace.”((Meyer, Stephen C. “Fossil Succession.” Explore Evolution, Melbourne & London, Hillhouse Publishers, 2007, p 24))

On the flip side, we have examples of organisms that have remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. If you compare fossils of the Ginko leaf to modern Ginko leaves you will see they are unchanged in 130 million years.

Image by wal_172619 from Pixabay

You can also research fossilized nautilus shells and see they are also unchanged in over 400 million years of evolutionary opportunity. Finally, you can find fossilized comb jelly (similar to jellyfish) from the Cambrian period, identical in form to the modern comb jelly. Paleontologists have a name for this kind of stability in the fossil record, ‘stasis.

These examples certainly challenge the evolutionary picture that is widely accepted and promoted in our culture. David Raup, who was a paleontologist at the University of Chicago wrote, “What geologists of Darwin’s time and geologists of the present-day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”((Raup, David M. “Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, 1979 pgs 22-29.))

Few paleontologists will admit the fossil record does not show the transitional forms predicted by Darwinian evolution. Why is that? Many in the field of science have a philosophical bias against a creator. Facts and evidence are irrelevant because they don’t want to be answerable to anyone or anything.

Richard Lewontin, an evolutionary geneticist, and a Marxist wrote, “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”((Lewontin, Richard. “Billions and billions of demons,” The New York Review of Books, 9 January 1997, p31)) Uncommon clarity and transparency coming from a Darwinian evolutionary believer. 

Former atheist Lee Strobel shared the same bias as Lewontin and wrote, “I was more than happy to latch onto Darwinism as an excuse to jettison the idea of God so I could unabashedly pursue my own agenda in life without moral constraints.”((Strobel, Lee. “Since Miracles Contradict Science, They Cannot Be True.” Case for Faith, Zondervan, 2000, pg91.))

I have addressed the Miller experiment in previous posts, but one of the most well-known and popular ‘missing links’ is Archaeopteryx (meaning ancient wing). This specimen was first found a year after Darwin published The Origin of Species, and within a few years, a total of 8 specimens were found in the Solnhofen limestone quarry in Germany.

According to Kenneth Mason and Jonathan Losos, “Undoubtedly the most famous of these is the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx, which lived around 165 million years ago. This species is clearly intermediate between birds and dinosaurs. Its feathers, similar in many respects to those of birds today, clearly reveal that it is a bird. Nonetheless, in many other respects – for example, possession of teeth, a bony tail, and other anatomical characteristics – it is indistinguishable from carnivorous dinosaurs.”((Losos, Jonathan B., and Susan R. Singer. “21 The Evidence for Evolution.” Biology, by Kenneth A. Mason, 11th ed., McGraw Hill, 2017, pp. 428–429.)) You don’t hear how much the role of Archaeopteryx is in dispute, that is if it is actually a link between reptiles and birds. The evolution of birds from non-flying reptiles is not a simple matter.

Just how this could have happened falls into two camps, the trees down theory and the ground-up theory. The tree’s down theory seems to make more sense because we can envision animals already in the trees over millions of years having small variations and adaptations that would allow them to stay in the air longer. While the ground up theory would mean birds evolved from an animal that ran on the ground and used their hind legs for running and their forelimbs for catching prey, and those forelimbs evolved into wings.((Wells, Jonathan. “Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link.” Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2000, pgs 116-117))

The role of Archaeopteryx causes a division between evolutionists and paleontologists. Until recent years, Darwinists classified and grouped organisms by sharing a common ancestor’s. Then in the 1950s, a second camp began and relied entirely on homology (having the same or similar relation, relative position, or structure). This new perspective is called ‘cladistics’ and simply assumes common descent or a common ancestor without evidence.

Jonathan Wells wrote concerning cladistics, “The order in which animals appear in the fossil record also becomes secondary or irrelevant. If evolutionary relationships are inferred solely on the basis of character comparisons, an animal can be the descendant of another even if the supposed ancestry doesn’t appear until millions of years later. The fossil record is simply re-arranged to fit the results of cladistic analysis.”((Wells, Jonathan. “Archaeopteryx: The Missing Link.” Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, Inc. 2000, pg 119)) All other lines of evidence or considerations take a back seat. Problems in the ground-up theory, such as having animals older in the fossil record than their ancestors, is dismissed and assume the dating of the fossil records are in error.

Is Archaeopteryx a missing link or not? According to cladistics, it was a two-legged dinosaur with feathers. However, many textbooks still claim that it is the missing link but fail to point out the in-house argument as to its origins and, if anything, modern birds, for example, did evolve from it.

Cladistics does not even try to explain the Cambrian explosion. It is simply a tool to classify organisms. Stephen Myer wrote in Darwin’s Doubt, “Cladistics does not, and cannot, offer any explanation of what caused the Cambrian animals to come into existence. Nor can it account for the origin of genetic and epigenetic information necessary to produce them.”((Meyer, Stephen C.”Epilogue: Responses to Critics of the First Edition.” Darwin’s Doubt, Harper One, 2013, pgs 436-437))

In the spring of 2000, Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen gave a lecture at the University of Washington. Chen discovered some Cambrian-era fossils in southern China, and after TIME magazine ran a story on the Cambrian explosion and mentioned Chen’s findings, he became a notable expert in the field.

His findings displayed an even greater variety of body plans than many paleontologists expected. The Chinese fossils supported the contradiction that life seemed to appear suddenly and spontaneously without gradations, not what Darwinists would have everyone believe. During the lecture, one professor questioned Chen about his criticism of Darwinian evolution, as if reminding him to be careful. Stephen Meyer, who was at the lecture, wrote, “As a result, one professor in the audience asked Chen, almost as if in warning, if he wasn’t nervous about expressing his doubts about Darwinism so freely – especially given China’s reputation for suppressing dissenting opinion. I remember Chen’s wry smile as he answered. ‘In China,’ he said, ‘we can criticize Darwin, but not the government. In America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.'”((Meyer, Stephen C.”Soft Bodies and Hard Facts.” Darwin’s Doubt, Harper One, 2013, pgs 50-52.))

Why are the conclusions of creationists immediately dismissed as biased but not atheists? Indeed, atheists have a worldview they want to protect, and like that of a creationist, they are anything but neutral; it is a double-edged razor. Both have worldviews and beliefs that may sway their findings, but having opinions consistent with the Bible does not mean it is based on the Bible.

The truth of any view is not based on the worldview of a particular person but based on the quality of evidence. There is no evidence for abiogenesis, only speculation that would make the most addicted of gamblers hesitate to place a bet. As for the fossil record, it is very much in question, even among Darwinists themselves and far from the slam dunk many evolutionists would have us believe.

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. ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

Creative Commons License
Why I Am Not an Evolutionist – Part III by James W Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Why I Am Not an Evolutionist – Part III

Why I Am Not an Evolutionist – Part II

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Part I   Part III

In Part II, I want to address the first necessary pillar for Darwinian Evolution: Abiogenesis, or life from non-life.

A is not. 

Bio is life. 

Genesis is beginnings.

At one point in the history of our planet, there was no life. Then at another point, there was life. Where did this first life come from? If you are an evolutionist, then that life must have started by accident, but how could that happen?

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA who is also a staunch evolutionist, wrote a memo as a warning to his fellow researchers, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”1 I have to ask, why do they have to keep that in mind? What is staring them in the face that they can’t come to grips with? A grand designer? Of course, if you have a grand designer, then we are answerable to someone, a creator.

In 1953, Stanley Miller created a mix of chemicals to represent our earth’s early atmosphere in the laboratory. Miller then sent pulses of electrical current through the chemical mixtures for several days to represent possible lightning strikes. A thick tar coated the flasks, and within this tar, Miller found some amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. In turn, proteins are necessary for life.((Behe, Michael J. Darwin’s Black Box. Free Press: New York, 2006. Print.)) Researchers today reject this experiment because the mixture he used to represent our earth’s atmosphere (methane and ammonia) was largely inaccurate.((House, Wayne H. Intelligent Design 101. Grand Rapids: Kregl Publications, 2008, Print.)) According to Scientific American, the early earth atmosphere mainly was nitrogen with a mix of carbon, methane, water, and vast amounts of water vapor.((Emspak, Jesse. “Early Earth’s Atmosphere was Surprisingly Thin.” Scientificamerican.com, Scientific American, 14 May, 2016 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/early-earth-s-atmosphere-was-surprisingly-thin/))

Even if the artificial atmosphere conditions Miller created in the lab were accurate, the problem of amino acids forming to create a protein was even more problematic. For amino acids to form a protein chain, they must lose a molecule of water, and with water being so abundant on earth, you have another hill to overcome. On top of that, amino acids dissolve in water, one of the necessary ingredients for accurately representing an early earth’s atmosphere.((Emspak, Jesse. “Early Earth’s Atmosphere was Surprisingly Thin.” Scientificamerican.com, Scientific American, 14 May, 2016 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/early-earth-s-atmosphere-was-surprisingly-thin/))

Some may say the Miller experiment is over 60 years old, and only old textbooks reference it anymore. That is rubbish. With just a couple of minutes on the Internet, you will land several current references to the Miller-Urey experiment and no mention of the errors. You can also Google Stanley Miller, and at the top of the list is Encyclopedia Britannica, and the article on Miller highlights his experiment without any mention of its flaws.((Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Stanley Miller.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 28 Feb. 2018, www.britannica.com/biography/Stanley-Lloyd-Miller.))

Even PBS mentions Stanley Miller and the idea of Panspermia, which is life on earth was seeded from another planet.((KCTS Television. “Meteorites & Life. Did We Come From Comet Dust?” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 2005, www.pbs.org/exploringspace/meteorites/murchison/page5.html.)) Of course, that just pushes back the dilemma a step; how life initially began is still not answered because if life on earth was seeded, then we still need to ask how life started from another location. 

Darwin recognized many of the shortcomings of his theory. In the Origin of Species, in chapter 6 titled Difficulties on Theory, he wrote, “These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:

  • On the absence or rarity of transitional varieties.
  • On the origin and transitions of organic beings with peculiar habits and structure.
  • Organs of extreme perfection and complication.
  • Organs of little apparent importance.

Darwin continued, “Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”((Darwin, Charles. “Difficulties on Theory.” On the Origin of Species. Or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Down, Bromley, Kent. 1859. pg 189. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm))

Finally, his famous quite that many are familiar with, “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.” Most people who quote that statement of Darwin stop there and never include the next sentence. At first glance, you would think that Darwin is expressing great doubts about his theory, but what most leave out is, “But I can find out no such case.”((Darwin, Charles. “Difficulties on Theory.” On the Origin of Species. Or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Down, Bromley, Kent. 1859. pg 189. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm))

I don’t want to be accused of cherry-picking quotes and pulling them out of context. Darwin certainly saw obstacles with his theory, but he also felt they were not insurmountable. Why? Because the cell was a black box, he had no idea what was within it, let alone the DNA instructions within the nucleus, which can contain about 3 billion bases.

Not only is the single-cell a complex powerhouse, but so is the code within DNA that is found in the nucleus of the cell. DNA relies on proteins for its production, but proteins rely on DNA for their production. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Exactly one hundred years before I was born, Darwin published ‘On the Origin of Species.’ At that time Darwin had no idea how complex the cell was, which Michael Behe pointed out when he wrote Darwin’s Black Box, which helped launch the Intelligent Design movement. Behe’s efforts landed his book on the National Review’s list of the twentieth century’s 100 most important nonfiction works.

For many of you, when you hear the term Black Box, you think of the flight data recorder, (FDR) that records the cockpit conversations and flight data of all commercial aircraft. When there has been an aircraft accident, one of the first clues to what caused the accident that investigators look for is the aircraft’s black box.

For obvious reasons, flight data recorders are designed to be very durable since we would lose the data in weak or flimsy containers. Wrapped in titanium or steel with shock-resistant insulation, FDR can survive impacts of over 300 mph and continue to transmit for up to a month. They can also endure temperatures of over 1000 degrees, operate at -55 degrees, and are equipped with underwater locator beacons that can transmit at depths of 20,000 feet. It is incredible to think about what punishment those black boxes can take and still provide valuable information to help solve aircraft accidents every year.

Dr. Michael Behe’s book had nothing to do with the black boxes we find in commercial aircraft but simply the biological cell. They could see the cell do some fantastic things but had no idea how. The cell and its inner working parts and functions were a black box to science in the 1850s. Science could not peer into and see its marvelous design, let alone understand what parts molecules or atoms played in the world of microbiology.

In his book Behe coined the term “irreducible complexity” and explained it this way, “By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”((Behe, Michael. “Lilliputian Biology.” The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Darwin’s Black Box. Free Press, 2006. pgs. 6-11. Print.)) In other words, all the parts are needed for the system to work. If just one part of the machine was missing or not functioning as it should, then the machine would be rendered useless.

Back to the Flight Data Recorders, all the data is lost should an aircraft’s FDR fail to survive the impact. Should an FDR fail to resist the high temperatures of a crash, the information is lost. Should the FDR locator beacon fail, the data could be lost. The data is lost if the FDR fails to resist crushing water pressures. If any systems fail that are designed to keep the data safe, the information is lost. That is what Dr. Michael Behe is talking about in an irreducibly complex system. Should any parts not work, the whole system fails. He gave another, even better example, a mousetrap. The mousetrap has a base, hammer, spring (to move the hammer), a holding bar, and a catch (where you put the cheese).

 Each of these parts are necessary for the mousetrap to function. Without the base, you have nothing to mount the other parts on. Without the hammer, you have nothing to kill the mouse with. Should you lack the spring, you have nothing to give the hammer its force. Missing the holding bar, you have nothing to hold the hammer back in its position to strike. Missing the catch, you have nothing to trigger or even place the bait on to attract the mouse to the trap. Each and every part is necessary for the mousetrap to work.

 You might be asking what this has to do with abiogenesis. Dr. Behe found quite a few irreducibly complex biological systems, and one of them he focused on was the bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum uses an outboard motor system to move about, and it has quite a few different parts, but if even one of these parts is missing or not functioning, it will not work.

Studies have shown that about 40 different protein parts are needed for the flagellum to function in the cell. Not only are all the protein parts required for the flagellum to work, but they also have to be added in the correct order; otherwise it will not function. So like the mousetrap, the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex, and science cannot explain how this is possible in an evolutionary fashion.((Behe, Michael. “Lilliputian Biology.” The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, Darwin’s Black Box. Free Press, 2006. pgs. 6-11. Print.))

Irreducibly complex systems are a real enigma for Darwinists because it takes a system that functions for natural selection to make improvements on it. So how could life begin with a system as complex as the cell without first being an irreducibly complex system?

Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts. – Francis Crick

Part III

Creative Commons License
Why I am not an Evolutionist – Part II by James W Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://christianapologetics.blog/.


  1. Geisler, Norman. Turek, Frank. “The First Life: Natural Law or Divine Awe?” I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, Crossway. 2004. []
Why I Am Not an Evolutionist – Part III

Why I Am Not an Evolutionist – Part I

Reading Time: 8 minutes

Above Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

Part II   Part III

I am not an evolutionist because of what I have learned in science concerning Darwinian Evolution. I have reasons for doubting Evolution because of what I find in scripture. Still, in my mind, that just confirms what serious shortcomings evolution already has within the realm of science.

First, it is essential to define our terms and what we mean when using the word Evolution. Above I was talking about Darwinian Evolution or macro-evolution. When we hear the word Evolution, almost always, it is in reference to the classical Darwinian Evolution or large changes over time, but Evolution typically has three definitions we need to consider when discussing this topic with anyone.

The term evolution in its most basic sense merely means change over time. In that sense, I have no problem with the term evolution, and you shouldn’t either. Just look around; things change over time. Indeed, you have changed over time. You were once a child, and now you are an adult.

The second way people, (often found in Jr. High and High school textbooks) use the word Evolution is when they describe micro-evolution or small changes over time. Again, I have no problem with this. We see small changes taking place in the world around us. For example, Darwin’s finches are a fine example of micro-evolution and adaptation. Another example is the house sparrows introduced to North America in the 1850s. Over the last 150 years, the ones who have migrated north have become larger because a bigger body bird can survive better in colder climates, while those in the south are several ounces less in weight. In fact, if you were to look at a climate map over the U.S., you would see an obvious correlation between the larger and smaller sparrows depending on the climate.

The last way people use the word Evolution is when talking about macro-evolution or Darwinian Evolution. Macro, meaning large changes over time. Not just changes within a species, but a change of species. Reptiles to Redhawks, monkey’s to man, or wolves to whale. It is this meaning of Evolution that gives me serious doubts.

What is important to point out is that the examples we see throughout the scientific community for Evolution are examples of micro-evolution (small changes over time). From there, they extrapolate that macro-evolution (large changes over time) is true.

Simple changes in time are not examples of macro-evolution and should not be considered valid evidence for Darwinian Evolution. So next time you hear that change over time is proof of Evolution, ask them what evidence there is for macro-evolution, and the odds are excellent they will give you an example of micro-evolution.

Now that we have a clear understanding of Evolution and what people mean when they use that term, I want to share two main reasons I have doubts about Evolution.

For Darwinian Evolution to be true, there are two conditions or two pillars that must support Evolution for it to be true. These two requirements must be answered by those who believe in the third definition of Evolution.

The first is abiogenesis or life from non-life. If Evolution is true then life must have started by accident. Nothing planned, nothing designed, just a blind haphazard event that took place billions of years ago that kicked off all the life we see around us.

For what it is worth, I don’t have a problem with the time frame. That is the belief that our universe is billions of years old, but I will not get into the old earth vs. young earth discussion. However, I need to point out that an old earth is a necessary condition for Evolution, and because of this, some Christians are uncomfortable with an old earth view. Frank Turek said it best, “…we do want to point out that while the age of the universe is certainly an interesting theological question, the more important point is not when the universe was created, but that it was created.”((Geisler, Norman. Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Wheaton: Crossway 2004, Print.))

I feel there is enough evidence to suggest an old earth, and that does nothing to hinder my Christian faith. So yes, you can believe in an old earth and still be a Christian.

The second pillar is transitional forms or simply the fossil record. This would be the evidence of simple to more complex life evolving over millions of years, from invertebrates to vertebrates. The primary differences are vertebrates have a backbone, central system, and an internal skeleton; invertebrates have none.((Meyer, Stephen C. et al. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and against Neo-Darwinism. Malvern, Australia: Hill House, 2013. Print.))

Abiogenesis and transition from one species to another are the two necessary pillars to uphold Evolution and natural selection. Even if just one of those were to fail, then the whole theory would crumble due to the necessity of each. As important as those are, the good news is, they are also the weakest and easiest to refute.

Before we explore these two necessary pillars that hold up the evolutionary theory, I want to deal with a misconception perpetrated by many in the scientific community and those who are dismissive of a creator God.

In recent years there has been an effort to dismiss those who don’t believe in Evolution as low brow, uneducated, misinformed, unschooled, and ignorant. However, some studies have supported the notion that creationists are simply not as intelligent as those who believe in Evolution.

Sam Harris, who wrote The End of Faith, Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, said this about religion to set the stage for anyone who believed in a Creator God. “Once we begin thinking seriously about happiness and suffering, we find that our religious traditions are no more reliable on questions of ethics than they have been on scientific questions generally.”((Harris, Sam. “The Science of Good and Evil.” The End of Faith, Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. W. W. Norton & Company. 2005))

He implies that creationists are unreliable on questions of ethics and morals; they should not be respected in science topics. Please give this a moment’s thought. If there is only one thing I want you to grasp in this post, it is this. Science is in the position to tell us why things are the way they are, but it never will be in the position to tell us the way things ‘ought’ to be.

Rafi Letzter, a journalist for Live Science, wrote a piece titled, ‘Here’s why so many smart people don’t believe in evolution.’ He addresses the research, (one study imparticular) that implies those who don’t believe in Evolution as being less intelligent than those that do. He wrote, “It strikes me as an attempt to marginalize and dismiss the perspectives of religious people for the benefit of Right-Thinking and Clever Academia. I suspect, personally, that a determined person could uncover any number of beliefs and attitudes held by academics that correlate with negative scores on tests of mental proficiency. All of which is to say: I think we should be skeptical of anyone who publishes a study explaining why people who disagree with them are less clever.”((Letzter, Rafi. “Here’s why so many smart people don’t believe in evolution.” Business Insider, businessinsider.com, 15 September 2016. http://www.businessinsider.com/christian-jewish-religious-evolution-2016-9))

Letzter addressed the specific test given by two psychologists, Will Gervais and Ara Nornzayan, in 2015. This test was just three questions that, off-hand to the casual observer, would seem to have an obvious answer. However, the intuitive answer was actually not the correct one. This test was called Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT). What Gervais and Nornzayan found was that those who scored higher on the CRT tended to believe in Darwinian Evolution than those who did not believe in Evolution. Conclusion? Smarter people believe in Evolution.

Out the gate, this is an excellent example of the ad hominem fallacy. Someone attacks your character rather than your argument. One example would be insulting someone because of their education level when they don’t agree with you on a particular issue. For example, “You didn’t even finish high school, so how could you understand anything about evolution?” Another example would be stating that someone’s argument is incorrect because of religious beliefs. “Christians don’t believe in evolution, and some probably still think the earth is flat, so it is a waste of time to even talk to them about evolution.”

If you read Letzter’s post, you will see some research that counters the claim that creationists are less intelligent than evolutionists, and you can find others out there. Upon further and deeper investigation, two other researchers (Kahan and Stanovich) found that secular students with high CRT scores and religious students with high CRT scores tended to stick to their cultural beliefs. This is an indicator that has nothing to do with intelligence.

Kahan and Stanovich concluded, “Far from uniformly inclining individuals to believe in Evolution, higher CRT scores magnified the division between relatively religious and relatively nonreligious study subjects. This result was inconsistent with the bounded rationality theory, which predicts that belief in Evolution should increase in tandem with CRT scores for all individuals, regardless of cultural identity. It was more consistent with the expressive rationality theory, under which individuals of opposing cultural identities can be expected to use all the cognitive resources at their disposal to form identity-congruent beliefs.”((Kahan, Dan M., Stanovich Keith. “Rationality and Belief in Human Evolution.” Social Science Research Network ssrn.com, 15 September 2016.))

In other words, intelligent people can also persuade themselves to accept or not accept an idea that might be counter to their own upbringing. They call it ‘expressive rationality.’ So those who are brought up believing science is the next best thing to sliced bread are predisposed to stick with that belief just as those in the intelligent design camp will stick with their own cultural identity.

Of course, if you understand the findings, you realize that it does nothing to further our position but simply points out that intelligent people on both sides of the aisle tend to stick to their conclusions. With that in mind, it can be said that many in the scientific community have issues with Evolution.

A few years back, there were over 500 scientists who signed a document that stated skepticism on random mutation and natural selection accounting for the complexity of life. Evolution News wrote, “The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.”((Crowther, Robert L. “Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.” Evolution News evolutionnews.org, 20 February 2006. https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/))

Finally, Evolution News & Science Today reported on the Royal Society Meeting in London in November of 2016. Their focus was on new trends in evolutionary biology. Evolution News wrote, “First, remember that the Royal Society is arguably the world’s most august scientific body…[and] that such a thoroughly mainstream scientific organization should now, at last, acknowledge problems with the received neo-Darwinian theory of Evolution is also obviously notable.”((Evolution News. “Why the Royal Society Meeting Mattered, in a Nutshell.” Evolution News, evolutionnews.org, 5 December 2016. https://evolutionnews.org/2016/12/why_the_royal_s/)) In the article, they list three main bullets that are yet unsolved concerning the theory of Evolution. The last of the three mentioned were transitional forms, one of the pillars I mentioned above.

I am not a scientist, but I do my homework because I am concerned about what is being taught in our schools. I also do my homework because I am concerned about our youth in church and what they consume, often unknowingly from our media. Finally, I do my homework because I want to inform those around me about worldviews counter to Christianity and the consequences of embracing them.

Darwinian Evolution is not the ‘case closed’ many in the scientific community suggest, and it is not just dismissed by the country Cajuns found in the backwaters of Lousiana. That may sound racist, but so does the full title of Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Belief in Evolution has consequences. Suppose you believe we are just the result of natural selection over a period of millions or billions of years. In that case, there is no ‘ought.’ No one, not clergy, not science, not presidents or prime ministers, not a government, not the United Nations, not a single one of us can weigh in on the questions of right and wrong because it is simply about reproducing and human flourishing. Survival of the fittest.

Part II

Creative Commons License
Why I AM Not an Evolutionist by James W Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Does Science Ever Point to God?

Does Science Ever Point to God?

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Radio Frequency IDentification, (RFID) tech has been around for years and has many advantages over commonly used UPC (Bar Codes) we see on just about everything we purchase at the store. RFID uses a microchip with an antenna and can identify objects, or people for that matter, without having to be line-of-sight. In addition, the chips can store more data than a barcode and send a signal from several feet away.

One day RFID tech will replace barcodes, but not until the price drops, and the price will not drop until more companies begin using RFID. A catch 22, if there ever was one. Or which will come first, the chicken or the egg? What would it take to solve this dilemma? Simultaneous implementation and cooperation. Everyone would have to agree and start using the tech simultaneously and have an industrial and economic system ready to embrace the change. So there must be coordination, communication, planning, timing, and implementation for this to happen. The intelligence behind the process is essential. We also see this in biochemical systems concerning DNA and proteins.

One of my former students who reads my blog sent me a message asking me if I have any posts on science and God. I pointed out a few to him, most recently the three-part series on why ‘I Don’t Believe In Evolution’.

http://www.knowingforsure.com/2018/04/11/why-i-dont-believe-in-evolution-part-i/ Not two weeks later, I took my daughter and a couple of her friends to an Apologetic conference in Rockland. One of the speakers was Professor Douglas Axe, who wrote “Undeniable – How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed.” Then, after some reflection, I decided to write another post on science and God.

The big question Axe has is to what we owe our existence? Are we simply a product of material evolution, and those who believe in God have an overactive imagination or rather a blind faith in the hopes of a better afterlife? Is our faith simply a crutch that rests on centuries of theologians’ evolutionary desires to explain what we don’t understand?

Many researchers have concluded our belief as Christians or theists is a by-product of evolution. If that is the case, we can’t expect this belief to depart from the human psyche any time soon. Justin Barrett, a professor at Fuller University, says, “It’s the way that human minds seem to develop naturally.”((Zukerman, Wendy. “The evolutionary psychology of believing in God.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC.net, June 10, 2014, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-evolutionary-psychology-of-believing-in-god/5512982)) Barrett believes, “The concept of God begins to emerge when children start searching for reasons to explain the world around them.”((Zukerman, Wendy. “The evolutionary psychology of believing in God.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC.net, June 10, 2014, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-evolutionary-psychology-of-believing-in-god/5512982))

Professor Robert Geraci also believes that evolution is responsible for our belief in something beyond the material. He teaches at Manhatten College in New York and explains we need an agency or a cause for everything. Intuitively, we all know this. The oak tree was caused by the seed of a previous oak tree, and that oak tree was caused by the seed of another, ad infinitum, but when we encounter things that don’t seem to have a cause or is beyond our understanding, then we inject a diety. In other words, everything should have a cause, and if we don’t see a cause, we make one up.

Geraci says, “Once humans became accustomed to seeing agency, [an action or intervention that produces an effect] around their world, it became an easy intellectual sidestep to say that something was causing events with no clear explanation, such as thunderstorms or sickness. In this way, believing in God may be kind of an accident of our evolutionary heritage.”1

If this is true and our belief is embedded in our evolutionary process, it should come as no surprise that breaking the chains of bondage from this line of thinking will be difficult. Barrett says, “If our belief in the divine is part of our evolution as a species, it explains why it is very difficult to shake.” According to Barrett, “It takes discipline, formal education, and cultural resources to ‘completely divorce oneself’ from these religious inclinations. It is difficult to consistently be a good atheist because our mind seems to be working against us.”1

Is our intuition in seeing design in the biological realm really an aberration of the truth? Has life risen from chance, and we are nothing more than moist robots, as Frank Turek calls it? Francis Crick, one of the co-founders of the DNA structure wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”2 I would ask, why assume our minds are working against us? What if our minds are working for us? Why do atheists conclude our minds are working against us? It is obvious some have a priori about human biology. I think most of us would agree that our intuition would better serve our survival if it is in line with truth and reality; to me, that is common sense.

Thankfully not all materialists believe that evolution is tricking us into believing in things that are not true. They admit how comfortable they are with a Godless worldview and even desire it to be true so they can live as they please without a God looking over their shoulder. They admit their own bias for a god-less worldview and openly admit they don’t want to answer to anyone for their decisions in this life.

Thomas Nagel, a professor at the New York University, wrote, “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is not God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind.”3 

That kind of open honesty about oneself and the scientific community at large is rare, and it is a left hook to the conclusions of Geraci and Barrett who blame evolution for our beliefs in God.

Let’s face it, if the evolutionary process is valid, the truth is irrelevant; all that matters is survival of the fittest and natural selection. Yet being a Christian missionary is contrary to natural selection. Selling all you have, traveling to a foreign country, encountering all kinds of dangers, and probably sacrificing your health, well-being, and possibly your life to share the Gospel does not lend itself to passing your genes into the next generation. So maybe in a few millennia, those pesky religious zealots will be weeded out.

In his book, Douglas Axe addresses the bias of many in the scientific community and has experienced it first hand as his research points to Intelligent Design. The focus of his research revolves around the proteins in our body. He points out what every biologist knows, that the proteins make up the cellular activity in our bodies. He likens them to the various parts of a car, and the vehicle is the cell. Without the components (carburetor, breaks, radiator, pistons, tires, etc.), the car would not function. The pieces would just lay on the roadway, inactive and non-functioning.

Each protein is made up of a strand or chain of amino acids, and these chains, when in the correct sequence fold up and create a three-dimensional structure. The genetic code and genes tell the amino acids how to connect and fold. In turn, DNA needs proteins to replicate, but proteins need DNA instructions to know what to form. So which came first, the chicken or the egg?

But the problem goes much deeper than that. Whether proteins or DNA came first is just one of several million-dollar questions, but we also need to know how DNA became a carrier of information to build proteins. DNA and proteins depend on each other for their existence, and researchers know it must be solved, or Darwin’s evolutionary theory is dead in the water.

Stephen Meyer, the author of Signature in the Cell, wrote, “At some point, DNA must have arisen as a carrier of the information for building proteins and then come into association with functional proteins. One way or another, the origin of genetic information still needed to be explained.”4 In other words, we can concede for a moment that functional proteins came about by an evolutionary process, (I don’t believe that) but who came up with the blueprint of instructions to assemble them? We can ask who made the various car parts on the street, (yes it would be nice to know), but we can also ask who wrote the directions on the assembly?

As far as Darwin’s theory of natural selection, we have to ask when did natural selection take place in the process? Obviously, we have to have an initial functioning cell arranged so that it survives. Natural selection does not explain the arrangement or assembly but rather after it has been living.

Jim Tour, a brilliant chemistry professor who has been listed as one of the top ten chemists globally and one of the top 50 most influential scientists in the world today, has some thoughts on natural selection. “If one asks the molecularly uninformed how nature devises reaction with such high purity, the answer is often, ‘Nature selects for that.’ But what does that mean to a synthetic chemist? What does selection mean? To select, it must still rid itself of all the material that it did not select. And from where did all the needed starting material come? And how does it know what to select when the utility is not assessed until many steps later? The details are stupefying, and the petty comments demonstrate that sophomoric understanding of the untrained.”5

We can conclude that RDIF technology came about by random, unguided natural processes over a period of millions of years. We can say the tiny, various microchip components came together and began to function despite what our intuition tells us. We can see that it has significant advantages over the commonly used barcodes, including more information. We understand that it would be a superior method to process data and move merchandise. We can concede it was random processes over eons of time that created this technology, but the question remains who wrote the directions for the arrangement?

“No matter what form the message takes the information being conveyed always originates in a mind. Information can’t be separated from the activity of an intelligent agent. And this connection makes this property a potent marker for intelligent design.”6 Atheists or theists all know that the process that controls our body, starting at the molecular level, contains massive amounts of information. There is no known example of information arising from arbitrary input.


  1. Zukerman, Wendy. “The evolutionary psychology of believing in God.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, ABC.net, June 10, 2014, https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-evolutionary-psychology-of-believing-in-god/5512982 [] []
  2. Crick, Francis. “Conclusions”, What Mad Pursuit, New York, Basic Books, 1988, pg 138 []
  3. Nagel, Thomas. “Logic”, The Last Word, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997, 130-131 []
  4. Meyer, Stephen C. “Self-Organization and Biochemical Predestination.” Signature In The Cell, Harper One, 2009, pg 235 []
  5. Axe, Douglas. “Seeing And Believing.” Undeniable – How Biology Confirms Our intuition That Life Is Designed, Harper One, 2016, pg 195 []
  6. Rana, Fazale. “The Artist’s Handwriting.” The Cell’s Design-How Chemistry Reveals The Creator’s Artistry, Baker Books, 2008, pg142 []

All we need is the missing link

Reading Time: 6 minutes
Early one morning, out of the blue, before any other students arrived, I had a student, (we will pretend his name was Tim) ask me, “Mr. Glazier, do you believe in God, or are you more of an agnostic?” I looked up from a paper I was grading and trying to make sense of and replied, “Oh, I definitely believe in God, and have quite a few reasons for my belief.” He announced, “Not me, I am leaning toward being an agnostic, for two reasons.” “What are those?” I asked. Tim replied, “Well you have the Big Bang that explains where it all started, and genetic mutation. All we need to do is find the missing link.” “Well.” I said, “Let’s start with the Big Bang. If the Big Bang started it all, what started the Big Bang? In other words, if you have a Big Bang, you need a Big Banger.” (I happily borrowed that from Greg Koukl). He laughed and replied he had no idea who could have started it. We chatted some more and I explained how time cannot go infinitely back, or we never would have reached today. I shared an example with him that has helped others wrap their head around such a concept. I described a scene where he was walking along a park and as he approached a man sitting on a park bench he heard the man counting up from negative numbers, “negative four, negative three, negative two, negative one, zero!” When the man reached zero he leaped up from the bench and began jumping up and down exclaiming, “I did it! I did it!” Of course you would ask, “Did what?” He replied grinning, “It took me a long time, but I finally counted up from negative infinity to zero!” I asked Tim, “What would you think?” Tim replied, “I would think he was crazy.” “So would I, Tim. You and I both know you can’t count up from an infinite negative number any more than you can write the smallest negative number. The first time someone said ‘this’ is the smallest negative number, someone else would walk up and add a zero making it smaller still.” I explained how time is no different; you can’t go back infinitely in time, or we never would have reached today. That simply means time, the universe, must have had a beginning. I did not bother to explain the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but it would go like this. 1. Everything that has a beginning, has a cause outside of itself. 2. The universe has a beginning. 3. The universe has a cause outside of itself, (we call God). I like to think Tim walked away with something to think about, because shortly after that some other students arrived and they began talking about the zombie apocalypse and I returned to grading papers. The truth was, I was no longer grading papers, but mulling over his comment about finding the missing link. “All we need to do is find the missing link.” In 1974, archeologists discovered what we now know as Lucy, a 3.2 million year old Australopithecus. The BBC reported on this find with the title, “The ‘Lucy’ fossil rewrote the story of humanity”1 Houston Museum of Natural ScienceHumans start off with 270 bones at birth and by the time we are adults it has reduced to 206 due to fusion of some. You can see for yourself how many bone, or bone fragments made up Lucy. In 2011, Time magazine reported on a archeological site where a total of 220 bones have been found belonging to five individuals. Kluger reports in the article, “Australopithecus — the genus that includes little Lucy — was the top-of-the-line model from 2 million to four million years ago. She gave way to Homo habilis — or “handy man,” named for its sophisticated grip and toolmaking skills — about 1.9 million years back. Habilis, in turn, gave way to Homo erectus, from 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago. Homo sapiens got into the game comparatively late, just 200,000 years ago. The tight fit between Homo habilis and Homo erectus didn’t seem to leave a lot of room — or suggest a lot of need — for another transitional species.”2 Breaking this down we have obviously have some very large gaps in time and samples that would prove the theory of macro-evolution. Australopithecus 2-4 million years ago Homo habilis 1.9 million years ago Homo erectus 1.8 to 1.3 million years ago Homo sapiens about 200,000 years ago Dr. Johanson, the paleontologist who discovered ‘Lucy’, said the estimated age was 3.2 million years. He also reluctantly admitted in a lecture that the various samples of Lucy had been discovered 200′ lower and over a mile apart from each other. His reasoning for believing the samples were from the same creature was ‘Anatomical similarity’. Anatomical similarity is simply the similarity between the parts found. A weak reason at best to believe all the fragments were from the same creature. The dates of Lucy were under question by creationists, and Dr. Johanson would not share the previous and multiple carbon dates results. When asked when and if they will ever be published, Dr. Johanson replied, “There is no reason to publish them because they are obviously erroneous.”3 More recently, National Geographic reported on ‘Ida’, a missing link discovered in Germany. Jorn Hurum, the paleontologist who led the team said, “The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs… This is the first link to all humans, the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor.” 4 Really? Just to be clear here, we will never find ‘The Missing Link’, not because there is not one, but because if macro-evolution is true, we are discussing millions upon millions of small, incremental changes within a species over very large periods of time. There will never be one find that explains the changes that took place from Australopithecus 2-4 million years ago to the arrival of Homo sapiens, 200,000 years ago. The term ‘missing link’ sells magazines and newspapers, when the media has nothing new to report on the economy, ISIS, and Obama Care. And the media will continue to use it to a misinformed public who will never ask, “So explain to me how this one fossil confirms all of the macro evolutionary time scale from 4 million years ago to the present?” Yes, I have serious doubts about macro-evolution and have addressed my reasons in other posts. Brian Palmer put it this way, “In this sense, though, every fossil is a missing link. There’s no single intermediate point between, say, opposable and nonopposable thumbs. Rather, a wide variety of fossils seem to resemble both hand structures. No one can say which version is directly related to the two. It is entirely possible that all, or none, of the fossils are steps along the way.”5 Popular culture, has coined the term missing link to mean something it was never intended to be. Missing link is used in evolutionary terms especially by laymen or people on the street, who really don’t know what they are talking about. We will never find a fossil that will completely explain evolutionary transition from Australopithecus to Homo sapiens. NewspaperDarwin himself did use the ‘intermediate link’, but one of the earliest use of the term missing link can be found from a creationist who was mocking Darwin and his theory. “The lecturer has described Mr. Darwin as of so mean and degraded a presence as to justify the hypothesis that he may himself be the veritable missing link of his own philosophy.” 6         There are three hundred and fifty thousand described species of coleoptera [beetles] in the world, more than any other order in the animal kingdom; when a later British biologist, J. B. S. Haldane, was pressed by a clergyman on the nature of God, he reportedly said, “He has an inordinate fondness for beetles.     Sources: 1. Hogenboom, Melissa. “The ‘Lucy’ fossil rewrote the story of humanity.” BBC. BBC.com, nd, Web. 7 March 2015 2. Kluger, Jeffrey. “Rethinking Human Origins: Fossils Reveal a New Ancestor on the Family Tree.” Time. Time.com, 8 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 March 2015. 3. Rogers, Dave. “Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link.” The Forerunner. Forerunner.com 22 December 2007. Web. 7 March 2015. 4. Handwerk Brian. “Missing Link Found: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?” National Geographic. National Geographic.com, 28 October 2010. Web. 2 March 2015. 5. Palmer, Brian. “How Many Times Will Paleontologists Find the ‘Missing Link’. Slate. Slate.com, 21 May 2009. Web. 7 March 2015. 6. Wyhe, John ed. The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online darwin-online.org.uk 2002. Web. 7 March 2015     Creative Commons License All we need is the missing link by James Glazier is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Pin It on Pinterest