Professor Dandridge, an atheist, was on his way to teach his Harvard students. He was especially gleeful because he would be teaching his favorite subject, Darwin’s theory of the origin of species. After kissing his wife good bye, Dandridge was somewhat startled and irritated by a neatly arrayed row of leaves on the driveway, those of which he just raked the morning before. Returning back, slightly less humored, he asks Mrs. Dandridge, “Why did you place those leaves in the driveway? Did you not see me rake them just yesterday?” Mrs. Dandridge responds with a chuckle, “Why, Henry, you amaze me! Automatically you knew that I, or someone, placed those leaves there because design must have a designer. If you have such faith in leaves, why have you no faith in God, the one who created all of these pesky leaves and even took a second or two to make you?” Mr. Dandridge (who now has no hope of retrieving his once chipper mood) exclaims, “Oh, Dear, how could you be so nave! It’s not a matter of faith, but of science!”
Throughout history, especially after the release of Darwin’s The Origin of Species, there has been controversy between the theory of evolution and that of intelligent design. This controversy has led to the issue of how to educate students on the origin of species. The theory of evolution is a belief that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor and developed into complex organisms through the process of natural selection over million-year periods. The theory is summed up in the Geologic Column, which uses rock sediments to distinguish between evolutionary periods and track the progress (evolution) of species, namely mankind, into more and more complex organisms. In the opposing view, intelligent design is the belief that the entire universe was created by a Creator. Although numerous religions believe in various gods, the Genesis account of creation provides the most evidence on the account of the origin of species. Both viewpoints are theories that seem to be supported by vast sums of evidence, but recently intelligent design has been not been given an equal opportunity. Because it is considered to be a theory based on religion, intelligent design is excluded by the Separation of Church and State ruling. However, if a theory is supported by evidence, it should not be excluded solely on the basis of its source. Bias in any area of life (including its origin) deprives people of knowledge; therefore, intelligent design should be offered in public schools not on the basis of religion but scientific fact.
Currently evolution is being taught in public schools. Support for this theory is centered on the process of natural selection, carbon dating, embryology, and paleontology. Many evolutionists argue that these sciences and techniques, along with the ambiguity of the Genesis account of the origin of species, discredit any scientific reasoning for intelligent design.
One of the main oppositions evolutionists have against intelligent design is its view of a young earth. Even many creationists are divided on the literal interpretation of the seven-day creation period. The following statement should end this controversy. The Hebrew word for “day” (‘yom’) is used in Genesis 1 to reference the seven days of Creation Week . It is also good to know that the word ‘yom’ always (100% of the time) means a literal solar or twenty-four hour day. If God created the earth in seven periods, He would have inspired the Hebrew word “olam,” which represents the English word for period. (Baugh) Evolutionists argue that such could not be so because the sun was not created until the fourth day. However, God does not need the sun to decipher between seconds, minutes, or hours. Like a watch determines the time without the sun, (as God) He would have internal time. Does not the Creator of time know how to determine it without the use of His creation?
Using Scripture itself as a guide, the biblical age of the Earth is 6,000 years (Baugh). Evolutionists disagree based on information provided from carbon dating that seems to indicate that the earth is millions, not thousands, of years old. [However] a less-common form of the carbon atom, carbon-14, is used today by scientists as a method to date once-living organisms. Because of the difficulties with current C14 dating techniques, the dates produced have been shown to be faulty.
Carbon-14 is used for a dating material because once it has been formed, C14 begins to decay radioactively back to nitrogen-14, at a rate of change that can be measured. As soon as an organism dies, the C14 atoms [that] decay are no longer replaced by new ones through respiration. Consequently, the ratio of C14 to C12 in that once-living organism decreases as time goes on. The problem with the carbon dating method is-scientists cannot be sure of what the C14/C12 ratio was when the organism died. Carbon dating assumes that the ratio has remained constant; however, events, such as the industrial revolution, are known to have raised C12 levels. Finally, carbon dating has been shown untrustworthy with some present day aquatic specimens that were concluded to be thousands of years old. For example, the shells of living snails’ were carbon dated and showed that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. Other specimens have been carbon dated more than once, each time producing a different date varying by thousands of years. In overview, we see that the radiocarbon dating method is certainly no embarrassment to the Biblical creationist who believes in a young earth. In fact, when all datais taken into accord, carbon dating seems to support a young earth. (Baugh)
Likewise, the decrease in Earth’s magnetic field indicates a younger planet.
Scientists have made many careful measurements of the magnetic field over 150 years. These measurements show that the magnetic field is slowly shrinking. The intensity of the field decreases by half in 1,400 years. This means that as time goes on we have less protection from cosmic radiation and the solar wind. If we assume that the field has been decaying at the same rate for 10,000 years, the field would have been more intense than that of a magnetic star. The heat and electrical extremes from such conditions would have made life on earth impossible. This presents a significant problem for evolutionists and their belief in a 4.6-billion-year-old earth. (Baugh)
On a more political viewpoint, Earth’s very population opposes the theory of evolution.
World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah’s day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one “couple” just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies. (Baugh)
A second opposition evolutionists have against creationism is evidence seems to point toward macroevolution. Using Darwin’s observed process of natural selection, a process in which various species change physical and behavioral characteristics to adapt to their environment (microevolution) or eventually become extinct, evolutionists justify their theory stating that a similar process could occur in which organisms change species (macroevolution), not just characteristics. However, Darwin’s research does not indicate such activity that would imply a world made by chance. Later in his work, Darwin admits, “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” (Charles Darwin Quotes). Likewise, other fathers of science point out the scientific problems with macroevolution. Scientist Fred Hoyle concluded, “The chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility.” Maddox also states, “To produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism.”(Baugh)
Desperate attempts to find links to support evolution have collapsed. The knee joint of “Lucy” (Australopithecus afarensis) was discovered in the fall of 1973 near Hadar in the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia over a mile away and 200 feet deeper than the other bones (uncovered in Oct. 1974) -which Johanson incredibly claims to have belonged to the same individual! Professional consensus as to “Lucy’s” identity now favors that of arboreal ape, not an ape-to-man hominid intermediate. Nevertheless, it is commonly asserted now that man and the chimpanzee must be very closely related because they are said to share 96%-98.7% of their functional DNA, which, in reality, is only the 1.3%-4% of the genome consisting of the genes that are actually known to be responsible for the coding of proteins. The fact that approximately 98% of the 1.3-to-4% of human DNA that is known corresponds to chimpanzee DNA really proves very little. Even a cloud, a watermelon, and a jellyfish are 98% similar since they are all 98% water! It really is the 2% variation that truly makes all the difference! (Baugh)
Similarly, another desperate attempt to verify the evolutionary theory was made concerning embryology.
[It falsely states that] embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. [However,] embryos of different vertebrates do not look alike in their early stages. This idea was fathered by Ernest Haeckel, a German biologist, who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point. Haeckel was exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His. Nevertheless, Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings (or similar representations) remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution. (Baugh)
A final opposition to intelligent design, which also may be the most prevalent, is paleontology or the excavation of fossils. Evolutionists attempt to use fossils to state that the earth is billions of years old; however, the invalid efforts of carbon dating cannot be used. Therefore, one must observe the fossils themselves. Numerous polystrate fossils (fossils that extend through numerous sedimentary layers) exist. One of the more common occurs in the presence of “polystrate” trees. One of the most commonly known polystrate trees is found at Katherine Hill Bay, Australia. This fossilized tree can be seen extending over twelve feet, through several sedimentary layers. According to evolutionary theory the different sedimentary layers took hundreds of thousands of years to accumulate. However, this is impossible since the tree would have decomposed long before the sediments would have had time to accumulate. Rather, this tree is testimony to the catastrophic and rapid burial that must have taken place through a global flood. (Baugh)
The lack of sufficient fossil evidence along with numerous misplaced fossils seem to contradict the evolutionary Geologic Column.
Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of “primitive” life forms to “more complex” systems we observe today. Yet, since only a small percentage of the earth’s surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance. [T] he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled. This supposed column is actually saturated with “polystrate fossils” (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time frame. [T] o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. (Baugh)
Using all of the evidence supporting intelligent design and the many contradictions, uncertainties, and fallacies of the evolutionary theory, there appears to be more evidence supporting intelligent design. The determination of some scientists to encourage the theory of evolution causes them to leave out valuable information. In an effort to disprove the existence of the Creator, scientists have ignored the science-science that proves the existence of an intelligent designer. Romans 1:20 states: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse” (The Holy Bible, KJV). Now, you are without excuse. Maybe this was not enough information for you, but do not stop here. Bias will only lead you to a path of ignorance. By basing conclusions on scientific fact rather than religious beliefs, the universe cries out that it was created. If so, why should students not receive the facts-all of them? Equal opportunity should be offered for the study of intelligent design, and that, Friend, is a fact!
Baugh, Carl E., Dr. “Scientific Evidence for Creation.” Creation Evidence Museum Online. 1998. 17 Apr. 2007 .
“Charles Darwin Quotes.” ThinkExist. 17 Apr. 2007 .
Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. The Online Literature Library. 23 May 2005. 17 Apr. 2007 .
De Haan, Mart R., II. Can I Really Trust the Bible? 1986. Ed. David Sper. Grand Rapids: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2003.
De Haan, Martin R., II. Dinosaurs and the Bible. 2001. Ed. David Sper. Grand Rapids: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2003.
The Holy Bible, King James Version. 1983. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.