"That's a very good question. Because of the historically entrenched resistance to the thought of evolution, documented by modern-day creationism, evolutionists have been forced into defending evolution and trying to prove that it is a fact and not a theory. Certainly the explanation of evolution and the search for its underlying ideas has been somewhat neglected, and my new book, the title of which is What Evolution Is, is precisely attempting to rectify that situation. It attempts to explain evolution. As I say in the first section of the book, I don't need to prove it again, evolution is so clearly a fact that you need to be committed to something like a belief in the supernatural if you are at all in disagreement with evolution. It is a fact and we don't need to prove it anymore. Nonetheless we must explain why it happened and how it happens."
According to Ernst, Evolution is a fact that no longer has to provide evidence for its truthfulness despite the fact that ALL scientific statements are open to reevaluation as new data is acquired, making it impossible for science to establish anything as "fact" or "true". On page 14 of Religion and Science, which was written in 1997, Famous atheist Bertrand Russell said the following:
"A religous creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."
On page 77 of The Character of Physical Law, physicist Richard Phillips Feynman says the following:
"If you thought that science was certain--well, that is just an error on your part."
Unfortunately, the atheists/humanists who control the academic culture in America have not limited the evolutionary theory to biological life; they have applied the theory to the entire physical universe, as was demonstrated at the beginning of May of this year when a virtual simulation of the evolution of the universe was released. In the article "The Evolution of Everything in One Handy Simulation" found in Popular Mechanics, Shy Genel, a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-author on the study of the formation and content of the cosmos through use of this virtual simulation, said the following:
"Our computer program accounts for the laws of nature—gravity, the formation of supernovae, black holes—and then evolves the universe until the present."
However, within the press release by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, we read the following:
"The computer simulation began a mere 12 million years after the Big Bang."
That little sentence raises a HUGE red flag for me, and hopefully every thinking human being. If in reality there is no God, and evolution is true, then the Big Bang should have been included in the simulation. Instead, it was left out entirely. Why is that?
As I explained to a friend of mine when I first heard about this simulation, the atheists/humanists who control the academic culture can't explain how the physical universe came into existence out of nothing in an instant; they can't explain how the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the expansion rate of the universe, the radiation afterglow of the Big Bang, the ripples within the afterglow discovered by the COBE satellite in 1989, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, and the Anthropic Principle support the atheistic/evolutionary world view better than the theistic world view. They have to leave out the Big Bang and all its supporting evidences in order to convince people that you don't need a god behind the creation of the universe.
Not only that, but as I explain in my apologetics film "God: A Matter of Science & History", the Second Law of Thermodynamics by itself disproves the entire theory of evolution. How? It's quite simple: The way evolution is taught today is that the entire physical universe and everything in it, when left to itself over time, will become more complex and ordered; according to the second aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the law of entropy), the physical universe and everything in it, when left to itself over time, will wear down, break down, and fall into disorder. Since the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the most established law in all of science (the need for food, water, and sleep are the effect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics on human beings), the theory of evolution simply cannot be true.
What the Bible says about the origin of life and the universe:
Is what the Bible says about the origin of life and the universe backed up by science? Let's take a look.
Genesis 1:24-25: "
In this passage we see the phrase "And it was so", which appears six times in Genesis 1. The way it is used in Genesis 1 implies crystal clearly that the words God said came into existence immediately; there was no delay or prolonged process of God's Word coming to pass. With that in mind, this particular passage in Genesis is saying that all animal life came into existence all at once out of nothing in an instant.
The fossil record shows us that during the period of time that Paleontologists call the Cambrian Explosion, all the major animal forms and groups appeared all at once out of nothing in an instant, without a single trace of less complex ancestors. This led the world's most famous atheist and hater of Christianity, the evolutionist Richard Dawkins, to write the following on page 229 of his book The Blind Watchmaker, which was written in 1987:
"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists..."
Genesis 1:1-2: "
As the above passage says, God is the one who created the universe and the earth at the beginning of time.
As the expansion of the universe shows if we could watch it in reverse, the Big Bang states that the physical universe came into existence out of nothing. In March of this year, scientists made a new discovery about the Big Bang in terms of how long the expansion from a point of singularity that appeared out of nothing to the entire physical universe coming into existence took. CBS Space Consultant Bill Harwood said the following:
"And we’re talking about things that happened in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. I mean it’s mind boggling to think how close to the beginning scientists are now getting.”
While both atheists and Christians alike agree that the universe exploded into existence out of nothing in an instant, the atheists/humanists who control the academic culture have no clue what caused the initial explosion. As we can see in the following passage, the apostle Peter knew what caused the initial explosion:
2 Peter 3:3-7: "
As we can see from the Cambrian explosion, all the major animal groups appeared out of nothing all at once in an instant; according to Genesis 1:24-25, that happened because God spoke them into existence. The new discovery about the Big Bang shows us that the universe itself came into existence out of nothing in an instant. It logically follows that God spoke the universe into existence just like Peter says he did.
If the scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory found over the past 100 years keeps getting more and more verified as time goes on, and all the evidence matches exactly what the Old and New Testaments say, then how come the atheists/humanists who control the academic culture refuse to believe it?
In regards to the Cambrian Explosion, Richard Dawkins had this to say on page 230 of The Blind Watchmaker:
"Both schools of [evolutionary] thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative."
Why would Dawkins and others like him deny the existence of God when the biblical account clearly accounts for the scientific evidence regarding the origin of life and the universe better than evolution can? There is a very simple explanation. In an article titled "Billions and Billions of Demons" on page 31 of The New York Review of Books from January 9, 1997, Darwinist Richard Lewontin admitted the following:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. 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 counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."
As we can see from Lewotin's confession, the atheistic/humanistic/evolutionary explanations of the origin of life on earth and the universe itself actually goes against everything we observe in the universe; in fact, all the observational evidence we have through science at this point in human history has lead me to believe that Genesis 1 has been scientifically verified. The real truth, as Lewotin admits, is that the atheists/humanists/evolutionists who control the academic world don't want there to be a God; if they were to acknowledge God's existence, then they would no longer be the dispensers of truth that they want to be. In other words, Paul was right about them:
Romans 1:18-20: "
It has become painfully clear that without a proper understanding of the Bible, we have no chance of understanding the scientific data regarding the origin of life and the universe itself. On page 72 of Proofs of God's Existence, which was written in 2007, Richard Wurmbrand puts it brilliantly:
"In antiquity and what is called the Dark Ages, men did not know what they know now about the cosmos. They did not know the lock but they possessed the key, which is God. Now many have excellent descriptions of the lock but they have lost the key. The proper solution is union between religion and science. We should be owners of the lock and key. The fact is that as science advances, it discovers what was said thousands of years ago in the Bible."