​If you’ve gone through the public education system you have most likely been taught that life began in some kind of “Primordial Soup” whereby lightning struck a body of water containing the chemicals essential for life and set off a chain reaction that led to the first living organism.  From there mutations over billions of years incrementally increased the complexity and diversity of life.  The concept of “Natural Selection” holds that creatures with traits best suited for survival endured and passed on those traits, while weaker creatures died off.  In short, the Theory of Evolution would have you believe that through a random series of events over billions of years, a group of lifeless chemicals evolved into highly intelligent beings capable of designing computers and developing artificial intelligence.
 
There are several problems with this theory.  The first is the question of time.  Creationists are presenting an increasingly convincing case that the Earth is not nearly as old as Evolutionists claim.  I will discuss this more in a future post about The Great Flood.  But even granting them the billions of years they say their theory requires, they still face the problem of statistical probability.  The complexity of even a single living cell is such that the odds of a random process forming each structure and then organizing them in such a way as to allow the cell to properly function are so infinitesimally small as to be virtually impossible.
 
One must also ask the question why this spontaneous leap in complexity only occurs with organic materials.  If a highly complex human being can be produced after billions of years of evolution, why is it that a computer microprocessor did not form on its own?
 
And what of the claim that subtle mutations led to the advancement in complexity through Natural Selection?  Observational science reveals that mutations take away genetic information, they do not add to it.  Mutations can account for variations within a species – for example, it is reasonable to believe that modern dogs, wolves, and foxes all came from a common ancestor.  This is also consistent with the Bible, which says that God created all creatures according to their kind.  God created a wolf/dog “kind” and through subsequent generations of interbreeding and mutations we have the variety of creatures we see today within that species.
 
But observational science offers no proof of mutations adding genetic information.  This is important because all living creatures are based on information.  If mutations do not add information, then you can never have a less complex creature evolve into a more complex creature.
 
The way mutations behave is consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which essential states that systems become less organized over time.  As creatures reproduce there exists the potential for genetic information to become corrupted and for some information to be lost.  This is consistent with what genetic scientists have observed.
 
If the way mutations behave is consistent with a scientific law and consistent with what can be observed, then why are Evolutionists claiming that mutations have behaved in the exact opposite way over the course of billions of years?  They do so because they must.  Their entire theory hinges on simple organisms becoming more complex over time.  So they are willing to contradict, or reinterpret scientific law and replace observational science with theoretical science.  And it is here that you see a disturbing trend among Evolutionists – the suborning of scientific law to prop up theories and tremendous stretches in logic to reach a preconceived conclusion.
 
Occam’s Razor is the principle that the simplest solution is often the correct one.  Everything we’ve learned about genetics and biology points to an intelligent design.  We have ancient manuscripts that have been preserved and reprinted throughout history that describe a process whereby a being designed the universe and everything in it.  Those same manuscripts contain prophecies that have proven to have come true and historical events that are becoming increasingly confirmed through archeological finds.  So one must ask oneself what is the simplest answer?  Is it a highly improbably leap in complexity followed by successive mutations behaving in the exact opposite way mutations would be expected to behave taking life from assorted chemicals to modern humans in billions of years?  Or is it that life is a result of an intelligent design by a creator God whose actions were documented in a book that generations have accepted as truth, including some of history’s most prominent scientific minds?
 
If given the choice between whether your smart phone was the result of an intelligent design created by a human or the result of random chemicals joining and then being struck by lightning, which would you choose?  Hopefully, the answer is obvious to you.  Then why would anyone believe that the being that created the smart phone was the result of the very process you deem impossible to have created the phone?  If the conditions by which evolution is claimed to have occurred could not have resulted in the creation of a smart phone (or even the box your smart phone came in) then how could they possibly have created an infinitely more complex human being?
 
The debate between Evolution and Creation is one that hinges on morality.  Creationists are transparent in where they stand on the issue.  We believe that God created the universe and we have entered the scientific debate to provide counter-arguments to theories that are being pushed as fact by those whose primary goal is to destroy the concept of God.  Evolutionists portray themselves as purely scientific, but there is a sizeable contingent among them that have a moral ax to grind.  That is why they cling to Darwinism with a sort of religious fervor.  That is why they will compromise scientific law and logic to keep the theory alive.  That is why they fight every attempt to put Intelligent Design on an equal footing with Evolution in the classrooms.  Their goal is not to find the best answer to explain our origins.  Their goal is to promote an answer that removes God as the source of our origins.  They do this because Evolution means no God and no God means no consequences for the way they lead their lives.
 
Unfortunately, despite having a compelling case to present for Creation, we are losing this fight – and it is a fight for Christianity in America.  The theories that are being presented as facts to our children in school are undermining their faith in Christ.  Today we are seeing a growing number of young people abandoning their faith as they enter their twenties.  One of the main reasons for this is the perceived incompatibility between the scientific theories they are being taught and the creation story in the Bible.  We are already seeing the ramifications of the cultural shift away from Christianity in the form of increasing immorality and increasing hostility toward Christianity.  This means that unless the trend is reversed, the next generation of young people will grow up in a society that has even stronger forces to pull them away from their faith.
 
Do not assume that your children will grow up to be Christian adults because you read the Bible to them and take them to Sunday School.  You need to educate yourself so that you can be an effective advocate for Creationism.  Do not expect someone else to properly inform them.  Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind have many free videos on YouTube to help you begin the process of learning more about the case for Creationism.

The Big Bang Theory is the secular scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.  It is what is taught in schools across America as the absolute truth of how the universe was formed.  The theory holds that the universe came into existence suddenly out of nothing as a singularity 13.7 billion years ago. A singularity is defined as a zone of infinite density.  It is a point where gravitational pressure is so great that finite matter is compressed into infinite density.  This point is infinitesimally small and infinitely hot.  The theory cannot explain where this singularity came from or what existed before it.  Some have claimed that it came from nothing.
 
Right from the start this makes the Big Bang Theory an inadequate explanation.  Proponents of the theory are left with the gaping hole of being unable to explain from where this singularity came that started everything.  And for those who claim it simply came from nothing, that poses an even greater problem.
 
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  Matter can only be converted into other matter.  Simply put, something cannot come from nothing.  This is a scientific law.  The hierarchy of the scientific method goes from hypothesis, to theory, to law.  Honest science would dictate that any hypothesis or theory that violates a law is flawed and therefore one must start over and develop a new hypothesis and build a new theory.  But instead, Big Bang Theory proponents have brushed off this contradiction by claiming that scientific laws themselves evolved and are not necessarily applicable at the start of the universe.  So it is ok for scientists to bend the rules of science to accommodate their explanation for the universe, but they afford absolutely no such accommodations to creationism (not that creationism necessarily violates true science).
 
There are three main problems with the Big Bang Theory that even scientists admit.  First is their inability to find magnetic monopoles in nature.  Scientists realize that the immense force of the Big Bang should have created an abundance of particles with only one magnetic pole (a magnetic monopole).  The problem is they have been unable to observe any such particles in nature.
 
The second problem is the Flatness Problem.  Almost all observational evidence indicates that the universe is flat, like a piece of paper on a table.  This means that the universe must have started at a point of extreme flatness with no curvature, because even the slightest curvature would have been amplified over the vast age scientists claim the universe to have.  This is important, because if the curvature of the universe was just a few percent off from perfect flatness within a few seconds after the Big Bang the universe would have either expanded so much that it would seem to be devoid of matter or re-collapsed before fusion ever began.  However, the probability that the universe started out at such a fine-tuned extremity is very low, which makes the claim that the universe is 13.7 billion years old questionable, to say the least.
 
The third problem is the Horizon Problem.  The observable temperature of photons in all regions of the universe is the same, based on what we’ve been able to measure thus far.  This is problematic, because one would expect significant temperature differences since the regions are separated by distances greater than any temperature transferring signal, including light, could have traveled in the time since the universe began.
 
Scientists have attempted to explain away the Flatness and Horizontal problems by creating the concept of inflation.  This concept holds that early on, the universe experienced a time of ultra-fast expansion.  This ultra-fast inflation would have expanded away any large-scale curvature of the universe, thus explaining why it is flat.  They also claim that the temperatures of the various parts of the universe reached equilibrium while they were close together before being pushed apart by the ultra-fast expansion, thus explaining the uniformity of temperature throughout the universe.
 
However, there are problems with the concept of inflation.  First, it requires conditions outside of known physics.  It requires a high density of energy that gravitationally self-repels.  This enhances expansion and causes it to speed up.  The problem is this inflationary energy is purely hypothetical and there is no direct evidence that it exists.
 
Another problem is that once inflation starts, it is impossible to stop.  This would result in a multiverse with an infinite number of universes.
 
Perhaps the biggest problem though, is that for inflation to have occurred requires conditions that would have been fine-tuned to a highly improbably degree – even greater than the improbability of the fine-tuning required for the Flatness problem it attempts to solve.
 
There are other problems with cosmic evolution including galaxies, planets, and moons rotating in different directions, the existence of comets that should have died out long ago, and spiral galaxies that indicate a universe much younger than claimed, just to name a few.  If you are interested in learning more about the flaws in cosmic evolution, I would encourage you to view the work done by Answers in Genesis and the Origins program on the Cornerstone Television Network – videos from both are available for free on YouTube.
 
The overarching theme regarding the Big Bang theory, and cosmic evolution in general, is one of scientists presenting a competing faith model as fact.  They feel free to mock the creationist view of a superior being (who we called God) creating the universe as unscientific but at the same time either compromise scientific laws, engage in highly improbably speculation, or simply make up concepts with no prior grounding in science to cling to a theory.  Faith is something that is meant to be clung to.  Scientific theories are meant to be tested and abandoned if proven unrealistic. 
 
What we are seeing increasingly in modern science as it relates to cosmic evolution is dogmatic thinking more akin to religious fervor than the open-minded, ever-curious attitude upon which modern science was built through sound observational experiments and honest conclusions.  It is just further evidence that when it comes to our origins, we are not engaged in a scientific debate.  We are in a battle of worldviews.  Which is why it is important for Christians to take steps to educate themselves and not trust everything coming from the scientific community at face value.  That’s not to say there are not good and honest scientists.  But we need to recognize that there is an agenda that permeates the field of science and it is an agenda that is against God.
​

                “Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.  Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.  And God called the firmament Heaven.  So the evening and the morning were the second day.
                “Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.  And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.  And God saw that it was good.
                “Then God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind.  And God saw that it was good.  So the evening and the morning were the third day.
                “Then God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth; and it was so.
                “Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.  He made the stars also.  God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.  So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.”
                Genesis 1:6-29
 
The second day of creation sees the creation of “the firmament” to divide the waters above and below.  What is this “firmament”?  It is later described as “the firmament of the heavens” where the sun, moon and stars are fixed.  To understand the firmament, you first need to understand the concept of three heavens.
 
                “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago – whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows – such a one was caught up to the third heaven.  And I know such a man – whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows – how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.”
                2 Corinthians 12:2-4
 
These are the words of Paul and it is widely held that the man to whom Paul is referring is himself, most likely after having been stoned and left for dead outside the city of Lystra (Acts 14:19).  The first heaven would be the atmosphere of the Earth.  The second heaven is outer space.  The third heaven is the realm where God resides.  It is what we commonly think of as Heaven.
 
The concept of three heaven’s is critical in understanding the Genesis creation story.  The third heaven is the eternal realm where God resides.  It existed before the Earth and the universe were created and it will continue to exist when the Earth and the universe are destroyed in the future and replaced with a new heaven (universe) and new Earth.  It is a place that exists beyond our reality.
 
That is what makes the six-day creation possible.  God has the ability to take creative elements from beyond reality and insert them into his new creation.  Our minds cannot conceive the technology of God.  There are manufacturing plants throughout the world that can make things in an afternoon that would seem impossible to people who lived a century ago.  So yes, God can make stars, planets, and all manner of plants and animals over the course of a series of days.
 
On the first day God created the Earth and it was surrounded by water.  He then created light.  But this light was not the sun.  The sun was not created until the fourth day.  So what was the source of this light?  The Bible does not say for certain.  But we do know that it says the sun is not necessary for light.  When John is describing the New Jerusalem in Revelation he says:
 
                “There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light.  And they shall reign forever and ever.”
                Revelation 22:5
 
I imagine the source of light in the new creation described in Revelation is the same light that was present at the start of the first creation.  I don’t think that it is a coincidence that God placed the creation of the sun on the fourth day.  Most pagan religions contain an aspect that worships the sun and credits it with the creation of all life on the planet.  God starts creation with a divine light, perhaps the light of his own being.  This appropriately puts the focus of creation on God.
 
On the second day God created the firmament to divide the waters below from the waters above.  A more appropriate interpretation of firmament is expanse.  He created the expanse of outer space to divide the waters.  This left the Earth covered by the waters below.  But what about the waters above?  Some Christians hold to a theory that a canopy of water existed around the Earth and that the collapse of this canopy was at least partly responsible for the Great Flood.  But this theory is problematic in that we are told the sun, moon, and stars are set in the firmament and the firmament divides the waters.  The canopy theory places the celestial bodies on the wrong side of the upper waters.
 
To explain the upper waters, we need to go back to the concept of three heavens.  The only proper explanation for the upper waters is to place them between outer space and the third heaven.  In other words, there is a barrier of water between our mortal world and the eternal realm of Heaven.  It is likely this barrier is in the form of ice.  Consider the following descriptions of Heaven:
 
                “Before the throne there was a sea of glass, like crystal.”
                Revelation 4:6
                “And I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark and over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God.”
                Revelation 15:2
 
The sea of glass John describes in his vision could actually be ice.  The pattern of the Jewish Temple illustrates a barrier separating the mortal world from the eternal realm of God.  It is comprised of the outer court (representing the first heaven), the inner court (representing the second heaven) and the Holy of Holies (representing the third heaven) which is hidden behind a veil (representing the barrier created by the upper waters).
 
On the third day God gathered the waters on earth into a sea and dry land appeared.  As the land is exposed to the light all manner of plants spring forth.  Again I would point to the unknown technological power of God to create genetic programming for rapid growth and environmental conditions to foster that growth.
 
On the fourth day God created the sun, moon, planets and stars.  I know this is completely counter to everything secular cosmic evolution teaches.  As I stated earlier, God ordered it this way to put the focus on him as creator and not the sun or stars.  You may have heard secular evolutionists claim that we are made from stardust.  This stems from their theory that the elements from which the planets, and eventually life on Earth, were created were formed by fusion that occurred in the cores of stars and then spread throughout the universe as stars exploded.
 
In my next post I will address the flaws in the Big Bang Theory and cosmic evolution.
​