Nobody Wrote This Book: The Philosophy, Theology, and Science of Creation and Evolution

By Steven Eugene Dill

This book explores the historical questions about the origin of the universe, the earth, and life on the earth. It looks at the three sources of knowledge from which man answers questions: Theology, Philosophy, and Science. This book answers the question of whether the universe is an infinite, uncaused phenomenon, or was/is caused by a Supernatu

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pet Call Veterinary Care
• Release date: Sep 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9781732625839

Steven Eugene Dill

Dr. Steven Dill, once a staunch evolutionist, began investigating creationism after becoming aware of some scientific facts that seemed incompatible with his own beliefs. Taking the position that truth will stand the test, he began challenging even his own ideas about the origin of the universe. His conclusion was that true scientific facts and true Biblical truths do not contradict, and in this book he presents a new look at an old theory that preserves the integrity of both science and the Bible. He earned his Bachelor's Degree in Biology in 1979 and his Doctorate of Veterinary Medicine in 1985 at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He is currently a practicing veterinarian in Jeffersontown, Kentucky

Book preview

Introduction

In this book, I will try to answer a question that has been asked for thousands of years: How did life begin? I say, try, because I cannot provide an answer that will be proof for everyone. No one can! At least not until Jesus Christ physically returns to earth. When that happens, believers and unbelievers alike will know for certain He is our God, our Master, and our Creator. Believers will know it with unimaginable joy, and unbelievers will know it in utter and eternal despair. On that day, you will stand before the Living Proof, and you will know Jesus Christ is Lord. If you have not yet put your trust in Jesus Christ as your Savior, I pray the Holy Spirit will use my weak words to bring about a powerful change in your heart. I want you to share in that eternal joy, too.

Lack of Curiosity Kills the Man

Man has always been curious about his origin, but I think there’s more to it than just a question of origin. I think the question of man’s origin has always been linked to the question of man’s destiny. In fact, I think the question of man’s destiny, both individually and collectively, has always been the more important question. As you are aware, the answers to these two questions have arisen from three disciplines of man’s studies: Philosophy, Theology, and Science. As you are equally aware, these three disciplines are not necessarily mutually exclusive. There are no universally accepted boundaries dividing them. Their margins tend to blur as their definitions tend to vary. The importance and relevance of each discipline also seems to depend on whether you are a philosopher, a theologian, or a scientist. As we probe deeper into this issue, we will find ourselves facing some tough questions. Some of what I say may be uncomfortable because it might conflict with some of the things you believe. My only request is that you don’t let your emotions overrule your intellect. Too often, strong emotions are a thin veneer covering great ignorance. Since these questions have been asked for so many years, and since they have been answered in so many ways, I won’t pretend I can answer them in a way that will satisfy you. But, if I can’t answer them to your satisfaction, I hope I can approach them in a way that will cause you to take a fresh look at your own answers. Are your answers right? Could your answers be wrong? What is at stake? Is this merely an academic pastime for argumentative debaters, or could your answers determine where you spend eternity?

I believe the answers to these questions are too important to relegate to mere debates. I know some of you will disagree because you love debates. Debates are all well and good, but when a swimmer is drowning, the last thing he needs is three or four lifeguards up on the beach debating over the best technique for saving him. You see, in my lifetime I have attended three university-sponsored evolution-creation debates and have watched several others on video. I am convinced formal debates don’t change many minds. In fact, in three of those debates the moderators asked the audience at the end if anyone had changed opinions on the issue. In all three debates, not one person changed sides. Evolutionists coming to the debates left as evolutionists. Creationists coming to the debates left as creationists. I have read about exceptions, but generally I don’t think debates save many drowning swimmers. So, while I’m not sure formal debates will cause many evolutionists to become creationists, I am sure a year or two on a typical college campus will cause the majority of the students who are creationists to become evolutionists, and many of them will become Atheistic Evolutionists. I don’t want to win debates; I want to win souls!

So, my plan is to approach this in a way you probably haven’t seen in a typical creation vs. evolution book. The road most often traveled, by both sides of this issue, is to throw out questions or problems the other side can’t answer, and then assume it proves your point. For example: Creationists often ask evolutionists about Piltdown Man, Archeoraptor, and the English Pepper Moth. They ask about these things because they know they were evolutionary hoaxes. On this basis, creationists claim victory. On the other hand, evolutionists ask creationists about the Paluxy River footprints, the 1977 Japanese Plesiosaur, and starlight traveling through Riemannian Space. These were creationist hoaxes. For evolutionists, this is their measure of victory. This is the kind of thing generally done when creationists and evolutionists clash, and in my opinion, not much is accomplished. Competitive ignorance is not the best way to communicate truth, and communicating truth is what I want to do. I want to present you with the truth, and I want to present it in such a way you will know WHY it is true.

Note: The words creation and evolution mean different things to different people. Not all creationists believe in the same theory of creation. Not all evolutionists believe in the same theory of evolution. As a Gap Theory creationist, I don’t agree with some of the things proposed by Young-Earth creationists or with some of the things proposed by Day-Age creationists. Likewise, I know all evolutionists don’t agree with some of the things proposed by other evolutionists. Some evolutionists say evolution applies only to the diversification of life, not the origin of life. Other evolutionists disagree; they use the word to include explanations for the origin of life from non-life. Some even include the formation of the stars, galaxies, and planets, etc., and speak of the evolution of the universe. Because there are so many variations and views of creation and evolution, I will not make them a big issue in this book. However, I must point out something about evolution that is a big issue; for Christians, at least. There are two forms of evolution theory: Atheistic Evolution and Theistic Evolution. I reject them both. Why?

Atheistic Evolutionists say there is no God. They say the driving forces of evolution were the fundamental physical forces of nature alone. Theistic Evolutionists can agree with everything Atheistic Evolutionists say about evolution, except they believe God was the driving force. As a Christian Creationist, I totally disagree with Atheistic Evolutionists, but I don’t find myself agreeing much with Theistic Evolutionists either. (Even though I used to be one.) I have two fundamental problems with Theistic Evolution.

The first problem is theological. I have a problem with the very concept of it being theistic. It’s not that I disagree with the idea there could be a truly theistic form of evolution, it’s just I don’t believe there is any theological evidence for it. In spite of all the theologians who say they believe in it, I don’t believe there are many (if any) believers in a truly theistic form of evolution. Rather than Theistic Evolution, I find most believers in God who also believe in evolution are Deistic Evolutionists. The difference between theism and deism is that theists believe in a God who is actively and directly involved with His creation. He intervenes from time to time (or continually) to set history moving along the course He wants. Deists believe in a God who created all the fundamental particles and forces, but then let them run on their own. Like a clockmaker who makes a clock, winds it up, and lets it run according to the mechanics he designed into the system, God lets the universe run by the mechanics He built into it. He never (or very rarely) directly intervenes. A theist would point to events such as God parting the Red Sea, providing Manna for the Israelites for forty years, raining fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah, killing 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night outside of Jerusalem, and Jesus’ resurrection as evidence God directly intervenes. Deists must explain these things in terms of naturalistic causes since they don’t believe God directly caused them. The reason I don’t like Theistic Evolution is because Theistic Evolutionists don’t think the mechanics of evolution involved God’s direct intervention. Instead, it all played out according to the interworking of the fundamental physical forces and fundamental physical particles He created in the beginning. They believe living organisms evolved, but they say the changes were indirectly caused by God using the mechanics of natural biological mutations and natural environmental changes to create new species. Looking at it one layer deeper, we see they also believe the natural biological mutations and the natural environmental changes were caused by the fundamental forces acting on the fundamental particles according to the fundamental properties, qualities, and characteristics God gave them in the beginning. That’s Deism! I haven’t heard anyone propose a form of evolution that included something like: During the Devonian Period, God came down and directly rewrote (not mutated) the DNA of organisms so Devonian species would exist in the Devonian environment. (Or, that God came down during the Devonian Period and directly changed the Devonian environment, so it would support Devonian species.) I have not heard anyone say God wiped out the dinosaurs by direct, miraculous action. He didn’t send an angel down to slay them as He did the Assyrians outside Jerusalem. They all attribute it to the naturalistic process of an asteroid impact, or poisonous volcanic fumes, or disease, or climate change, or some other natural disaster. God used natural forces, not direct intervention. This is Deism.

The problem with Theistic Evolution is it can’t be Biblically distinguished from Deistic Evolution. (There are no Biblical passages that speak of evolutionary processes; deistic or theistic.) The problem with Deistic Evolution is it can’t be scientifically distinguished from Atheistic Evolution. (There is no direct scientific evidence that God miraculously intervened.) If you are a Theistic Evolutionist, you might become angry as I speak out against evolution. You might object when I place your theory into the same category as the Atheistic Evolutionists’ theory. Please hear me out before you toss this book aside. Without evidence that God directly (miraculously) intervened in the process of evolution, how do you know God did it?

1.) Is there a Bible passage telling how God came down and directly wrote genetic instructions in DNA molecules, the same way He came down and directly wrote the Ten Commandments on stone tablets?

2.) Can you point to a geological discovery showing how God miraculously changed a local environment, the same way Jesus miraculously changed the local environment when He calmed a storm at sea?

As we will soon see, changes in DNA instructions and changes in environments are considered to be the two driving forces of evolution. If you can’t find a Bible passage or geologic evidence that God directly caused these changes, then your Theistic Evolution Theory is based on your beliefs alone; not on evidence from science or from the Bible. Without evidence that God directly caused evolution, then your Theistic Evolution looks exactly like Atheistic Evolution in terms of what happened, when it happened, where it happened, and how it happened. The fossils are the same, the strata are the same, the transitions are the same, the mechanics are the same, and the time periods are the same. The only difference is that you want to put God into the picture. Now, I commend you for wanting to put God into the picture, but I don’t see how Theistic Evolution necessarily puts the God of the Bible into the picture. My warning to Christians is to be careful you aren’t swayed by the word Theistic. Just because someone says, God did it, it doesn’t mean the God of the Bible did it. It could have been Allah, or Zeus, or Odin, or Ra, or some other supreme god. As Christians, we must make sure we defend the Biblical account of our origin; not just any religious account. Our job is to find the truth from the Bible and find the truth from science, and then share that truth with unbelievers so they will see how the Bible reveals the truth about our origin. This is an important step in removing the so-called scientific barriers to the Gospel. When they see the Bible is 100% correct about our origin, they will be better able to believe it is 100% correct about our destiny.

The second problem I have with Theistic Evolution is scientific. I believe science disproves evolution (of any kind) as being the process by which life arose and species originated. As I said, Theistic Evolution would look exactly like Atheistic Evolution from a purely scientific (observational) vantage point. If God caused the fundamental physical forces to act on the fundamental physical particles to cause (deistic) evolution, then there ought to be ample evidence from science that evolution happened. As we will see, however, that evidence is sorely lacking. Belief in Theistic Evolution is possible only because some believers in God also believe in evolution. If they didn’t believe in evolution, they wouldn’t be Theistic Evolutionists; they would be Theistic Creationists. Herein lies the problem: The evidence from science (true science) favors special creation. Why would I believe in Theistic Evolution (based on any religion) if science proves evolution never happened? If you are a Christian and you interpret the Bible as saying God gradually evolved life over long periods of time by a process of, Survival of the Fittest, (and it takes some pretty powerful interpretive skills to do so) then that’s fine with me, provided you realize the scientific evidence disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible. Again, as a former Theistic Evolutionist, I reject Theistic Evolution. However, for the sake of clarity, when I refute evolution in this book, I am generally referring to Atheistic Evolution.

Counterfeit Science

To help you learn to recognize truth, I decided to use the same method the Treasury Department uses to train its agents to recognize counterfeit money. They don’t train them by having them study counterfeit bills. They train them by having them study authentic bills. They study the real stuff so thoroughly, and learn what genuine bills look like so well, that anytime they see a counterfeit bill, they instantly recognize it as phony. That’s what I want to do in this book. I want you to learn what real science looks like so well, that you will recognize counterfeit science every time you see it. I won’t focus so much on individual pieces of evidence. Rather, I want to show you how authentic science works, so you can see how the Theory of Evolution is based on false science. Of course, in doing this I must refute some pieces of evidence, but I don’t do it to refute just those pieces of evidence. I do it to show you how evolution-science is faulty from its foundation up.

Let me give an example concerning the discovery of a fossil once used as proof for evolution. I’m not as interested in showing you why this particular fossil doesn’t prove evolution. What I want is for you to learn how evolutionists think, how to evaluate their claims, and then to see why fossils don’t prove the Theory of Evolution.

The Tale of a Whale Without the Tail of a Whale

I want to begin with the fossils of Rodhocetus, a large sea creature (from about 45 million years ago) discovered in Pakistan in 2001 by Dr. Phil Gingerich of the University of Michigan. Because this creature had some features similar to modern whales, it was declared to be the ancestor of whales. Evolutionists said this was absolute proof of whale evolution. Dr. Gingerich brought the fossils back to the University of Michigan where they were put on public display. Included in the display was a drawing of what Rodhocetus would have looked like in life. The drawing was based on fossil reconstructions, and it looked very whale-like. The drawing of Rodhocetus showed a fluke tail and front and back legs with flippers. Since whales have a fluke tail but not legs with flippers, these fossils allegedly showed how walking land-creatures evolved into swimming whales. For a while, Rodhocetus was the, best proof ever, that whales evolved from land animals. But, as more and more evidence came to light, it was eventually shown that Rodhocetus didn’t exactly prove what the evolutionists first claimed it did.

What typically happens is an evolutionist makes a startling new discovery. Maybe he or she finds a new fossil or a new biochemical that supposedly proves evolution. When that happens, academia and the news media go crazy about it. They use it to prove evolution is true, and they use it to prove creationists are stupid. Then with more research, the startling new discovery proves to be less startling than originally thought. In time, the claim is shown to be false… but you rarely hear about that in the news. The most interesting thing about these startling new discoveries is in the great majority of cases, other evolutionists are the ones who debunk them. That’s right; evolutionists wind up disproving evolutionists. You see, there are so many sub-theories of evolution that scientists can’t agree on any one version. Some believe whales evolved from a dog-like animal. Some believe it was from a cat-like animal. Some believe it was from a cow-like animal. Charles Darwin believed it was from a bear. Many evolutionists today believe it was from a hippopotamus-like animal. They all agree on evolution, but they don’t want to agree on the other guy’s version of evolution.

A video entitled, Evolution: The Grand Experiment,¹ tells the Rodhocetus story. (I highly recommend you purchase this video because it reveals much more than just the whale evolution story. It reveals many other errors in evolution’s story.) It reveals how Dr. Gingerich’s fossils set evolutionists abuzz with excitement. Here are two quotes from that video:

Annalisa Berta: What’s good about these particular fossil whale specimens is that they do show us intermediates in the evolution of the whale. We don’t often get fossil intermediates so we can actually trace the development and characters; say for example, the evolution of swimming in whales. We don’t often have that opportunity.

Annalisa Berta is a Professor of Biology at San Diego State University.

Kevin Padian: There’s a big exhibit out in Michigan. I was just there. They have all these things just sitting out there. They’re all there. I mean you really have to be blind or three days dead to not see the transitions among these. You have to not want to see it.

Kevin Padian is a Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of California—Berkeley and the Curator of Paleontology, University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Hearing these two scientists make such bold statements about whale evolution, you would think these fossils proved evolution beyond question. This would be especially true if you were one of their students. Students don’t hear the complete story in the classroom, or see all the evidence in their textbooks. Claims like these tend to make students believe evolution is true, but there was a problem with Rodhocetus. The fossils discovered by Gingerich didn’t include bones from the tail or bones from the ends of the legs. He had no idea what these structures looked like. Nevertheless, the University of Michigan’s drawing of Rodhocetus clearly depicted legs with flippers and a fluke tail. When it was pointed out to Dr. Gingerich that those necessary intermediary structures were missing from his fossil specimen, he acknowledged he had speculated about them. Eventually the fossils of the legs were found, and it was shown that Rodhocetus had feet, not flippers. With that new information, Dr. Gingerich admitted Rodhocetus didn’t have legs with flippers or a fluke tail. Since it didn’t have the intermediate structures an intermediate species needed, it didn’t show how swimming evolved in whales.

Now think back to those two quotes about how these fossils actually showed us the intermediates, and that you had to be blind or three days dead not to see the transitions. Was it because you were blind or three days dead you didn’t see the intermediate structures, or was there another reason? There was another reason. You didn’t see them because they weren’t there, and they never had been! The evolutionists were seeing things that weren’t there, yet they criticized creationists for not seeing them too. The only thing this story proves is that it is okay for scientists to use speculation as scientific proof