An Expanding Universe
“Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:”
Most people have heard of red shift without necessarily knowing what it means, apart from knowing that it has something to do with stars and galaxies.
Wave forms can appear to be altered if the source of the waves is moving away or towards us. We notice this effect with sound waves – for example, if we are watching a train approaching and passing by. If an object is moving towards us, then its waves will appear to arrive at us slightly shorter than they should be. Shorter waves result in higher pitch. When the train recedes, the waves reach us stretched out a bit, which makes a lower-pitch sound. Therefore, the train approaches with a high pitch sound, but then the sound changes to a lower pitch sound as it passes us.
Something similar happens to light from distant galaxies. In visible light, the longest wavelength is red, while blue light has a shorter wavelength. So red shift does not necessarily imply that an object is red. It tells us that bands in the galaxy’s spectrum are of longer wavelength than expected, so it is called a red shift. In a random universe, one might expect an equal number of red and blue shifts. In practice, blue shifts are rare.The red shift is probably caused by space itself expanding. And this is consistent with what the Bible says in Psalm 104: “He stretches out the heavens like a tent.”
Wave forms can appear to be altered if the source of the waves is moving away or towards us. We notice this effect with sound waves – for example, if we are watching a train approaching and passing by. If an object is moving towards us, then its waves will appear to arrive at us slightly shorter than they should be. Shorter waves result in higher pitch. When the train recedes, the waves reach us stretched out a bit, which makes a lower-pitch sound. Therefore, the train approaches with a high pitch sound, but then the sound changes to a lower pitch sound as it passes us.
Something similar happens to light from distant galaxies. In visible light, the longest wavelength is red, while blue light has a shorter wavelength. So red shift does not necessarily imply that an object is red. It tells us that bands in the galaxy’s spectrum are of longer wavelength than expected, so it is called a red shift. In a random universe, one might expect an equal number of red and blue shifts. In practice, blue shifts are rare.The red shift is probably caused by space itself expanding. And this is consistent with what the Bible says in Psalm 104: “He stretches out the heavens like a tent.”
Are There Aliens Out there?
“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.” One of today’s most popular beliefs is that aliens have traveled from another planet to visit our world at various times in the past. Some of the alleged sightings of these aliens have become very well known. Documentary films have been made, but also fictional accounts of such alien visitations have stirred the public imagination.
We have discussed UFOs and aliens in a previous Creation Moment and concluded that they did not exist. The idea of alien lifeforms fits quite nicely into an evolutionary worldview. After all, if life evolved here on Earth, it could have evolved elsewhere in the universe as well.But alien lifeforms do not fit into a biblical worldview. Genesis 1 makes clear that the Earth was formed on the first day of Creation, whereas all the other objects of the universe were created on day four. This immediately makes a great difference between our world and every other world that there is. This is why God told the prophet Isaiah, “For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the Lord, and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:18)
God made this Earth for a purpose, and He made people for a purpose. This purpose was and is focused on planet Earth, so the Earth’s unique situation indicates that its lifeforms are also unique in the universe.
We have discussed UFOs and aliens in a previous Creation Moment and concluded that they did not exist. The idea of alien lifeforms fits quite nicely into an evolutionary worldview. After all, if life evolved here on Earth, it could have evolved elsewhere in the universe as well.But alien lifeforms do not fit into a biblical worldview. Genesis 1 makes clear that the Earth was formed on the first day of Creation, whereas all the other objects of the universe were created on day four. This immediately makes a great difference between our world and every other world that there is. This is why God told the prophet Isaiah, “For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the Lord, and there is no other.” (Isaiah 45:18)
God made this Earth for a purpose, and He made people for a purpose. This purpose was and is focused on planet Earth, so the Earth’s unique situation indicates that its lifeforms are also unique in the universe.
Cuddly Koalas
“Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, and maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?”
There is one activity almost compulsory for visitors to certain parts of Australia. That is, to have one's photograph taken with a koala. While kangaroos may be the most iconic Australian marsupial, the koala is surely the most endearing. Their apparent slothfulness, their large noses and attractive faces make them particularly photogenic. In fact, they are capable of some rapid movement through trees and are not always as docile as they appear.
Apart from their appearance, the other most well-known trait of the koala is its diet. It seems to live almost exclusively on the leaves of eucalyptus trees. Actually, they cannot even eat all eucalypts. They survive on about 30 species of the plant. Eucalypt leaves are rich in a pungent oil, and this would cause most other animals a problem with digestion. Koalas produce cytochrome P450, which is able to break down the difficult chemicals from the eucalyptus oil in a large caecum, attached to the intestines. This sort of mechanism will always raise a question for evolutionists. Did the koala start eating eucalypts first, and then evolved the systems to digest them? If so, would not the first couple of generations have been poisoned before evolution could occur? If the digestive systems evolved before the dietary behavior, then what evolutionary advantage would the koala accrue from such systems?
God has made so many magnificent and wonderful animals all over the world. It is astounding to see the meticulous design produced by our Creator God.
Apart from their appearance, the other most well-known trait of the koala is its diet. It seems to live almost exclusively on the leaves of eucalyptus trees. Actually, they cannot even eat all eucalypts. They survive on about 30 species of the plant. Eucalypt leaves are rich in a pungent oil, and this would cause most other animals a problem with digestion. Koalas produce cytochrome P450, which is able to break down the difficult chemicals from the eucalyptus oil in a large caecum, attached to the intestines. This sort of mechanism will always raise a question for evolutionists. Did the koala start eating eucalypts first, and then evolved the systems to digest them? If so, would not the first couple of generations have been poisoned before evolution could occur? If the digestive systems evolved before the dietary behavior, then what evolutionary advantage would the koala accrue from such systems?
God has made so many magnificent and wonderful animals all over the world. It is astounding to see the meticulous design produced by our Creator God.
DARWIN WAS NO GEOLOGIST
Psalm 46:2
"Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea."
Charles Darwin's ignorance of geology, a science he never studied, probably resulted in the biological errors he made in formulating his theory of biological evolution.
As he sailed on the Beagle to the Pacific, Charles Darwin read Charles Lyell's book, Principles of Geology. That book, of course, theorized that the Earth's geology was the result of the slow processes we see today working over millions of years. On the way to the Galapagos, he had a 16-day stopover in Argentina. He spent some of the time exploring the valley of the lower Santa Cruz River. He later wondered in his journal how the small and lazy Santa Cruz River could have carved the 300-foot-deep valley. But he allowed that Lyell's idea of long ages could solve that problem.
Later, at the Galapagos, he tried to explain plant and animal diversity based on those same long ages. Today, geologists believe that melting glaciers at the headwaters of the river formed a huge lake behind a natural dam. When that dam broke, the rushing lake water quickly cut a spillway that became the valley through which the Santa Cruz River gently flows today.
It appears as though Darwin's assumption that Lyell knew what he was talking about when he wrote of long geological ages influenced his biological interpretations.
Psalm 46:2
"Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea."
Charles Darwin's ignorance of geology, a science he never studied, probably resulted in the biological errors he made in formulating his theory of biological evolution.
As he sailed on the Beagle to the Pacific, Charles Darwin read Charles Lyell's book, Principles of Geology. That book, of course, theorized that the Earth's geology was the result of the slow processes we see today working over millions of years. On the way to the Galapagos, he had a 16-day stopover in Argentina. He spent some of the time exploring the valley of the lower Santa Cruz River. He later wondered in his journal how the small and lazy Santa Cruz River could have carved the 300-foot-deep valley. But he allowed that Lyell's idea of long ages could solve that problem.
Later, at the Galapagos, he tried to explain plant and animal diversity based on those same long ages. Today, geologists believe that melting glaciers at the headwaters of the river formed a huge lake behind a natural dam. When that dam broke, the rushing lake water quickly cut a spillway that became the valley through which the Santa Cruz River gently flows today.
It appears as though Darwin's assumption that Lyell knew what he was talking about when he wrote of long geological ages influenced his biological interpretations.
DARWIN’S PUZZLE
John 18:38a
“Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?”
How do you know that what you think you know is really true? Charles Darwin wondered just that, and the answer to his question sheds a lot of light on the origins debate today.
Since Darwin had no formal training in science, he made his case for evolution from philosophy, not from science. Philosophy and theology, after all, was the area in which he was trained. This background led him to ask a very important question. In Darwin’s own words, “…the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which was developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there were any convictions in such a mind?”
In other words, what Darwin was saying was that if his theory was true, it was the product of a mind not much greater than a monkey’s. And who, including Darwin himself, could trust such a mind? The only way in which human thoughts might be separated far above the animals is if creation is true. Either way, the logical conclusion of Darwin’s puzzle is that creation is true and evolution is untrustworthy!
It is no accident that as the teaching that man came from lower animals has grown, the number of people who act like animals has also grown. Darwin’s own statement seems to show the twisted logic that results from evolution.
Dear Father, I pray that our age – which asks with Pilate, “What is truth?” – may become more open to Your Word, the only truth, as it learns to despair of man’s wisdom. In Jesus’ Name and for His Glory. Amen.
Photo: Limestone block discovered in 1961 with Pilate's tribute in Latin to Tiberius. Courtesy of Marion Doss. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
John 18:38a
“Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?”
How do you know that what you think you know is really true? Charles Darwin wondered just that, and the answer to his question sheds a lot of light on the origins debate today.
Since Darwin had no formal training in science, he made his case for evolution from philosophy, not from science. Philosophy and theology, after all, was the area in which he was trained. This background led him to ask a very important question. In Darwin’s own words, “…the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which was developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there were any convictions in such a mind?”
In other words, what Darwin was saying was that if his theory was true, it was the product of a mind not much greater than a monkey’s. And who, including Darwin himself, could trust such a mind? The only way in which human thoughts might be separated far above the animals is if creation is true. Either way, the logical conclusion of Darwin’s puzzle is that creation is true and evolution is untrustworthy!
It is no accident that as the teaching that man came from lower animals has grown, the number of people who act like animals has also grown. Darwin’s own statement seems to show the twisted logic that results from evolution.
Dear Father, I pray that our age – which asks with Pilate, “What is truth?” – may become more open to Your Word, the only truth, as it learns to despair of man’s wisdom. In Jesus’ Name and for His Glory. Amen.
Photo: Limestone block discovered in 1961 with Pilate's tribute in Latin to Tiberius. Courtesy of Marion Doss. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
Darwin’s Tangled Web
One recent biography described Charles Darwin during his childhood as “a compulsive liar”. He continued thus: “The solipsism and the dishonesty would scarcely be worth mentioning in so small a child were it not that both characteristics were carried on into grown-up life.”
It is difficult to say exactly how this inherent dishonesty was manifest in Darwin’s scientific life. However, one possibility is this: There are some who have suggested, even among those who adhere strongly to the theory of evolution, that much of Darwin’s opinions and ideas were plagiarized from one or two other sources – the most notable being Alfred Russel Wallace.
Wallace wrote, from his base in what is now Indonesia, to Charles Darwin, outlining a theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin claims to have received Wallace’s letter after he had discussed his ideas on exactly the same issue with his friend Thomas Hooker. Yet, Wallace had mailed another letter at the same time as that to Darwin, simply giving news and information to his family. This letter, which traveled on the same package liner, reached the Wallace family several days before Darwin’s conversation with Hooker. This matter feels very like that of a detective destroying someone’s alibi. It is possible, therefore, that Darwin had received Wallace’s paper, realized that this undermined his claim to primacy, and therefore lied about the date he received the letter. Was Darwinism itself born out of deceit? It behooves scientists of faith to behave honorably and honestly with all their peers.
It is difficult to say exactly how this inherent dishonesty was manifest in Darwin’s scientific life. However, one possibility is this: There are some who have suggested, even among those who adhere strongly to the theory of evolution, that much of Darwin’s opinions and ideas were plagiarized from one or two other sources – the most notable being Alfred Russel Wallace.
Wallace wrote, from his base in what is now Indonesia, to Charles Darwin, outlining a theory of evolution by natural selection. Darwin claims to have received Wallace’s letter after he had discussed his ideas on exactly the same issue with his friend Thomas Hooker. Yet, Wallace had mailed another letter at the same time as that to Darwin, simply giving news and information to his family. This letter, which traveled on the same package liner, reached the Wallace family several days before Darwin’s conversation with Hooker. This matter feels very like that of a detective destroying someone’s alibi. It is possible, therefore, that Darwin had received Wallace’s paper, realized that this undermined his claim to primacy, and therefore lied about the date he received the letter. Was Darwinism itself born out of deceit? It behooves scientists of faith to behave honorably and honestly with all their peers.
DARWIN'S DILEMMA SOLVED?
Genesis 2:1
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
Has Darwin's dilemma finally been solved? Darwin's dilemma has been vexing evolutionists for more than 150 years. Charles Darwin, you see, was unable to explain the sudden arrival in Cambrian rock of most of the phyla we have today when no fossil evidence of their ancestors can be found in pre-Cambrian rock.
Not surprisingly, creationists frequently mention Darwin's dilemma – another name for what is called the "Cambrian explosion" – when challenging the Darwinian view of the gradual origin of species. So evolutionists have been struggling to find a plausible answer.
Such an answer was recently proposed by researchers at South Australia's University of Adelaide. They try to get around the dilemma by estimating that the rate of evolution during the "Cambrian explosion" was five times faster than it is today.
The evolutionary website ScienceDaily states with great confidence, "The findings ... resolve 'Darwin's dilemma': the sudden appearance of a plethora of modern animal groups in the fossil record during the early Cambrian period."
Is the assertion that evolution happened five times faster than today really reasonable? No, it isn't. In fact, it only creates another dilemma for evolutionists who have always insisted on uniformitarianism – that the rates of natural processes do not change over time. Darwin's dilemma remains unsolved for evolutionists. But there is no dilemma at all for creationists who know that God created all living creatures on days five and six of Creation Week.
Genesis 2:1
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
Has Darwin's dilemma finally been solved? Darwin's dilemma has been vexing evolutionists for more than 150 years. Charles Darwin, you see, was unable to explain the sudden arrival in Cambrian rock of most of the phyla we have today when no fossil evidence of their ancestors can be found in pre-Cambrian rock.
Not surprisingly, creationists frequently mention Darwin's dilemma – another name for what is called the "Cambrian explosion" – when challenging the Darwinian view of the gradual origin of species. So evolutionists have been struggling to find a plausible answer.
Such an answer was recently proposed by researchers at South Australia's University of Adelaide. They try to get around the dilemma by estimating that the rate of evolution during the "Cambrian explosion" was five times faster than it is today.
The evolutionary website ScienceDaily states with great confidence, "The findings ... resolve 'Darwin's dilemma': the sudden appearance of a plethora of modern animal groups in the fossil record during the early Cambrian period."
Is the assertion that evolution happened five times faster than today really reasonable? No, it isn't. In fact, it only creates another dilemma for evolutionists who have always insisted on uniformitarianism – that the rates of natural processes do not change over time. Darwin's dilemma remains unsolved for evolutionists. But there is no dilemma at all for creationists who know that God created all living creatures on days five and six of Creation Week.
DAWKINS BECOMES A CREATIONIST
Luke 24:31
"And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."
When Creation Moments posted a story with the headline "Dawkins Becomes a Creationist," many evolutionists reacted in disbelief, saying that one of their own – namely, Richard Dawkins – could never become a creationist. And yet, a scientist and veterinarian by the name of Karen Dawkins was also an evolutionist … until God changed her way of thinking.
In an interview with Creation Moments, she said, "As a product of the public school system, I always assumed that evolution was fact. Majoring in science in college, I began having my doubts about the scientific logic of evolution. The first organism I learned about that was not explainable by evolution was the woodpecker. There is no way it could have evolved with so many specialized organs. It had to have been created with all of its specialized organs all at one time. It still took me about 15 years to come to the conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days."
She also told us, "Christianity explains the basics of science. Biology, chemistry, geology, physics and astronomy are all based on an orderly, predictable set of laws. And if life is ruled by these laws, then there has to be One who created those predictable sets of laws."
Today Karen Dawkins feels she has a more complete understanding of the sciences by the revealed Word of God. If such a radical change could happen to her, we can only pray that another evolutionist named Dawkins will come to see Christ as Lord and Creator before it's too late.
Luke 24:31
"And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight."
When Creation Moments posted a story with the headline "Dawkins Becomes a Creationist," many evolutionists reacted in disbelief, saying that one of their own – namely, Richard Dawkins – could never become a creationist. And yet, a scientist and veterinarian by the name of Karen Dawkins was also an evolutionist … until God changed her way of thinking.
In an interview with Creation Moments, she said, "As a product of the public school system, I always assumed that evolution was fact. Majoring in science in college, I began having my doubts about the scientific logic of evolution. The first organism I learned about that was not explainable by evolution was the woodpecker. There is no way it could have evolved with so many specialized organs. It had to have been created with all of its specialized organs all at one time. It still took me about 15 years to come to the conclusion that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days."
She also told us, "Christianity explains the basics of science. Biology, chemistry, geology, physics and astronomy are all based on an orderly, predictable set of laws. And if life is ruled by these laws, then there has to be One who created those predictable sets of laws."
Today Karen Dawkins feels she has a more complete understanding of the sciences by the revealed Word of God. If such a radical change could happen to her, we can only pray that another evolutionist named Dawkins will come to see Christ as Lord and Creator before it's too late.