Answers to PC Science Class Evolution Questions from Pastor Steve

These Answers were prepared by Pastor Steve on the night before the class presented the questions to Dr. Hovind the following day.  Mr. Van Meter presented Pastor Steve with a list of the questions ahead of time, but they were not given to Dr. Hovind ahead of time.  Check with Dr. Hovind's website for more complete answers.

Questions on Evolution/Creation From Pike Central High School Science Class

Teacher – Mr. Steve Van Meter

(Presented to Dr. Kent Hovind – Sunday, March 23, 2003)

(1) In the 1950's, the structure of DNA was unraveled. Since then, we have learned how DNA works, that it carries the “code of life" in all organisms, including man. We have also learned that when DNA changes, or mutates, that in itself causes changes in organ structures, functions, and even in behaviors. Is that not evidence that organisms change?

Pastor Steve's Answer - Yes, organisms do change due to environment and other factors over time, but this is not 'macro-evolution' in which the organism changes into a completely different 'kind' of organism!  This has never been shown by science.  Never have we any evidence of, say a fish turning into a dog.  A dog may reproduce with a wolf, but the offspring is still the same 'kind' of animal..  Only the same 'kinds' can mate and reproduce.  But organisms do change and 'adapt' over time due to environmental factors in order to better survive.  The tanning of the skin in a sunny environment would be an example of this adapting type of change.  Some evolutionists say that over millions of years, certain 'mutations' occurred which caused a species to change or evolve into another species.  This is ridiculous and there no evidence to support such a theory.  This has never been observed or duplicated in any scientific lab in the world! When there is a mutation in a gene, it always results in harm and destruction, never in anything better, especially in the ability to make the organism 'better' when it reproduces!   The idea that species evolved from amoebas up to man over millions of years just doesn't line up with any science anywhere.  How could the species survive the millions of years it took for their reproductive organs to evolve?  To say everything we see evolved from a rock....takes too much 'faith' for me!

(2) The fossil record reveals that life started simple in structure, few in species number, and small in size, then progressively, in time, descended and changed (according to both radiometric dating and rock layer superposition) to become complex in structure, greater in species number, and larger in size. Scientists conclude that these changes are due to mutations, natural selection and selection pressures, isolation, and genetic inheritance. Doesn't all this evidence illustrate that today's organisms haven't always been here as they are now, that changes in organisms have occurred?

Pastor Steve's Answer - As I understand the fossil record, the above statement is just not true.  The 'fossil record' does not follow this pattern at all.  As a matter of fact, there is no 'fossil record' as such!  There are fossils, but no 'record' that supports any evolutionary theory!  In fact,  As scientists look at the fossils discovered,  their evidence shows the sudden appearance of complex and large fossils, as would be evidenced by a world wide flood.

In my understanding, the fossils do not support evolution at all!  In the countless multitude of fossils found, there has never been one fossil found that shows the transition from species to another!  If organisms evolved from one species to another over time, you would think there would be fossils showing this transition......You would think there would be at least SOME fossils showing half of one organism and half of another!   Isn't it amazing there is not a single one of these 'transitional' fossils anywhere in the world?

Not a single transitional form of fossil has ever been found showing a species changing into another.....

(3) Many scholars, both religious and scientific alike, believe that although there are some details and conflicts that seem to put Creationism and organic evolution at odds, there are also many parallels between the two explanations. Both theories claim the earth was lifeless early in its history, that plants, animals, and even simpler organisms appeared, and also that man appeared. Could evolution not be man's attempt to understand and interpret how Creation was accomplished?

Pastor Steve's answer - This is known as 'theistic evolution' which says that God could have used 'evolution' to create everything we see.  This is just not true according to the Bible.  First of all, it would be such a cruel and silly way to create the world!  Why would God choose such a method full of pain and misery to get to man, when He could just speak the word and have a full grown man and woman as Genesis, in fact, says He did?  God says in Genesis he created man and woman, and all the animals, etc. as full grown and mature, on the specific, literal 24 hour day as noted.  These 'days' are not long periods of time, such as a thousand years each! The days in Genesis are clearly literal 24 hour days, because each day is preceded by the prefix "first" day, "Second" day, etc. and each of these days of creation are said to have a morning and evening.  Whenever this language is used in the Bible regarding 'days', they are always 24 hour days!  A close reading of Exodus 20:9-11 shows God was referring to 24 hour days back in Genesis, because these verses say,

   "Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: .........."For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it." 

This passage clearly shows God was referring to literal 24 hours days in Genesis, not long periods of time!

Besides, the the chronology and method of creation described in Genesis in those 6 days, does not follow the pattern of evolution at all.  Notice the Genesis account (1:11,14) says God created grass and seed yielding plants before the Sun appeared, causing night and day and different seasons!

How could plants have grown and reproduced without a sun during those 'millions' of years evolution requires?

No, to say that God could have used 'evolution' to create everything we see today just does not line up with the Bible.  The Bible says that every thing 'reproduced 'after its kind'... For evolution to be true, species would have to reproduce 'different' species....Correct?

One cannot say the Bible allows for 'theistic' evolution as the way God created things.  Now if one wants to believe that, now that is okay...but we cannot say the Bible teaches that, because it simply does not.

(4) Evidence shows that the earth's formations, such as mountain ranges rising and ocean basins filling, can change in time. But new electronic measuring devices, such as lasers, show that mountains rise very slowly, only a few millimeters per year. Fossils of marine creatures in these mountainous rock layers prove that these areas were at one time at the bottom of the ocean. At the measurable rate of uplift, does this not mean that the earth must be literally hundreds of millions of years old?

Pastor Steve's Answer - If these fossils of marine life were placed there by the great flood of Noah's day, which I believe they were, then this makes mute the assumption that they must have been there for millions of years!  The flood occurred about 4000 years ago according to Bible chronology.

Much, if not most, of the mountainous area on earth formed as a result of the flood in Noah's day, as I understand it....due to the breaking forth of the fountains of the deep from which most of the water for the flood came and then from the draining of the world wide flood and the erosion effect on the earth and the effect all of this add on the earth's terrain.

The fact that lasers and other electronic measuring devises that show that mountains rise very slowly does not prove that the earth is millions of years old, it just proves they have risen slowly SINCE they were formed at the flood.

(5) Continental drift has occurred in the past, and still as is we measure electronically, observe daily as earthquakes and volcanoes occur, and as we observe sea floor spreading beneath the oceans. Several observations in the last century, such as the shapes of continents fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle, the various magnetic differences in rock formations (some have a SOUTH oriented magnetism), corresponding rock types on distant continents, and even biogeography, all show that changes have occurred. But observations and measurements show this drift is-very slow, and could not occur in just 6000 to 12000 years. Can the earth be so young?

Pastor Steve's answer - The old theory of 'pangaea' which says at one time the continents all fit together as a jigsaw puzzle and have been drifting apart for millions of years is simply a myth!  This has never been proven and there is absolutely no evidence supporting such a theory! They don't fit together!  Artist's conceptions of this 'pangaea' leave out Mexico and parts of Africa and several other countries!  To say the earth must be millions of years old because at one time the continents were all together and are now drifting apart is simply based upon a false assumption to start with!  Science just does not produce any evidence that the earth is over 6 to 10 thousand years old!

Carbon dating cannot be replied upon to test the age of anything.  It is based upon two assumptions...The assumption that the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant.  Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable!  Present testing shows the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's! 

A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago!  (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p 211)

 In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy.....and the 'geologic column' exists no where on earth and never has...and only exists in mind and imagination of evolutionists!

(6) Could discrepancies in the two theories of Creation and evolution be due to the fact that the Bible is a book of religion, not a book of science? Most references to nature in the Bible, a collection of works written by many writers of widely diverse human periods, are purely coincidental, only of secondary importance in their works. Their references were of no consequence to the religious meaning of the writings themselves. For example, passages such as: 1. "the earth is flat and a sea lays under it " ( Psalm 136:6) 2. " the earth is stationary' (Psalm 93:1) 3. " the sun, moon, and stars move through the heavens for the purpose of illuminating the earth " ( Psalm 1:14-18) 4. "there was a space above the sky with windows through which the rains came" (Psalm 78:23). In other words, the writers made statements about various items in astronomy that we now know to be incorrect. But because these book writers wrote the passages and made these inaccurate illusions to the nature of the universe, this appears to put the bible in opposition to science since many religious leaders demand these allusions be accepted literally. Their ideas about the universe they knew of that time are entirely secondary and of no consequence to the meanings of the writings themselves. Could this not be an explanation of why certain passages in the Bible seem so antagonistic to science?

Pastor Steve's Answer - To imply that the Bible has scientific 'errors' in it is just not true!  To use the above illustrations as scientific 'errors' just does not hold up in the court of common sense.  The Bible writers often use phrases in their speech and conversation just like we do today.....and is not to be taken literally when it is obvious a slang phrase of speech is being used.  For example when we say today "he went to the 4 corners of the earth", everyone knows it simply means he went over the entire earth!  We are not implying the earth is square!  The Bible (in Isaiah) taught long before science figured it out that the earth was round! It says the earth was round as a circle!  Even in Columbus' day, it was accepted scientific knowledge of the day the earth was flat!  Just because some Religious and Scientific leaders of the past were mistaken in their scientific assumptions does not mean the Bible was wrong!

We say today that the 'Sun went down in the evening' and 'the sun came up in the morning'.....and when we say that, we do not mean that sun literally went down or came up.....that is just a phrase speech we use in our human language but everybody knows what we mean....and the bible writers used human language commonly used in their day, and everyone understood what they meant. 

To say that these examples in the Bible prove that the Bible is simply a book of religion and NOT a book of science....and imply it has scientific errors is just not true.  When the Bible speaks of science, it is absolutely true in every respect.

(7) There are two contradictory accounts of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis, but they both end up with the same result-- an earth with life. Both These Accounts of Creation were written by mortal men' (albeit divinely inspired) who were attempting to impress the thought of a divine Creator, a single God accomplishing this in a time when most other people believed in many gods. So why worry that these accounts are not valid science but, instead, part of a book of religion. Is it not just as possible to worship a God who works through natural laws, slowly evolving life on the planet, as it is to worship a God who creates by sudden command?

Pastor Steve's Answer - This is just not true.  The two accounts of creation in Genesis do not contradict each other at all....Genesis 1 gives the account of creation, while the next couple of chapters recounts a summary of the  creation of the Garden of Eden, which God prepared especially for Adam.  Read it closely and you will see God prepares animals and trees especially for this garden for Adam!  No contradiction here at all. 

(8) Creationism professes a definite design. Most people think scientists and evolution profess "chance". But the natural laws of science" also profess design. From atoms to molecules to crystals to cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems in the organic world, design is the word. So once again, are not Creationism and evolution paralleling one another?

Pastor Steve's answer - But evolution does reply upon chance at its creator!

Evolution says that over billions of years, a rock or some dirt had a chemical process that somehow evolved into 'life' through a 'BIG BANG' and an 'amoeba' formed, which slowly evolved mutation into other species!  Evolution does not tell us where the stuff that 'banged' came from or how it got here...

The reasoning of evolution is that if you throw pieces of glass and metal up in the air long enough, they will eventually come down together and form a wrist watch!  I'm sorry but that takes too much 'faith' for me...I would rather look at everything around me and conclude there must be a Creator.

(9) When modern science (such as Copernican astronomy) was established, religious leaders were extremely disturbed because it upset the Bible explanation that the earth was the central figure in the universe, or at least that the earth was created and other celestial bodies were to serve it (such as the sun created to illuminate the earth).  Copernicus was labeled a heretic for statements he made.  But now the place of the sun, moon, earth, and all other bodies is established and accepted.  Would it not be inconsistent, therefore, to recognize that the Bible is not a scientific book in matters of astronomy but to demand that it is a scientific book in matters of biology?

Pastor Steve's answer - This parallels the answer given in question # 6 and is similar to question 6.  Just because 'Religious leaders' were wrong in the past on their conclusions about matters of science...or the Bible...does not mean the Bible was wrong.  It just means the 'Religious leaders' were wrong.  Let's not assume the Bible is wrong because some religious leaders have been come to some asinine conclusions about the Bible and what they thought it taught!

The Bible contains no errors...scientific or otherwise!  Show me one.  I have never found one yet.