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?

(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 super-position) 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?

(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?

(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?

(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 seafloor 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?

(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?

(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?

(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?

(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?

(For answers to these questions go to www.gospelcenterchurch.org down to the Evolution/Creation page.  Or go to www.drdino.com