1.  2007 by David A. Prentice Contents: Overheads to be used with Chapter 5 of “Truth in the Balance,” copyright 2003 by David Prentice, M.Ed., M.A.S.T. REVISION DATE 11/08/2014 This material is made available by the author at no charge. It may be reproduced for use in a Christian environment such as Sunday schools or Bible classes, but it may not be used for any commercial purposes. To be certain that you have the most up-to-date version of this material, go to the Origins Resource Association website, www.originsresource.org. Follow the links to “Bible College Materials” and check that the revision date shown online is the same as shown above. If not, download the latest version.

2.  2007 by David A. Prentice THINGS WE CAN TEST SCIENTIFICALLY: 1. Overall trends and tend- encies in nature. 2. Observable processes. 3. Processes and events that left direct evidence. THINGS WE CAN’T: 1. Who or what started the universe, and was there a motive? 2. Morality and meaning. 3. Specific details: the names of the first humans, what they wore, what they liked to eat, etc. 

3.  2007 by David A. Prentice and the of evidence are two different things entirely. and the of evidence are two different things entirely. There may be more than one possible interpretation. An interpretation may be wrong. There may be more than one possible interpretation. An interpretation may be wrong. INTERPRETATION EVIDENCE 5-2

4.  2007 by David A. Prentice A QUESTION FOR SKEPTICS: What scientific evidence for creation are you prepared to accept? If you don’t know what you’re looking for, how will you recognize it when you see it? What scientific evidence for creation are you prepared to accept? If you don’t know what you’re looking for, how will you recognize it when you see it? 5-3

5.  2007 by David A. Prentice SO YOU THINK YOU’RE NOT BIASED? Now is the time for for all good men to come to the the aid of their country. Now is the time for for all good men to come to the the aid of their country. 5-4

6.  2007 by David A. Prentice Both sides look at the same evidence… - We just interpret it differently. Both sides look at the same evidence… - We just interpret it differently. 5-5

7.  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike. 1. Personal Experience through the five senses. I know a bee sting hurts; I know how to ride a bike. 2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. 2. Reliance on Authority. I know the sun is 93 million miles away; Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so. 3. Logic. I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it. 3. Logic. I know 2 million + 2 million = 4 million, even though I’ve never counted that high. I know I have a brain, even though I’ve never seen it. 4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry. 4. Feeling or Intuition. I know she’s the one for me; I know God has called me to the ministry. 5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery! 5. Wishful Thinking (you really want it to be true) I just know I’m going to win the lottery! 6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know evolution is a fact! 6. Bluffing (lying) - you try to persuade others for an ulterior motive. You should buy these tickets from me because I know this team is going to the Super Bowl this year; I know evolution is a fact! WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “KNOW” SOMETHING? 

8.  2007 by David A. Prentice THE PREHISTORIC PAST: 1. No living person has personal experience. 2. There are no eyewitness accounts except the Bible, which is unacceptable to skeptics. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY. SO HOW DO WE “KNOW” ABOUT THE BEGINNING? Through LOGIC ONLY. 

9.  2007 by David A. Prentice Based on the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks, who believed that logic always leads to truth. Testing was unimportant to them. Most famous Greek philosopher: Aristotle (inventor of the logic still used today), whose ideas were taught as fact for about 2,000 years throughout Europe, west Asia, and Africa. (Aristotle said it, I believe it, that settles it!) Based on the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks, who believed that logic always leads to truth. Testing was unimportant to them. Most famous Greek philosopher: Aristotle (inventor of the logic still used today), whose ideas were taught as fact for about 2,000 years throughout Europe, west Asia, and Africa. (Aristotle said it, I believe it, that settles it!) “SCIENCE” UNTIL THE MIDDLE AGES: 

10.  2007 by David A. Prentice EXAMPLES OF INCORRECT CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FAULTY LOGIC “Scientific” ideas of Aristotle TAUGHT AS FACT in European Universities for 2000 YEARS: 1. The earth is the center of the solar system. Falsified by Copernicus. 2. Heavier objects fall faster. Falsified by Galileo. 3. All objects possess an innate tendency to come to rest. Falsified by Newton. 4. There is no such thing as an atom. Falsified by many scientists. Falsified by many scientists. 

11.  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. INDUCTIVE. Look at many phenomena and try to discover a pattern that points to a general principle. Inductive logic tries to determine the most reasonable reasonable (most likely) conclusion. This is the heart of the scientific method. 2. DEDUCTIVE. Start with general principles accepted as true and apply them to specific cases. Deductive logic tries to establish absolute truth, i.e., the conclusion MUST MUST be true. THE TWO TYPES OF LOGIC 

12.  2007 by David A. Prentice The conclusions of inductive logic result from examination of observable phenomena (a posteriori). They are testable. The premises of deductive logic may come from inductive conclusions, or they may just be statements accepted as self-evident (a priori). They are not necessarily the result of testing. The conclusions of inductive logic result from examination of observable phenomena (a posteriori). They are testable. The premises of deductive logic may come from inductive conclusions, or they may just be statements accepted as self-evident (a priori). They are not necessarily the result of testing. CONTRASTING LOGIC 

13.  2007 by David A. Prentice 5-12 1. INDUCTIVE LOGIC. Every living human examined so far has had a brain. (If one were ever found without a brain, it would be front page news.) Therefore, we reach the a posteriori posteriori conclusion “All humans have a brain.” 2. DEDUCTIVE. We now use this conclusion as an a priori priori premise to set up a syllogism: 1. All humans have a brain. 2. I am a human. 3. Therefore, I must have a brain. HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A BRAIN?

14.  2007 by David A. Prentice If P is true, then Q is true.(Major premise) P is true.(Minor premise) Therefore, Q is true.(Conclusion) if P then Q To represent a syllogism graphically, anything inside the inner circle (“if”) is automatically inside the outer circle (“then”). if live in New Orleans live in La. live in U.S. live on earth Syllogisms can also be chained (transitive logic). DEDUCTIVE LOGIC AND SYLLOGISMS 

15.  2007 by David A. Prentice If I am at Mount Everest, then I am at the highest mountain in the world. TRUE. CONVERSES IN LOGIC THE CONVERSE: If I am at the highest mountain in the world, then I am at Mount Everest. ALSO TRUE. A converse is reliable ONLY if there is an exact one-to-one match between the “If” and “Then” parts - a biconditional (“if and only if”). 5-14

16.  2007 by David A. Prentice A converse is NOT reliable if there is more than one possibility. If I am at Victoria Falls, then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world. TRUE. THE CONVERSE: If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world, then I am at Victoria Falls. FALSE. (not reliable) THE INVALID LOGIC OF EVOLUTION 5-15

17.  2007 by David A. Prentice AT ONE OF THE LARGEST WATERFALLS IF AT VICTORIA FALLS IF AT NIAGARA FALLS IF AT ANGEL FALLS IF AT OTHER LARGE WATER- FALL IF AT KAIETEUR FALLS PROPER LOGIC FLOW 5-16

18.  2007 by David A. Prentice If I am at Victoria Falls, then I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world. TRUE. If I am at one of the largest waterfalls in the world, then I am at Victoria Falls. FALSE. (not reliable) If evolution is true, then the universe and life would exist. TRUE. If the universe and life exist, then evolution is true. FALSE. (not reliable) THE INVALID LOGIC OF EVOLUTION All teaching of “evolution only” in schools rests on the invalid use of a logical converse. 5-17 THE CONVERSE:

19.  2007 by David A. Prentice POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR THE UNIVERSE UNIVERSE EXISTS ATHEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT THEISTIC EVOLUTION CORRECT YOUNG-EARTH CREATION CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT SOMETHING ELSE CORRECT OLD-EARTH CREATION CORRECT 5-18

20.  2007 by David A. Prentice 1. INDUCTIVE LOGIC. Every living human examined so far has had a brain. (If one were ever found without a brain, it would be front page news.) Therefore, we reach the a posteriori conclusion “All humans have a brain.” 1. INDUCTIVE LOGIC. Every living human examined so far has had a brain. (If one were ever found without a brain, it would be front page news.) Therefore, we reach the a posteriori conclusion “All humans have a brain.” 2. DEDUCTIVE. We now use this conclusion as an a priori premise to set up a syllogism: 1. All humans have a brain. 2. I am a human. 3. Therefore, I must have a brain. 2. DEDUCTIVE. We now use this conclusion as an a priori premise to set up a syllogism: 1. All humans have a brain. 2. I am a human. 3. Therefore, I must have a brain. HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A BRAIN? 5-19

21.  2007 by David A. Prentice EVEN WITH CORRECT LOGIC, FALSE PREMISES CAN LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. All dogs bark. (Or, “If an animal is a dog, then it barks.”) Fido is a dog. Therefore, Fido barks. Not if Fido is a Basenji! Not if Fido is a Basenji! Basenjis do not bark. Basenjis do not bark. If any one of our premises is wrong, then our conclusion is unreliable. 5-20

22.  2007 by David A. Prentice Euclid’s Parallel Line Postulate says that for any line, there can be only one parallel line through a point not on the first line. First line Point not on the first line Only one parallel line BUT IS IT REALLY SELF-EVIDENT? Lobachevskyan and Riemannian geometry say that space is curved, so there is no such thing as an infinitely long straight line in the sense that we understand “straight.” BUT IS IT REALLY SELF-EVIDENT? Lobachevskyan and Riemannian geometry say that space is curved, so there is no such thing as an infinitely long straight line in the sense that we understand “straight.” One says space is negatively curved so that there are an infinite number of parallel lines through a point not on a line. The other says space is positively curved so that there are no parallel lines. All lines intersect at infinity. EACH OF THE THREE IS T TT THE BASIS OF A DIFFERENT VERSION OF GEOMETRY, BUT NONE CAN BE PROVEN. POSTULATES - Statements that are taken as self-evident and accepted without proof. 5-21

23.  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: There is a God, but he does not intervene in nature. Known as either NATURALISM, MATERIALISM, OR ATHEISM. EVOLUTION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: There is a God, but he does not intervene in nature. Known as either NATURALISM, MATERIALISM, OR ATHEISM. CREATION: 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. This is as far as Intelligent Design goes; Creation specifies that the intelligence is God. CREATION: 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natural processes, some things may not be. This is as far as Intelligent Design goes; Creation specifies that the intelligence is God. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 5-22

24.  2007 by David A. Prentice WHAT IF THERE IS EVEN ONE THING IN NATURE THAT REQUIRES GOD? “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species 5-23

25.  2007 by David A. Prentice IS EVOLUTION FALSIFIABLE? Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. But what if something can’t be explained by natural processes? YES IT CAN! We make up a story then use faulty logic to say, “Since we can make up a story, therefore our story must be true.” Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. But what if something can’t be explained by natural processes? YES IT CAN! We make up a story then use faulty logic to say, “Since we can make up a story, therefore our story must be true.” A case in point: At the Paluxy River in Texas, dozens of 5-toed human foot-prints cross hundreds of 3-toed dinosaur footprints. Since dino- saurs are supposed to have died out over 60 million years before humans evolved, this shows that evolution is wrong. OR DOES IT? A case in point: At the Paluxy River in Texas, dozens of 5-toed human foot-prints cross hundreds of 3-toed dinosaur footprints. Since dino- saurs are supposed to have died out over 60 million years before humans evolved, this shows that evolution is wrong. OR DOES IT? Photo courtesy of Dr. Don Patton. Used by permission. Rather than admit that evolution is wrong, one evolutionist has proposed that the 5-toed tracks must have been made by an unknown species of 5-toed dinosaur. Then how do we know the 3-toed tracks weren’t made by 3-toed humans with big feet? Rather than admit that evolution is wrong, one evolutionist has proposed that the 5-toed tracks must have been made by an unknown species of 5-toed dinosaur. Then how do we know the 3-toed tracks weren’t made by 3-toed humans with big feet? 5-24

26.  2007 by David A. Prentice MATERIALISM: NO GOD ALLOWED! "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurd- ity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. “It is not that the methods and institutions of science some- how compel us to accept a material explanation of the phe- nomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997 5-25

27.  2007 by David A. Prentice But what about people who claim to believe in both God and evolution? It’s not the same God! Their idea of God is that he started the universe billions of years ago, then go out of the way and let everything run by evolution. SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT? 5-26

28.  2007 by David A. Prentice You can’t have it both ways! EVOLUTION Death and struggle CREATION Man was the direct cause of death and struggle. led to the existence of man. 5-27

29.  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: There is a God, but he does not intervene in nature. EVOLUTION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: There is a God, but he does not intervene in nature. CREATION: 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natual processes, some things may not be. CREATION: 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natual processes, some things may not be. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. 5-28

30.  2007 by David A. Prentice EVOLUTION: Natural Processes Only! "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature magazine, Sept. 1999 Immunologist Scott C. Todd in a letter to Nature magazine, Sept. 1999 “... the theory of evolution itself [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson, “Adaptation,” Nature, Vol. 123 (1929), p.233 5-29

31.  2007 by David A. Prentice ARE THERE LIMITS TO SCIENCE? Imagine a scientist who decides to learn what’s in the ocean. He makes a net 100 feet in diameter, with holes 2 inches across. He attaches the net to a 1 mile long rope, then repeatedly drops it into the deep ocean from a ship. Imagine a scientist who decides to learn what’s in the ocean. He makes a net 100 feet in diameter, with holes 2 inches across. He attaches the net to a 1 mile long rope, then repeatedly drops it into the deep ocean from a ship. His conclusion: EVERYTHING IN THE OCEAN IS AT LAST 2 INCHES LONG AND HAS FINS. (If my net can’t catch it, it doesn’t exist.) His conclusion: EVERYTHING IN THE OCEAN IS AT LAST 2 INCHES LONG AND HAS FINS. (If my net can’t catch it, it doesn’t exist.) His critics say, “You may be fishing in the wrong place, with the wrong net. There may be things in the ocean you can’t catch that way.” His critics say, “You may be fishing in the wrong place, with the wrong net. There may be things in the ocean you can’t catch that way.” His reply: “You’re being superstitious. All the scientific observation shows “You’re being superstitious. All the scientific observation shows that I’m right.” that I’m right.” Their response: “You’re placing all your faith in your net and your choice of location.” “You’re placing all your faith in your net and your choice of location.” He cannot prove that he is right (a universal negative). negative). The ctritics only need to produce one specimen specimen to show that he is wrong. 5-30

32.  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: There is a God, but he does not intervene in nature. EVOLUTION: 1. Everything must be explainable by purely natural processes. a. Atheistic evolution: There is no God. b. Theistic evolution: There is a God, but he does not intervene in nature. CREATION: 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natual processes, some things may not be. CREATION: 1. A supernatural intelligence created the universe. Though most things are explainable by natual processes, some things may not be. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 2. Since there could be no other natural processes besides evolution, evolution is the only possibility. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. 2. God is powerful enough to use any method he chooses, including instantaneous creation. 3. Since evolution has never been seen in human history, it must be very slow. The universe and earth have to be billions of years old. 3. Since evolution has never been seen in human history, it must be very slow. The universe and earth have to be billions of years old. 3. Creation does not automatically require any specific age. a. Recent Creation: The earth is probably less than 10,000 years old. b. Gap Theory & Progressive Creation: Because evolutionists must know what they are talking about, the earth has to be billions of years old. 3. Creation does not automatically require any specific age. a. Recent Creation: The earth is probably less than 10,000 years old. b. Gap Theory & Progressive Creation: Because evolutionists must know what they are talking about, the earth has to be billions of years old. 5-31

33.  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. EVOLUTION: 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. CREATION: 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. CREATION: 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 5-32

34.  2007 by David A. Prentice THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION: Uniformitarianism. THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION: Uniformitarianism. The Bible warns us: First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation. They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. (2 Peter 3:3-7 RSV) This is the UNTESTABLE geological doctrine that everything happens by slow, gradual, uniform processes. (“The present is the key to the past.”) There can never have been a worldwide flood. This is the UNTESTABLE geological doctrine that everything happens by slow, gradual, uniform processes. (“The present is the key to the past.”) There can never have been a worldwide flood. 5-33

35.  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. EVOLUTION: 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. CREATION: 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. CREATION: 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance. 5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design. 5-34

36.  2007 by David A. Prentice DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON ANCESTRY? DO SIMILARITIES SHOW COMMON ANCESTRY? 5-35

37.  2007 by David A. Prentice Jesus said to the Father: “Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17) Theistic evolutionists say, “No it’s not.” God said everything should be interpreted according to what His Word says. Evolution says that the Bible must be interpreted according to what scientists say. Which scientists? The ones that agree with you! Jesus said to the Father: “Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17) Theistic evolutionists say, “No it’s not.” God said everything should be interpreted according to what His Word says. Evolution says that the Bible must be interpreted according to what scientists say. Which scientists? The ones that agree with you! 5-36

38.  2007 by David A. Prentice BASIC PREMISES OF EVOLUTION AND CREATION EVOLUTION: 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. EVOLUTION: 4. Because a worldwide flood would cut billions of years off the time needed to produce the fossil record, there can never have been a worldwide flood. CREATION: 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. CREATION: 4. The Flood. a. Recent Creation: One worldwide flood. b. Gap Theory: Two worldwide floods. c. Progressive Creation: No worldwide flood. LIKE THE POSTULATES OF GEOMETRY, NEITHER SET OF PREMISES CAN BE PROVEN. THEY MUST BE ACCEPTED BY FAITH AS SELF-EVIDENT. 5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance. 5. Similarities between living things are due to common ancestry or chance. 5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design. 5. Similarities between living things belonging to different kinds are due to common design. 6. Scientists are the final authority in everything. everything. Which scientists? The ones that agree with you! (At least until they change their minds next week.) 6. Authority. a. Recent Creation: The Bible is the final authority in everything. b. Gap Theory: The Bible is the final authority on most things, except the age of the earth and the origin of death. c. Progressive Creation: The Bible is the final authority only on on some spiritual matters. 5-37

39.  2007 by David A. Prentice Both sides look at the same evidence… - We just interpret it differently. Both sides look at the same evidence… - We just interpret it differently. 5-38

40.  2007 by David A. Prentice EVIDENCE MAY BE INCOM ETE conception Artist’s conception of “Nebraska Man” (Hespero- pithecus haroldcookii). It was based on a single tooth that later turned out to belong to an extinct pig. (Double page spread in Illustrated London News, June 24, 1922) 5-39

41.  2007 by David A. Prentice EVIDENCE MAY BE WITHHELD c. Peppered Moth Light and dark moths were present from beginning to end. d. The Giraffe’s neck Internal structures programmed in its DNA. e. The “Big Bang” Only works with 4-dimensional curved-space geometry. etc. c. Peppered Moth Light and dark moths were present from beginning to end. d. The Giraffe’s neck Internal structures programmed in its DNA. e. The “Big Bang” Only works with 4-dimensional curved-space geometry. etc. Java skull picture from Internet site talk.origins.org 5-40 a. Eugene Dubois and “Java Man” He hid the skulls! a. Eugene Dubois and “Java Man” He hid the skulls! b. Oxygen and the Origin of Life The rocks show there has always been free oxygen. b. Oxygen and the Origin of Life The rocks show there has always been free oxygen. Oxygen-rich deposits in Australia supposedly 3.46 billion years old. Photo by Ohmoto & Watanabe, phys.org

42.  2007 by David A. Prentice EVIDENCE MAY BE FALS IFIED a. “Embryonic Recapitulation” One of Ernst Haeckel’s falsified drawings, which he altered to make the embryos of a pig, bull, rabbit, and human look more alike than they really are. (From his 1874 book Anthropogenie - still in many textbooks.) One of Ernst Haeckel’s falsified drawings, which he altered to make the embryos of a pig, bull, rabbit, and human look more alike than they really are. (From his 1874 book Anthropogenie - still in many textbooks.) b. Piltdown Man Fragments supposedly found in a gravel pit in England; despite obvious file marks, accepted as an ape- man for over 40 years until the hoax was exposed. 5-41

43.  2007 by David A. Prentice WHO? WHAT? WHAT NOT? HOW? GOD? HOW TO TELL SCIENCE FROM STORYTELLING 1. WHO said they saw it? Can I trust them? 1. WHO said they saw it? Can I trust them? 2. WHAT did they actually see? 2. WHAT did they actually see? 3. WHAT are they NOT telling me? 3. WHAT are they NOT telling me? 4. HOW could I test this to see if it’s true? 4. HOW could I test this to see if it’s true? 5. What does GOD have to say about it? 5. What does GOD have to say about it? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? 5-42

44.  2007 by David A. Prentice WHAT ABOUT THE “MARS ROCK” REPORTS? NASA photo of a meteorite supposed to have come from Mars millions of years ago NASA photo of a meteorite supposed to have come from Mars millions of years ago 1. WHO says that they saw the rock come from Mars, or that they saw it contain- ing living things? NOBODY. 2. WHAT did they actu- ally see? A meteorite containing a mix of gases similar to the Martian atmosphere, and some chemicals called aromatic hydrocarbons. 2. WHAT did they actu- ally see? A meteorite containing a mix of gases similar to the Martian atmosphere, and some chemicals called aromatic hydrocarbons. 3. WHAT are they NOT telling us? (a) The mix of gases is similar to the MODERN Martian atmosphere, not the at- mosphere billions of years ago when the rock is supposed to have been formed. (b) There are hundreds of other processes besides life that can produce aroma-tic hydrocarbons. (c) NASA is assuming that life can come about anywhere the conditions are right. (d) NASA was due for large budget cuts until the publicity about this rock. 3. WHAT are they NOT telling us? (a) The mix of gases is similar to the MODERN Martian atmosphere, not the at- mosphere billions of years ago when the rock is supposed to have been formed. (b) There are hundreds of other processes besides life that can produce aroma-tic hydrocarbons. (c) NASA is assuming that life can come about anywhere the conditions are right. (d) NASA was due for large budget cuts until the publicity about this rock. 4. HOW could we test these claims? There is no way. This is storytelling, not science. 5. What does GOD have to say about it? While the Bible does not absolutely rule out the presence of physical life in space, it strongly suggests that it exists only on earth. 5-43

45.  2007 by David A. Prentice MoLOR TECHNIQUE Claim: Evidence Empi- Source Bias- Accept- Support? rical? Ac- Free? able? List cept? 5-44 An objective way to evaluate scientific claims in the popular media, developed by Prof. Bob Ford. (His beliefs on creation/evolution are unknown, and are irrelevant to the usefulness of the technique.)

46.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #1: Creationists believe every species is exactly the same as when it was created. NOT TRUE. “Species” is a manmade classification, different from a Genesis “kind.” A kind may include several species and possibly multiple genera. Species can change without changing the basic design of the kind. NOT TRUE. “Species” is a manmade classification, different from a Genesis “kind.” A kind may include several species and possibly multiple genera. Species can change without changing the basic design of the kind. The Biological Classification System Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species For example: humans belong to Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata (Subphylum Vertebrata), Class Mammalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species sapiens 5-45

47.  2007 by David A. Prentice DEVELOPMENT OF THE CREATION MODEL As in any scientific model, creationist ideas about the history of life have changed with the discovery of new facts. As in any scientific model, creationist ideas about the history of life have changed with the discovery of new facts. 1. Immutability of species (original creation model) EVOLUTIONARY TREE In contrast to the charts at left, evolution says that all life came from one simple single- celled ancestor. 2. “Linnaean Lawn” species do not change but may become extinct 3. Creationist Forest modern creation model TIMETIME TIMETIME 5-46

48.  2007 by David A. Prentice GENE EXPRESSION DNA is subdivided into thousands of small segments called genes. Different combinations of genes produce the physical structures of every living thing. Some genes are the same in all healthy specimens of a kind. Other genes can exist in several forms called alleles. In just about every case where two or more alleles exist, one is dominant, that is, it is the only one that produces visible results. (It is expressed.) However, the recessive alleles may still be present and be passed on to future generations. If a descendant receives only recessive alleles and no domi- nant ones, this may result in a “throwback” to an earlier gen- eration or even to the appearance of a previously unseen feature. Evolution requires the appearance of new genes, not just the expression of previously recessive ones. 5-47

49.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #2: Evolution means simply that species change over time. NOT TRUE. When most people say “evolution” they mean MACROEVOLUTION. This would require the addition of new genetic information to produce totally new structures (wings, bones, eyes, etc.) It has never been observed. “MICROEVOLUTION” is nothing more than minor variation within a kind. It happens all the time, as already existing genes are expressed. (e.g. selective breeding) It would be more accurate to call it “microexpression” instead. 5-48

50.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #3: Creationists do not believe in “descent with modification.” NOT TRUE. Evolution: Change for the better. New features appear be- cause of the accumulation of mutations (copying mistakes during reproduc- tion). There must be a great many beneficial mutations. Both creationists and evolutionists recognize that offspring differ from their parents. The difference is: 1. What is the source of the variation, and 2. Does the kind improve or deteriorate due to random changes? Both creationists and evolutionists recognize that offspring differ from their parents. The difference is: 1. What is the source of the variation, and 2. Does the kind improve or deteriorate due to random changes? Creation: Change for the worse. Variation occurs only within the limits set by each kind’s DNA. Mutations damage DNA, so they should be harmful or at best neutral. 5-49

51.  2007 by David A. Prentice CHANGE IS NOT THE SAME AS EVOLUTION. Evolution requires the appear- ance of totally new structures such as bones, eyes, arms, etc. It is an uphill process requiring change in the direction of increasing complexity -- that is, simple to complex. Creation says that everything began at its best. It is a downhill process. There should be an overall trend leading toward deterioration - - that is, complex to simple. Evolution requires the appear- ance of totally new structures such as bones, eyes, arms, etc. It is an uphill process requiring change in the direction of increasing complexity -- that is, simple to complex. Creation says that everything began at its best. It is a downhill process. There should be an overall trend leading toward deterioration - - that is, complex to simple. 5-50

52.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #4: Adaptation to the environment is the same as evolution. NOT TRUE. EVOLUTION The first living cell would have been extremely simple. In order for brains, bones, eyes, hearts, lungs and so forth to develop in its descendants, many brand new genes would have had to come into existence. Requires a GAIN of genetic information. ADAPTATION Individuals may adapt to their environment through learned behavior. Species are able to adapt through the expression of already existing combinations of genes, including recessive ones that become expressed as dominant ones are eliminated. NO GAIN of genetic information; may involve a loss. Creation by an intelligent designer leads us to expect built-in potential to adapt to the environment. 5-51

53.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #5: Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics. 1. Other leaf- eaters sur- vived. If they ate grass, short gi- raffes could have done the same. 2. Adult males up to 19 feet tall, 1-2 feet higher than females. 1. Other leaf- eaters sur- vived. If they ate grass, short gi- raffes could have done the same. 2. Adult males up to 19 feet tall, 1-2 feet higher than females. 3. Babies 12 feet tall when weaned. 4. There are no short- necked fos- sil giraffes. 5. Internal neck struc- tures. 3. Babies 12 feet tall when weaned. 4. There are no short- necked fos- sil giraffes. 5. Internal neck struc- tures. 5-52 Photo by the author – Singapore zoo Most famous example, Lamarck’s giraffe story: NOT TRUE.

54.  2007 by David A. Prentice 5-53 IN ORDER TO LIFT THE BLOOD 19 FEET OFF THE GROUND, GIRAFFES HAVE HIGHER BLOOD PRESSURE THAN ANY OTHER ANIMAL KNOWN. 1.Sensors in the neck detect the increased blood pressure as it lowers its head. 2. Muscles around the neck ar- teries constrict and reduce the blood flow to the brain. 3. Check valves inside the neck veins prevent the blood from flowing back the wrong way to the brain. 1.Sensors in the neck detect the increased blood pressure as it lowers its head. 2. Muscles around the neck ar- teries constrict and reduce the blood flow to the brain. 3. Check valves inside the neck veins prevent the blood from flowing back the wrong way to the brain. 4. The rete mirabile, a spongy network of blood vessels at the base of the brain, tempora- rily absorbs any excess blood. 5. When the giraffe raises its head, every- thing reverts to normal. 4. The rete mirabile, a spongy network of blood vessels at the base of the brain, tempora- rily absorbs any excess blood. 5. When the giraffe raises its head, every- thing reverts to normal. Photo by the author Why doesn’t a giraffe have an aneurysm when it bends down to take a drink?

55.  2007 by David A. Prentice WHY IS A GIRAFFE A GIRAFFE? The structures in the giraffe’s neck, as well as the body struc- tures of every living thing, are present because DNA con- tains the information needed to put them there. Use and dis- use of body parts has no effect on DNA and is not passed on to future generations. The only way to alter DNA is to damage it with drugs, radiation, and so on. 5-54 Or, why is a rose a rose, why is a bug a bug, etc.?

56.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #6: The Peppered Moth. WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO BE LUNCH? The moths started as light and dark varieties, and ended as light and dark varieties. No evolution here! 5-55

57.  2007 by David A. Prentice NOT TRUE. Suppose there are only two possible genes for color in a flower. C represents red (dominant) and c represents yellow (recessive). As long as a plant has at least one dominant gene, only that gene will be visibly expressed. Though the yellow gene is present, the flowers will be red. Selective breeding can result in several combinations. NOT TRUE. Suppose there are only two possible genes for color in a flower. C represents red (dominant) and c represents yellow (recessive). As long as a plant has at least one dominant gene, only that gene will be visibly expressed. Though the yellow gene is present, the flowers will be red. Selective breeding can result in several combinations. Any future descendants will automatically be yellow. No new genes were added; instead, the undesired dominant gene was deliberately eliminated. Any future descendants will automatically be yellow. No new genes were added; instead, the undesired dominant gene was deliberately eliminated. 1 st generation C c C CC Cc c Cc cc 2 nd generation C c c Cc cc 3 rd generation c c c cc cc 5-56 MISCONCEPTION #7: Selective breeding shows how evolution would happen.

58.  2007 by David A. Prentice PROBLEMS WITH SELECTIVE BREEDING 1. Reduced Viability. 5-57 The selectively bred animals or plants require much more care than wild ones in order to stay alive. They would quickly die in the wild. 2. Instability. When left to itself, the group reverts to its wild state within a few generations. 3. Limits to Variation. In every case a limit to variation is quickly reached, beyond which no further change is possible.

59.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #8: The human body contains many “vestigial organs” left over from the past. NOT TRUE. A function is now known for almost every organ in the human body. Coccyx (anchoring point for pelvic muscles) 5-58 On a bare skeleton, the coccyx looks somewhat like a tail. However, when the rest of the body is included, it has an obvious function as the anchoring point for the pelvic muscles. Besides, we are supposed to be closely related to gorillas and chimps. If they don’t have tails, why should we?

60.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #8: The human body contains many “vestigial organs” left over from the past. NOT TRUE. A function is now known for almost every organ in the human body. tonsils appendix Corel clipart (Both used to fight infection) 5-59 For instance, the tonsils and appendix both contain lymphoid tissue, used in fighting infection especially in infants. In addi- tion, the appendix contains a supply of healthful bacteria needed in case the digestive tract needs to be “rebooted.” Your ability to live without something doesn’t mean it’s useless. You can live without an arm or an eye, but that doesn’t make it a vestigial organ.

61.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #9: Like other species, human embryos go through all the stages of evolution. 7-week tubal pregnancy – Dr. Ed Uthman, WIKIMEDIA Commons. This is about the last stage where the embryo looks anything other than human. 8-week old embryo - WIKIMEDIA Commons user “Lunar Caustic.” Though less than a fourth of the way through its development, the embryo is clearly human. 9-week ectopic pregnancy – Dr. Ed Uthman, WIKIMEDIA Commons THE FAKES: Some of Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings of embryos, from his 1874 book Anthropogenie. The one on the right is supposed to be what the human embryo looks like. THE REAL THING: Actual photos of human embryos. They never look like Haeckel’s drawings. 5-60

62.  2007 by David A. Prentice MISCONCEPTION #9: Like other species, human embryos go through all the stages of evolution. At the instant of conception, a baby receives all the genetic information it will ever have. Techpool NOT TRUE. Even though there are super- ficial similarities between different animals at different stages of development, a com- petent embryologist can tell the difference at any stage from one-celled onward. Techpool Graphics The “gill slits” are neither gills nor slits; they are pouches from which the middle ears and a num- ber of glands develop. The “yolk sac” contains blood cells, not yolk. Larynx Parathyroid gland Thyroid gland Carotid artery Trachea Corel clipart 5-61