Darwin's Deadly Legacy 1 of 7 THE TRUTH ABOUT EVOLUTION DO YOU AGREE?

Ya Humanism without God

Is Humanism a Religion?

To most North Americans, "religion" probably means the belief that a God or Gods exist who created the world, who is/are to be worshipped, and who is/are responsible for creating ethical and behavioral codes. In that context, Humanism is definitely not a religion, and would not be perceived as one by its followers. Humanists do not generally believe in a supreme deity or deities, demons, ghosts, angels, or in a supernatural world, or in heaven and hell, or in a divinely ordained ethical code for humans to follow. Most would regard the Gods and Goddesses as a creation of mankind rather than the reverse.

Religious Humanism has been loosely defined as religion without deity worship and traditional theological beliefs. Replacing these factors is a belief in humanity as the highest known form of intelligent life, and a belief in the scientific method as the best way to determine truth.

Many Secular Humanists feel that the role of religion throughout history has been so profoundly negative, that the word "religion" should not be connected to their philosophy.

During 2000-JUN, a federal court of appeals ruled that Humanism is a religion. Federal prisoner Ben Kalka attempted to form a humanism group as part of the Religious Services Department at a federal prison in Jesup, GA. He was refused when the prison's Religious Issues Committee determined that Humanism was not a religion; it was "more philosophical and educational in nature." They decided that he could freely practice his humanism and could organize a group within the prison's Education Department. In 1998-SEP, a federal district court ruled that Humanism is a religion.
But they decided that denying Kalka access to the prison chapel did not prevent him from practicing his humanist beliefs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with the lower court and ruled that Humanism is a religion.

However, they decided that "A reasonable official would not have believed that excluding Kalka's humanism from the prison's Religious Services Program was unlawful.

There was neither precedent declaring humanism in general to be a religion nor any prior ruling on the religious nature of Kalka's beliefs." Thus, the prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity, and are not liable for penalties related to the violation of Kalka's civil.

Secular Humanism is a non-theistically based philosophy which promotes humanity as the measure of all things.

(Romans 3:23 " For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God" Humanism misses the mark of God's Standard.

What about the other gods? Other Gods? God knows not of any because there is only One God: " John 14:6 Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, No One comes to the Father but by me

Humanism has its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the free thought movement of the 19th Century. And " Rational" Humans who do not know the God of Creation are actually irrational because they do not acknowledge the " God" as the Book of Romans describes because their deeds were evil and they have no light in them because their deeds are evil as the Bible says

Some factors that most Humanists share:

Either they do not believe in the existence of a deity, or have no opinion, or don't care about the topic.

They believe that excellent codes of behavior and morality can be created through reason.

They believe that humans created the many thousands of Gods and Goddesses in their own image.

They are very concerned about human rights and equal opportunities for all. MMMmm Why don't most humanist have the same concern for the unborn Children that liberals love to abort?

Conservative Christians sometimes complain that Humanism is really the official religion of the public educational system. They feel that the traditional wall of separation between church and state has been breached, and that Humanism has taken over the public schools. This is not an accurate view. The percentage of adults in North America that consider themselves Christian is about 73% in the year 2005. 1 This is probably reflected in the religious beliefs of the teachers and other officials in the school system.

The public school systems base their teaching on a secular or non-religious foundation. In most subjects, like mathematics, reading, writing, physics, chemistry etc., this does not present a problem. In human sexuality education, biology, geology, sociology, history, etc. the secular approach often conflicts intensely with some religious traditions Christian theology. For example:

A non-religious approach to human sexuality would make use of the latest findings about sexual orientation; they would teach that bisexuality, heterosexuality and homosexuality are natural and human sexual variations.

Liberal religious groups, like Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, the United Church of Christ, United Church of Canada etc. also have adopted a secular approach to this subject.
Conservative Christians interpret the Bible as condemning homosexual behavior as a sin. They would thus regard it as a moral perversion and are eager that it be taught as such.

Mainline Christian denominations hold views which are intermediate between conservative and liberal groups. Most are gradually drifting towards the "left".

Ethical Behavior Without a Belief in God

Many people feel that ethical and moral behavior must be based on the absolute teachings found with the Christian Bible. Without a belief in the Christian God, the hope of Heaven and the threat of Hell, they believe that an individual will not be motivated to behave decently. This belief was seen in a US military policy in past decades which only allowed persons who believed in a God to achieve conscientious objector status.

Humanists have successfully developed moral and ethical systems which are independent of divine revelation from a deity. They are based upon such foundational beliefs as:

Systems of morality and ethics can be developed through mutual agreement much like we develop laws and social customs

They can be based upon common needs that humans have for survival, security, personal growth and love.

Humans are social animals who can make the greatest achievements through mutual cooperation.

People will willingly follow humanistic codes because they are effective; reasonable; lead to self esteem; are consistent with one's natural feelings of caring, compassion and sympathy; are accepted by others, and do not lead to condemnation or rejection. No system of rewards and punishment are needed to enforce them.

OK ATHEIST, EVOLUTIONIST....... ANSWER ME THESE QUESTIONS?


CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?

There is good evidence from purely scientific reasoning that the universe required some kind of beginning. This can be shown from the laws of thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences. In our every day experience, just about everything has a beginning. Things which look the same through our lifetimes, such as the sun and other stars, are actually running down. The sun is using up it's fuel at millions of tons each second - since it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.

1ST LAW of Thermodynamics

The first law says that although matter and energy can be changed in form, the total quantity of mass/energy is always the same.

2ND LAW of Thermodynamics

The second law says the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, which is sometimes called entropy.

Henry Morris says, "We can see from every day experience the 2nd law functions in various ways: energy becomes less available, systems become disorganized, information becomes garbled, matter disintegrates, stars burn out or explode, organisms become extinct, environments decay, comets disintegrate, and people get old and die."

If the total amount of mass/energy is fixed and limited (1st law), and the amount of usable energy is decreasing (2nd law), then this universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already exhausted all usable energy.

The 2nd law states that all things left to themselves tend to run down from order to disorder and decay. This is true of the universe as well. If evolution were true, it would demand just the opposite - the building up from simpler to the more complex. Adding great periods of time does not change this fact

The second law of thermodynamics applied to the cosmos indicates the universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully would up."

IF THE UNIVERSE
IS WINDING DOWN,
WHO WOUND IT UP?


I found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe."


The community of science has now considered the idea that 'God created the Universe' a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years."

The famous evolutionist, Isaac Asimov defined the 1st law as follows: "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed."

One form of energy can be converted into another
One state of matter can be converted into another and,
Matter can be converted into energy and energy into matter.
"However, the total quantity of matter/energy in the universe remains constant."


If energy/matter cannot create itself, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL?


Our universe had a physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness."

-Physicist Dr. Edward Tyron
What Made The World - pg.15

This is the problem: the 1st law states that matter/energy cannot be created out of nothing, neither can it be destroyed. So where did the energy in the universe come from? The only possibility is an act of creation. "The first law asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since creation is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event - a miracle! ... Since matter is not eternal we are left with only one option - it arose out of nothing at a finite point in the past."

-Chuck Missler
The Creator Beyond Time & Space

So how do you get SOMETHING out of NOTHING?
"What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing! Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either... 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...' Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter... Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."

-David Darling, On creating something from nothing
New Scientist, 1996
Heb 11:3

THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT -

One very fundamental law of science is the principal of cause and effect: no effect can be greater than its cause. In other words, there can be nothing created which is greater than the thing that created it. Follow this reasoning:
The universe cannot be self-caused - nothing can create itself, because it would need to exist before it came into existence.
Everything which has a beginning has a cause
The universe has a beginning
Therefore the universe has a cause

The skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" This is an illogical question. If God is the uncreated creator of the universe, He is the creator of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time. Therefore, he does not have, or need to have, a cause.
Gen 1.1

What are the problems with the Big Bang?

You who believe in Evolution, I doubt you will take time to read this because you are too busy trying to justify yourselves. But if you actually do take the time to read the following let's discuss the facts without the Bible?

People question God for a number of reasons, but the main reason is when they are in pain over the loss of a loved one, or when some other form of tragedy strikes. Pain, loss, problems and stress sometimes cause people to wonder why a loving God would allow such things to happen. And they also get angry at God when bad things happen, which I feel God understands, even though the anger is misguided.

Creation: “Where’s the Proof?” They Scream!

When the person you talk to on creation insists that you “leave the Bible out of it,” they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

I’ve been trying to witness to my friends. They say they don’t believe the Bible and aren’t interested in the stuff in it. They want real proof that there’s a God who created, and then they’ll listen to my claims about Christianity.

What proof can I give them without mentioning the Bible so they’ll start to listen to me?

OK!

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a “time machine.” They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
“Can’t you see what I’m talking about?”
“No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?”
“No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.”
“No, it’s not obvious.” And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.

It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.

It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting “evidence,” you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense “on the facts.” But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found “stronger facts.”

However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.

As I talked to kids and adults, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the “facts” for creation, then their other teacher would just reinterpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, “Well sir, you need to try again.”
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
Debate Terms

If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
“Facts” are neutral. However, there are no such things as “brute facts;” all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions—see Naturalism, Logic and Reality.

Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Psalm 111:10); “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Corinthians 2:14).

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: “The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters” (Matthew 12:30); “And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God’s Word Convicts

1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: “For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Also, Isaiah 55:11: “So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.”
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
Practical Application
When someone tells me they want “proof” or “evidence,” not the Bible, my response is as follows:

You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.
In arguing this way, a Christian is:

Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.

Naturalism, Logic and Reality

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, “Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.” I answered him, “Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.”
The young man looked at me and blurted out, “What was that book you recommended?” He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations—such “reasoning” destroys the very basis for reason.

On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, “Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.” I responded, “Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?” “Good point,” he replied. “What point?” I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, “Maybe I should go home.” I stated, “Maybe it won’t be there.” “Good point,” the man said. “What point?” I replied.

This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?

There never has been any evidence for creationism. If there was there would be no need for 'faith'!

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002


One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

Evolutions has been PROVEN 100% through DNA genetics.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:
Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983
Also:
It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Also:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972
One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.
There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.
We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.
The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

CAN LAWS OF SCIENCE EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE?

There is good evidence from purely scientific reasoning that the universe required some kind of beginning. This can be shown from the laws of thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences. In our every day experience, just about everything has a beginning. Things which look the same through our lifetimes, such as the sun and other stars, are actually running down. The sun is using up it's fuel at millions of tons each second - since it cannot last forever, it had to have a beginning. The same can be shown to be true for the entire universe.

1ST LAW of Thermodynamics

The first law says that although matter and energy can be changed in form, the total quantity of mass/energy is always the same.

2ND LAW of Thermodynamics

The second law says the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, which is sometimes called entropy.

Henry Morris says, "We can see from every day experience the 2nd law functions in various ways: energy becomes less available, systems become disorganized, information becomes garbled, matter disintegrates, stars burn out or explode, organisms become extinct, environments decay, comets disintegrate, and people get old and die."

If the total amount of mass/energy is fixed and limited (1st law), and the amount of usable energy is decreasing (2nd law), then this universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already exhausted all usable energy.

The 2nd law states that all things left to themselves tend to run down from order to disorder and decay. This is true of the universe as well. If evolution were true, it would demand just the opposite - the building up from simpler to the more complex. Adding great periods of time does not change this fact

The second law of thermodynamics applied to the cosmos indicates the universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully would up."

IF THE UNIVERSE
IS WINDING DOWN,
WHO WOUND IT UP?


I found that the 2nd law tends to increase his conviction that there is a creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe."


The community of science has now considered the idea that 'God created the Universe' a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years."

The famous evolutionist, Isaac Asimov defined the 1st law as follows: "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed."

One form of energy can be converted into another
One state of matter can be converted into another and,
Matter can be converted into energy and energy into matter.
"However, the total quantity of matter/energy in the universe remains constant."


If energy/matter cannot create itself, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL?


Our universe had a physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum, or state of nothingness."

-Physicist Dr. Edward Tyron
What Made The World - pg.15

This is the problem: the 1st law states that matter/energy cannot be created out of nothing, neither can it be destroyed. So where did the energy in the universe come from? The only possibility is an act of creation. "The first law asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since creation is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event - a miracle! ... Since matter is not eternal we are left with only one option - it arose out of nothing at a finite point in the past."

-Chuck Missler
The Creator Beyond Time & Space

So how do you get SOMETHING out of NOTHING?
"What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing! Don't let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either... 'In the beginning,' they will say, 'there was nothing - no time, space, matter or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...' Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter... Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats."

-David Darling, On creating something from nothing
New Scientist, 1996
Heb 11:3

THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT -

One very fundamental law of science is the principal of cause and effect: no effect can be greater than its cause. In other words, there can be nothing created which is greater than the thing that created it. Follow this reasoning:
The universe cannot be self-caused - nothing can create itself, because it would need to exist before it came into existence.
Everything which has a beginning has a cause
The universe has a beginning
Therefore the universe has a cause

The skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" This is an illogical question. If God is the uncreated creator of the universe, He is the creator of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time. Therefore, he does not have, or need to have, a cause.
Gen 1.1

What are the problems with the Big Bang?