The third alternative was evolution. But how would evolution begin with nothing and produce the world we are living in? Yes, I believe in micro-evolution; that is, I believe things have evolved to make different breeds of dogs, etc. But macro-evolutionists, like Darwin, believe everything evolved and happened by natural selection and the survival of the fittest. But does this make sense? Is evolution validated by the Scientific Method? Can I observe what happened and then test theories to duplicate the result?
Problem 1: What happens when a female dog in heat runs loose in the neighborhood? She attracts every male dog in the area who has the ability to breed. And what results from this attraction is what we call mutts that are not prized by anyone who knows and wants dogs for certain reasons (show, breeding, hunting, etc). Mutts are virtually worthless from a value standpoint. However, people have taken different breeds of dogs and mated them to arrive at new breeds that have certain desired characteristics; for example, the Boykin Spaniel was a new breed developed in South Carolina for specific hunting qualities. But the Boykin and most other products of evolution (show change) came from intelligent design and not natural selection.
When I was in high school biology class, we were given the case of “Spontaneous Generation” as an early theory that explained evolution. For example, after a rain, sometimes worms would be found in a horse pasture water puddle where they had not been the day before. It was thought that hairs falling from horses’ tails and landing in the puddles had spontaneously generated into worms. Further study, however, showed this to be a false theory. Yet, Spontaneous Generation was the only theory that evolutionists taught in my school though they had nothing to back up the theory. However, that was in the early 1960’s, but in the late 1960’s a new theory was developed called “The Big Bang”; this was the savior of evolution it was thought. Something (nobody knows what) exploded and that explosion through what is called inflation caused a great expansion of whatever exploded to become the galaxies we see today and all the life forms on earth we know of, past, present, and possibly future. Now, of course, for this theory to work, it would require billions and billions of years, and it would require the living to develop from the non-living by some process that no one can understand or duplicate. But this does not seem reasonable to me because, if I can’t observe it happening nor duplicate it scientifically, it defies the Scientific Method. So, evolution becomes a religion of faith rather than a scientific fact.
Problem 2: Have you ever seen a “Black Hole”? Of course, you haven’t because nobody has. Black holes were developed as an explanation for certain phenomenon observed in space. It seemed as though when certain objects reached a point in space they would disappear. According to NASA, “A black hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light cannot get out.” Okay, so they can’t see it and no one has ever been to one to verify that it exists and determine what it really is, but people who believe in black holes because they see phenomenon in space are deemed to be very intelligent. Yet, when I admit I believe in God Whom I cannot see but I see the same phenomenon in space to affirm my belief, I am supposedly unscientific and a moron because of my belief. “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmenship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world.” Psalms 19: 1-4 (NLT)
So now, I have explained my reasoning based on comparisons with other philosophical systems, but there is also a moral component to my reasoning so please continue to Part 3.