The other half of this claim cannot be readily seen today: Macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution (big-scale evolution) is much more difficult to prove – and requires a big element of faith.
The need for faith arises when we talk about evolution on a large scale – on the Kingdom and Phylum level.
This is called macro-evolution.
Generally, even the distinction between the various Families of living things is not blurred. There may be some blurring between the Species within a particular Family. But, even at this level, the distinctions between Species is generally quite clear.
We see similarities between different Families of animals, but the distinction between them is still clear.
So the Dog Family and the Cat Family have many similar characteristics. That is why they are both in the same Order (Carnivore) and Class (Mammal). Yet their Families are recognizably distinct from each other.
But a blurred distinction between Families is what you would expect to see on a regular basis if one Family of animals routinely evolved into another Family of animals.
Illustration:
We would expect it to be like colors – blurring everywhere!
[Rainbow color gradation]
Where does yellow stop and green begin?
Where does red stop and purple begin?
No two people could agree on the clear distinction between 2 colors.
If Darwinian Evolution were true, there should be a lot of links or intermediate steps between two Families of living things –
but we don't see that.
A Simplistic Illustration:
We don't see a lot of half-dog-half-cats running around.
These half-and-half-animals are not common on any level of living things.
You have to go all the way down to the level of Breeds before you see the degree of blurring that one could reasonably expect to see between all levels of living things if macro-evolution were as true as evolutionists claim that it is.
If macro-evolution (large scale evolution from a one-celled bacteria to a human) is actually true, why isn't there a lot more blurring up and down all the levels of the Classification System for living things.
Illustration:
We see a lot of blurring between dog breeds: for example, a poodle-beagle mix, or a collie-terrier mix.
But for evolutionists this amazingly does not create a significant intellectual problem!
Well, it does in private. [Behe / the conference]
But they already believe in the unbroken evolutionary chain of living things that goes from one-celled organisms to human beings.
So they find it easy to explain, to themselves and to us, why the limited degree of blurring that we see is not a problem.
But for those who do not believe in macro-evolution this is a big problem!
We see little blurring higher on the taxonomy Classification Chart – even on the Order level –
for example, between XXX and YYYY.
But we see tremendous blurring on the Breed level (within a Species) – particularly when human decisions are involved.
And less between different Species.
And even less between different Genus.
Kinds-yes.
Micro-evolution on the level of kinds – yes.
This fits with what God word says about how he created living things:
According to their kinds.
So how you view the scientific evidence (of fossils and genetics) has to do with your faith.
Evolutionists and non-evolutionists look at the same data differently.
Many Evolutionists (who support macro-evolution) believe that there is no distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
They assume that evolution is evolution – so micro-evolution just blends into macro-evolution – they are one and the same.
In fact, the existence of Micro-evolution becomes proof for them that Macro-evolution exists.
Some resent the distinction between macro- and micro-evolution.
This distinction points out the Theory of Evolutions greatest weakness.
So the evolution they actually see happening on the small level (of Species or even Families) is conclusive proof to them that evolution also happened on the big level (of Kingdoms and Phylums) –
even though it is impossible to actually see it happen on the Macro-evolutionary level.
[QUOTE: we can assume that it happens on the big scale too]
This is because it is at the Kingdom and Phylum level where we are unable to actually witness evolution in action.
Obviously, it is impossible for us to actually see fish become amphibians, become reptiles, become mammals.
So, in place of actually seeing this process, we need a clear trail of fossils that show evolutionary steps from Kingdom to Phylum to Class to Order to Family, etc.
And this is a significant problem – because it is at this level where there are so many "missing links" in the evolutionary chain.
This is where Materialistic Scientists display a lot of faith –
Because they believe in macro-evolution, they view the size of the gaps between species differently than other people do.
They assume that gaps of significant size are connected by fossils that we have not yet found.
But people who do not believe in macro-evolution see the gaps as representing an uncrossable divide between 2 distinct Families or Species.
This is why it takes faith to believe in evolution on this large scale.
It is one thing to see and believe in evolutionary change that happens within a specific kind of animal that God has created.
It is a completely different thing to believe that a one cell organism evolved into a human being –
especially when your eyes tell you that there are big, not small, gaps between species and that there are a lot of "missing links" in the evolutionary chain.
To believe that takes a lot of faith.
This discussion is simply making one point about evolution:
If believing in evolution takes faith, and you do not have that much faith,
doubting evolution is a reasonable thing to do.
2. That All the Matter in the Universe Existed Before the Big Bang:
Since there is no way to investigate it, there is no scientific explanation –
so there is only scientific speculation.
That's why Materialistic Scientists have to take what existed before the Big Bang on faith.
So it's reasonable to doubt Materialistic Science when it claims knowledge in areas that it cannot see or reach.
This article is not attempting to prove anything one way or the other about evolution or the Big Bang.
It is simply questioning the belief system that lies at the heart of Materialistic Science.
Again, there are many things that science can teach us.
But Materialistic Science has clear limits.
By definition, the answer to certain big questions about life and the existence of the universe are beyond its ability to answer.
So it is reasonable to doubt the claims of Materialistic Science when it is actually basing them on faith.
The claims of science are certainly no reason to give up your faith in Creator God!
Conclusion:
There are many important things that humans do not know the answer to.
So who do you trust? What are you putting your faith in?
Which actually seems the most reasonable to you?
To believe in Chance?
Or to believe in the creative, all-powerful Designer?
Conclusion: Materialistic scientists have a lot of faith!
But the point is not to belittle science – because science has made an immense contribution to our knowledge, our health, our living standard and our general welfare and happiness.
Nor is the point to discredit everything that we have learned through science – because it has taught us many things about our phenomenal universe.
But there are significant questions about life and the universe that science has no answer for and will never be able to answer.
So it takes significant faith to believe everything that materialistic scientists propose.
So the purpose here is to simply state the obvious:
Scientists, themselves, make a lot of basic assumptions about scientific things based on faith.
Question: If scientists can make basic assumptions based on faith, do we have to apologize for having faith?
MAIN POINT: The existence of eternal God (as powerful Creator, a loving Father, a holy Judge, a sacrificial Savior) provides a very complete, consistent and congruent explanation for the universe and life that we see around us today.
Heavens declare the glory of God. etc.
The existence of Creator God (as described in the Bible) easily answers many of the questions that materialistic science finds difficult or impossible to answer.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Of course it takes faith to believe in this Creator God! So, we do have faith.
But there is no reason to feel inferior for that faith.
Materialistic scientists have faith about things that they cannot prove!
Isn't faith in God at least as reasonable as that?
Why does it take faith to believe in God?
God is a Spirit – and therefore invisible.
The wind blows where it will but you cannot see it
You only see the results.
God is the same – the results of his existence are everywhere.
Heavens declare the glory of God.
WHAT ARE THE 2 HARDEST QUESTIONS THAT CREATOR GOD AND HIS BIBLE HAVE TO ANSWER?
The existence of Creator God easily answers all the huge questions that Materialistic Science struggles greatly to answer!
An eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God can easily do all the difficult things listed above that are virtually impossible for Materialistic Science to explain.
But, there are 2 questions which trouble many people concerning God: