The Grand Design

In the Overview I indicated that by the end of the book the reader should have sufficient information to decide whether the scientific evidence favors evolution or creation. I have presented new evidences for creation and given the reactions of these evidences by prominent scientific organizations, both governmental and private, as well as media representatives. The scientific community, by and large, has not accepted even the possibility that these evidences could be fitted into a creation model of origins. Historical considerations have some bearing on this attitude.

During the early nineteenth century the uniformitarian principle and its corollary, geological uniformitarianism, were becoming accepted as the basis for reconstructing the history of our planet and solar system. With the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species in 1859, it appeared that the unifying link between geology and biology had been found. Uniformitarian biologists and geologists agreed that one factor—a vast expanse of time—was an absolutely essential prerequisite for evolution. It could not be otherwise. Events which the Creator could accomplish in moments, days, or months would take eons of time if explained on the basis of natural processes observed today. The creation event was one of those special periods when the uniformity of physical law was superseded. Likewise, the fall of man and the worldwide flood marked other special periods, characterized by the miraculous intervention of the Creator.

With the exception of the Big Bang event, the theory of evolution excludes any deviation from the premise of complete uniformity of the fundamental laws of the universe throughout endless time—past, present, and future. This view has been accepted by more and more influential scholars in each succeeding generation. Today, the majority of society accepts that evolution is true, not by knowledge gained from independent study, but rather from books which have pictured evolution as the only scientifically credible explanation of earth history.

[p. 206]

The challenge I have presented in this book to the uniformitarian principle includes evidences of an instantaneous creation and a young age of the earth. Thus the essential time element needed for the geological evolution of the earth as well as the biological evolution of life on it vanishes, and the entire evolutionary scenario is devastated.

These conclusions perplex many scientists, who for decades have been conditioned to accepting evidences for evolution based on the uniformitarian principle. They feel to depart from this cherished assumption would be equivalent to regressing in time to the period of the Dark Ages, when superstitions and traditions molded scientific theories. To avoid that extreme, they have presumed to shift their thinking 180° and have concluded all religious foundations are unscientific. Actually, their conclusions are based on a false premise. Instead of excluding all religious concepts from science, they are only assisting in the establishment of a new order, antithetical to biblical foundations. This new order—evolutionism—has spread to the Western world in the form of theistic evolution. Under the guise of science, it has found acceptance in academic institutions throughout civilized societies.

In view of these historical influences within academia, few scientists realize that the biblical record provides a broad, expansive framework of earth history, capable of incorporating an almost unlimited variety of geological data. Invariably, I have found that "arguments" and/or "problems" proposed against the biblical framework as a model of earth history are ultimately those which result from imposing unwarranted constraints. As mentioned before, the deliberate or unwitting acceptance of the uniformitarian principle is the most profound example of such constraints. There is no obstacle in correlating Earth's geologic history with the biblical record once it is understood that the Creator is not governed or restricted by that principle.

But those who accept uniformitarian concepts, such as a worldwide geologic column and its counterpart—radiometric dating—should never expect to find that correlation. Those holding such views often insist that they have found evidence contrary to the biblical record, yet at the same time they generally fail to mention that their evidence is based on uniformitarian assumptions. Thus, in the last analysis, they have only confirmed that the biblical record of creation and the flood cannot be reconciled with a uniformitarian geological framework. Perhaps they should reflect on the inspired words spoken to Job, "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding" (Job 38:4).

Evidently, many scientists are willing to accommodate God into science, provided His presumed activities can be fitted into their evolutionary framework. However, when unambiguous scientific evidence is discovered, which is incompatible with evolution and can only be attributed to God's creative power, there is a different reaction within the scientific [p. 207] establishment. Now we have creation science — something the National Academy of Sciences says has been scientifically invalidated, and hence should not have a place in the science curriculum at any level. The Academy has a right to its opinion, but this book has shown that when the Academy was confronted with the opportunity to prove its claim about creation at the First International Conference on Creationism and the UT forum, it signally failed to meet the challenge. Nothing could have more effectively unmasked the Academy's spurious claims about creation than did its deafening silence on these occasions. And nothing could have more clearly pinpointed its contradictory position on the Affirmation of Freedom of Inquiry and Expression. On one hand, the Academy uses the Affirmation to defend the academic and civil liberties of foreign dissidents. On the other hand, it promotes the exclusive teaching of evolution in public schools notwithstanding that, as definitely implied in Lane's letter (pp. 94-96), this practice has involved the persecution of some American "dissidents"—students who have the courage to stand for their religious convictions.

The Academy and others opposed to creation science should have realized long ago that for some Americans the imposed study of evolution is a moral issue. The philosophy of evolutionism directly contradicts their conviction that the literal six-day creation account given in Genesis, and explicitly reaffirmed in the Fourth of the Ten Commandments (partly quoted at the close of this Epilogue), represents the correct description of earth history. Again I say, this book has demonstrated that valid, scientific evidence exists to support this biblical creation model. Therefore to eliminate the present discriminatory practice in the classroom against those students opposed to evolution, why not allow all public school and state university students the option of studying either a creation or evolution-based model of origins in their science courses?

In my opinion, no one, evolutionist or creationist, should be forced into a course of study that violates his conscience. After all, the freedom to choose — as long as our choices do not infringe adversely on the rights of others — is the essence of our democracy. If we fail to uphold that freedom for public school students on this critical issue, we open the door for coercion — the unmistakable hallmark of totalitarian governments — to gain the ascendancy in all phases of American society. What is at stake is religious and academic freedom for all Americans. Should science education prohibit the teaching of certain evidence just because of its philosophical setting? Science is the knowledge obtained from a quest for truth and can be illustrated by the "Parable of the Grand Design":

[p. 208]

Long ago, a master artist conceived a mural which he wished to use as an illustration of the Grand Design of nature. Much time and effort were spent in completing this enormous task. Tragically, before it was unveiled, an accident occurred, shattering the mirror-like mural into innumerable fragments throughout the face of the earth. Later philosophers became interested in reconstructing the Grand Design. Most were aware of the ancient outline left by the master artist, but many came to question the authenticity of the outline, choosing instead to construct their own version, based on the pieces they found in the earth. After many years, the consensus of wise men and philosophers was that they had developed the basic skeletal framework of the Grand Design, even though there were large gaps in the center and many pieces which could not be reconciled with the overall Design. Nevertheless they propagated this skeletal framework as absolute truth until governments and universities everywhere provided the funds they needed to continue their work. There were still a few remaining artists who believed that the ancient outline was the blueprint for the real Design used by the master artist. They carefully pointed out that all of the collected pieces would also fit into this ancient outline. And most importantly, the millions of recently discovered microscopic pieces, which did not fit into the skeletal framework, were found to perfectly fit into the ancient outline. Some were convinced that they should redirect their study and use the ancient outline as their model for the Grand Design, but the great majority never accepted its validity. Someday the truth would be evident to all, for the master artist promised to return and restore the magnificent Grand Design to its original beauty.

Until that day, which I believe is imminent, Creation's Tiny Mystery will stand as the Rock of Gibraltar against the tide of evolution.

Nearly 6,000 years ago the Ruler of the Universe engraved an indelible record of creation in the Genesis rocks of our planet just as He later inscribed the Ten Commandments on tables of stone at Mount Sinai, including the words,

"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day . . ." (Exodus 20:11)

In a single stroke, the Master Artist irrevocably blended the Genesis record of creation and the moral law into His Grand Design.