
Archive-name: talk-origins/creation/part1
Posting-Frequency: monthly
Last-modified: October 9 1996
Expires: 1996/11/09
Version: 1.7
URL: http://www.zeta.org.au/~jeffcox/creation.html 
 The talk.origins FAQ (Creation) Homepage

The talk.origins FAQ (Creation)

[0] About this document.
[A] The scientific explanations for the origin of the universe, the earth,
the various species of living organisms and of humans are based on
evidence that is also consistent with creation by God. The aim of the
following answers is to explain the origin of life from a Christian
perspective and to point out some of the flaws in the explanation offered
by supporters of evolution.

[1] Who is a biblical creationist?
[A] A person who believes that the creation account in Genesis (the first
book of the bible) is correct.

[2] Do all biblical creationists believe the earth is around 6000 years old?
[A] No. There are different schools of thought among biblical creationists.

Young earth biblical creationists believe the earth is 6000 to 12000 years
old, they think that the ages determined by radioactive dating of
specimens are incorrect and they quote examples of errors in individual
dating attempts in support of this view.

Old earth biblical creationists accept the age of the earth estimated by
geologists at around 4500 million years.

Many biblical creationists believe that God created the earth but do not
think that the time scale of the creation process is important.

[3] Does the bible tell us how old the earth is?
[A] No. There are passages in both the old and new testaments that
immediately follow a discussion of creation with the statement that a day
to the Lord is as a thousand years.

From the Old Testament,

"A prayer of Moses the man of God. Lord, you have been our dwelling-place
throughout all generations. Before the mountains were born or you brought
forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are
God. You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."
For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night." [Psalm 90:1-4]

From the New Testament, Saint Peter writes:

 "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens
existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these
waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same
word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for
the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this
one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and
a thousand years are like a day." [2 Peter 3:5-8]

So, according to the use of the word day in the bible, the separate phases
of creation described in the first book of the bible need not be literal
days as we now use the word day. The phrase "and there was evening and
morning" is used after each day in the Genesis account and this indicates
to some that they were literal days, however the phrase is used after the
first three days of creation and the fourth day of creation records the
creation of the sun so it is difficult to see how evening and morning as
we now use the words could have occurred without the sun. It seems likely
in the opinion of this writer that the "evening and morning" phrases refer
to interludes in the creation process when no new creation was taking
place.

[4] How does the big bang theory explain the origin of the universe?
[A] According to the big bang theory, the universe came into existence in
a very small space then immediately began expanding outwards. Most
astronomers now date this event around 10 to 15 billion years ago.

During the early stages of expansion the energy density of the whole
universe was so high that matter was unable to exist. As Einstein
explained, energy can be converted to matter and matter converted to
energy, and at this time (according to the theory) all of the universe was
in the form of energy. As the universe expanded outwards, the energy
density lowered and the particles we now recognise formed out of the
energy. The first to emerge were wave / particles of electromagnetic
radiation that we call light together with electrons and positrons (the
antimatter equivalent of electrons). Only later as the universe continued
to expand and the energy density was further reduced were protons and
neutrons able to remain stable as they formed from the initial energy and
produced atoms.

[5] Does the big bang theory contradict the bible?
[A] The opening lines of the bible are:
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was
formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the
Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be
light", and there was light." [Genesis 1:1-3]

The formation of light in the very early history of the universe is a
feature of both the biblical account of creation and the big bang theory.
The big bang has the appearance of a creation event.

[6] The big bang theory is accepted by virtually all astronomers, should
we regard the big bang as a fact?
[A] The big bang theory is supported by the apparent expansion of the
universe and by other evidence such as the energy level of the cosmic
microwave background radiation but astronomers regard the big bang as an
explanation that is probably true, not definitely true.

[7] Does our modern understanding of geology contradict the creation viewpoints?
[A] The old earth creation view is entirely consistent with the
explanations geologists give for the formation of rocks.

Geology does contradict the young earth creation viewpoint. Some of the
young earth creationists are attempting to develop an alternative
explanation for the origin of rocks that contain fossils.

[8] What is abiogenesis?
[A] Abiogenesis is a hypothesis that suggests life originated from a self
replicating (reproducing) molecule that was formed by chemical reactions
that occurred following random collisions of simple molecules in oceans,
lakes or puddles on the pre-biotic earth (pre-biotic = before life). The
energy for these chemical reactions is said to have come from lightning or
UV radiation and the molecules themselves from the earth's atmosphere. In
the original form of the hypothesis a combination of amino acids formed by
natural processes was thought to have formed a self replicating protein
molecule that evolved into a cell. A flaw in this hypothesis is shown in a
1957 paper by Stanley Miller:

"It is pointed out that organic compounds would not be synthesised on the
Earth if oxidising conditions were present. Therefore, if one assumes that
amino acids (and other organic compounds) must have been present for life
to arise, then the atmosphere of the Earth must have been reducing. In
particular, ammonia must have been present (in the oceans) for the
synthesis of amino acids. This implies that the partial pressure of
hydrogen was at least 10**-3 atmosphere." [#1]

Miller assumed the correctness of the abiogenesis hypothesis in order to
justify the starting conditions for experiments that he then claimed as
support for the hypothesis. This assumption was incorrect. More recent
research has indicates that the early earth did not have the reducing
atmosphere Miller suggested.

Some scientists continue to consider the explanation where life begins
with a self replicating protein because of the difficulty of explaining
the synthesis of a nucleic acid (RNA) by the combination of simple
molecules as a result of purely natural processes. In the pre-RNA world
hypothesis as it is now known a self replicating protein evolves the
ability to make RNA, although how this could happen is not explained. Self
replicating proteins would have to be able to both reproduce themselves
and catalyse nucleic acid synthesis to be part of a plausible origins
story, yet it is far from certain if it is possible for a self replicating
protein to exist.

[9] What is the RNA world hypothesis?
[A] The current version of the abiogenesis hypothesis is that life
originated from self replicating RNA molecules that were formed by the
combination of simple organic molecules as a result of random collisions
of these molecules in oceans, lakes or puddles. Natural selection within
the resulting population of RNA molecules is then thought to have favoured
molecules changed by mutations that produced molecules with an increased
chance of survival with the continuing ability to self replicate.
Individual molecules with Nitrogen base sequences that produced
advantageous characteristics would be more likely to survive and reproduce
than others and, assuming limited resources and the breakdown of some
molecules, the molecules with advantageous characteristics would
predominate. It is imagined that changes to Nitrogen base sequences caused
by mutations produced genes coding for characteristics that increased the
complexity of these self replicating molecules and that they evolved into
a living cell. 

There are many differences between a molecule and a cell. Cells are
complex structures made of a number of different chemical substances that
are produced within the cell. Nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) control the
activities of a cell and the synthesis of cell components by coding for
proteins, these proteins include enzymes that carry out chemical reactions
within the cell. There are many stages of increasing complexity between an
RNA molecule and a functioning cell that can reproduce, and possible
mechanisms for these stages of development are unexplained.

[10] What is the current state of research into producing a non-creation
explanation for the origin of the first living organism?
[A] It has not been possible to produce the nucleotide monomers that make
up the nucleic acids RNA and DNA using sparked or UV irradiated mixtures
of gases that may reasonably presumed to have been present in the
atmosphere of the early earth and water. Mixtures of the stereo isomers of
the nucleotide monomers have been produced under laboratory conditions
that include combinations of cyanoacetylaldehyde and urea and some
researchers have suggested that puddles with relatively high
concentrations of these substances may have been present of the early
earth (a highly unlikely story).

Some very short polymers have been made to produce copies under laboratory
conditions with a relatively high concentration of monomers present and in
the absence of other reactive molecules. The laboratory "self-replication"
of longer polymer chains has not been achieved and the nature of larger
molecules presents obstacles to replication that appear insurmountable.

A 1993 paper by Joyce and Orgel, two of the leading proponents of the RNA
world, explains the highly imaginary nature of the hypothesis:
"In our initial discussion of the RNA world we accept The Molecular
Biologists Dream: 'Once upon a time there was a pre-biotic pool full of
(beta)-D-nucleotides... .' We now consider what would have to have
happened to make the dream come true. This discussion triggers The
Prebiotic Chemist's Nightmare: how to make any kind of self-replicating
system from the kind of intractable mixture that is formed in experiments
designed to simulate the chemistry of the primitive earth." [#2]

Although the authors go on to discuss possible solutions to the dilemma
they concede that there are many unresolved problems in developing a
plausible scenario for abiogenesis, for example:
"The only remotely plausible route to the molecular biologists pool would
involve a series of mineral-catalysed reactions, coupled with a series of
subtle fractionations of nucleotide-like materials based on charge,
stereochemistry, etc. Even minerals could not achieve on a macroscopic
scale one desirable separation, the resolution of D-ribonucleotides from
the L-enantiomers. This is a serious problem because experiments on
template directed synthesis using poly(C) and the imidazolides of G
suggest that the polymerisation of the D-enantiomer is often strongly
inhibited by the L-enantiomer." [#2]

Thus RNA would not form in the sort of mixtures that might very
optimistically be imagined to have existed on earth because in such
mixtures chemical reactions with other molecules would be favoured rather
than the reactions that made functional RNA.

A May 1996 paper published in the journal "Nature" [#3] describes
experiments where a calcium phosphate mineral and a clay were used as a
catalyst to produce polymers up to 55 units long by daily additions of a
nucleotide monomer over some weeks. It is unremarkable, given the
considerable ingenuity of biochemists, that an experiment designed to
synthesise a polynucleotide from nucleotide monomers succeeded in doing
just this. This experiment has no relationship with the real pre-biotic
earth, since there is no reason to suppose that nucleotide monomers were
actually present in the oceans of the primitive earth and, if they were
present, they would react with other molecules that would also be present
rather than combining to form RNA.

The RNA world is an imaginary world in the minds of molecular biologists.
The treatment of this imaginary world as science rather than science
fiction is a result of the lack of any other non-creation explanation for
the origin of life on earth and a historically recent determination not to
accept creation as part of biology.

[11] Could a self-replicating molecule have formed on the real earth as
imagined in the molecular biologists dream?
[A] No. Functional biological molecules need to be stereo specific, that
is, they need to be present in only one of the two mirror image forms that
can occur. Even if the relatively complex nucleotide monomers were formed
in puddles or oceans of the pre-biotic earth by random collisions of
simpler molecules they would include approximately equal concentrations of
the two stereo isomers (mirror images) of each molecule. A polymer such as
a protein or a nucleic acid must be stereo specific in order to coil into
a three dimensional structure properly, that is, it must be composed of
only one of the two mirror image forms of the monomer units that form the
polymer. It has been suggested that the RNA strands produced in the
hypothetical RNA world could have used both alternative forms of the
nucleotide monomers and that natural selection could then have eliminated
the forms using different forms of the monomer leaving only a stereo
specific form. This could not have happened.

A self replicating molecule would need to be large. If either RNA or a
protein is to function as an enzyme the distribution of partial electric
charges over the three dimensional structure of the molecule is critical
to be able to bind the precursor molecules in useful orientations. The
hypothetical self replicating molecule would need to copy itself, so it
would need to have two enzymatic synthesis regions so that each could copy
the other and a flexible section in the middle. The first end would
uncoil, loses the enzymatic ability that was a function of the electron
charge distribution over it's structure and be copied by the second end
then the second end would uncoil and be copied by the first end. There is
no explanation for why the ends of such a molecule should coil and uncoil
at appropriate times, this hypothetical view is presented here in order to
show that abiogenesis is impossible because a self replicating molecule
cannot exist.

Even if RNA or a self replicating protein could be formed on the
pre-biotic earth only the stereo specific forms of the polymer would be
functional and these represent an infinitesimal proportion of polymers of
sufficient length. For a 1000 unit polymer to be formed by natural
selection of randomly joined monomers only one in 2**1000, or
approximately one in 10**300 molecules of the right length would be
functional. In the unlikely event of the monomers existing at all they
would be in limited supply, there is a very large number of possible
combinations of monomers and a very small number that might work. A
thousand million years is not nearly long enough to make a self
replicating molecule in this way on a small planet like earth.

[12] Are there other weak points in the belief that abiogenesis took place?
[A] Yes. A major gap in the abiogenesis explanation is the lack of any
explanation for the origin of protein synthesis. Protein synthesis works
like this:
DNA contains a long chain of Nitrogen base pairs, each three bases on one
side form a codon that is the code for one particular amino acid. There
are 4 different Nitrogen bases in DNA and different combinations of these
bases in a codon determine the amino acid (of 20) that codon specifies. A
sequence of 900 bases can specify the types and order of 300 amino acids
in one protein. A protein is a long chain of amino acids joined end to end
and folded into a three dimensional structure, the length of DNA
containing the base sequence that is the code for one particular protein
is known as a gene.

Genes are a code, to convert the code into a protein a number of separate
and complex structures are needed. First the gene is transcribed by a
large molecule called an RNA polymerase enzyme into a strand of messenger
RNA that is similar to a single strand of DNA. This strand is sometimes
edited when  sections containing many bases are removed and the ends of
the long mRNA strand are rejoined. Different varieties of another type of
RNA, transfer RNA, attach to an amino acid at one end and and to the base
triplet on the messenger RNA strand that codes for that amino acid at the
other. The attachment of amino acids is done by specialised enzymes, a
different enzyme attaches each of the amino acids to the transfer RNA that
matches the code for that amino acid. The location of the appropriate
transfer RNA's carrying the coded for amino acids along the messenger RNA
strand and the formation of peptide bonds between the amino acids to
complete the synthesis of a protein is done by a cellular organelle called
a ribosome, a complex structure consisting of several large molecules.

Without the different forms of transfer RNA, the different enzymes that
join amino acids to the appropriate transfer RNA molecules, and ribosomes,
DNA is one complex structure in isolation and proteins are other complex
structures in isolation. Protein synthesis is a complex multiple step
process and the intermediate structures are large and complex molecules
that are not useful in isolation. The question of the origin of protein
synthesis is only answered by creation.

[13] Where does evolution stand in the absence of abiogenesis?
[A] Without abiogenesis evolution is a story without a beginning, such a
story is incomplete. Evolution does not explain the origin of species.

Evolution is an incomplete explanation for the origin of life and of
species and so Occam's razor does not preclude the investigation of
alternative hypotheses that may represent a more complete explanation.

Since there is no plausible explanation for the origin of the first living
organism by purely natural processes it is reasonable to assume that the
first living organism was created by God, and therefore reasonable to
consider that the process of creation continued beyond the appearance of
the first species.

[14] Does the recent announcement that material that is believed to be the
fossil remains of bacteria was found in a meteorite that is thought to
have originally come from Mars mean that abiogenesis and evolution are now
more plausible?
[A] There is considerable disagreement within the scientific community
about the origin of the Carbon compounds in the meteorite. A number of
scientists think that the material in the meteorite was produced by
inorganic processes and is not the remains of living organisms.

Abiogenesis and the evolution of a self replicating molecule into a
bacterium like organism cannot occur as a result of purely physical
processes on any planet because small organic molecules formed in the
atmosphere of a planet and dissolved in water would react in combinations
other than the ones that produced RNA, molecules of a useful length cannot
self replicate and even if RNA was somehow formed by inorganic processes
it would not be stereo specific and natural selection for stereo
specificity to produce a functional molecule could not occur because the
number of combinations of useful length is much larger than the number of
water molecules in all the earth's oceans.If there were or are bacteria on
Mars, then God must have made them.

[15] How is evolution currently defined?
[A] Evolution is currently defined as any change in the gene or allele
pool of a population. This definition includes ecological events that do
not cause any long term change in a population. When a single individual
is born, this changes the gene pool or genetic makeup of a population,
increasing the percentage of the population that carry the alleles present
in that individual. This can occur without any long term change in a
population when different alleles produce offspring with the same survival
and reproduction rates. This natural fluctuation in a population is
ecology, not evolution. (alleles are alternative forms of a gene).

In biology the term evolution also refers to the theory first published in
1859 by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. The current version of this
theory suggests that the processes of mutation and natural selection
produced the present variety of species. It is often unclear if any given
usage of the word evolution in biology refers to the definition of genetic
change or to the Darwin / Wallace theory.

It is unclear from the current definition of evolution if the genetic
changes referred to are only those that arise as a result of random
natural processes or if genetic changes that take place following the
active intervention of God also satisfy the definition. The former case is
often assumed but it is an assumption that is unstated.

A definition should isolate an idea from other ideas, the current
definition of evolution also includes ecology and creation and does not
distinguish between the process that is said to produce changes and the
presumed outcome of these changes.

[16] What is the effect of having a broad and misleading definition of
evolution?
[A] Minor examples of natural fluctuations in populations and small
changes in existing characteristics can be observed and claimed as
evidence to support the evolution explanation for large scale change
including the formation of complex organisms with novel characteristics
from simple ones.

[17] How should evolution be defined?
[A] Evolution should be defined as an explanation for the origin of all
species by the natural selection of organisms that inherit advantageous
genes produced by random mutations following the formation of an ancestral
organism by the combination of simple molecules as a result of natural
processes.

Evolution includes a large part of the RNA world hypothesis. Abiogenesis
is the non creation explanation for the origin of the first self
replicating molecule and according to the evolution explanation this
molecule then evolved into a cell. A population of RNA molecules that are
changed by mutations and that carry the codes for different
characteristics during the hypothetical development of the first cell is
an example of a changing gene pool, and in the RNA world story the RNA
molecules with advantageous characteristics are naturally selected. The
current explanation for the formation of the first cell includes the
evolution of RNA into a cell, and this view is accepted as evolution by
leading researchers studying the RNA world hypothesis [#2, #3, #4].

[18] Does evolution contradict the bible?
[A] Yes. The bible states in Genesis Chapter 1 that God created plants and
animals "according to their kind" and this phrase is repeated a number of
times. Thus the bible states that God created different kinds of plants
and animals and evolution contradicts this.

[19] Is natural selection evidence of evolution?
[A] No. One well known example of natural selection was observed in
populations of _Biston betularia_, the peppered moth. Individuals of this
species may be dark or light in colour. Records of moths collected last
century show that near Manchester in the North of England around 1% of
individuals of this moth species were dark and 99% were light coloured in
1848, and that by 1898 95% of the moths were dark with only 5% light
coloured. The dark moths were much more common in 1898 but they were no
different to the dark moths that had been alive 50 years earlier.

The moth population changed because pollution from industry killed the
light coloured lichens that had previously grown on trees trunks and
blackened the trees so that light coloured moths in later years were more
easily seen by birds. Since dark moths were less likely to be eaten, they
produced more offspring and the dark form of the moth colour gene became
more common in the moth population. 

This change in the frequency of existing alleles in the gene pool of the
moth population is definitely an example of natural selection and
definitely not an example of evolution. Not evolution that is, if
evolution is defined in a way that is similar to what most people mean by
the word - large scale changes that are suggested as an explanation for
the origin of all species as a result of natural processes.
