The Modern Creation Trilogy. Dr. Henry M. Morris

Чтение книги онлайн.

      First printing: November 1996

      Third printing: September 2004

      Copyright © 1996 by Master Books. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations in articles and reviews. For information write: Master Books, Inc., P.O. Box 726, Green Forest, AR 72638.

      ISBN: 0-89051-220-5

      Printed in the United States of America

      Please visit our website for other great titles:

      www.masterbooks.net

      For information regarding author interviews,

      please contact the publicity department at (870) 438-5288.

      Acknowledgments

      The manuscript for all three volumes of the Trilogy has been typed and edited by Mrs. Mary Ruth Smith. Also, all three volumes have been further reviewed and edited by Merle Meeter. Content for Volume 1 has been reviewed by Dr. Larry Vardiman. The writers express their thanks to all of these.

      Introduction

      There are only two basic concepts of the origin of the universe and its basic components and systems. Either they have all come about by strictly naturalistic processes that are (at least in principle) observable and repeatable, or they have not — one or the other.

      Without argument, at least some have originated by strictly natural process, and have been observed to do so. But if they have not all originated by natural processes, then at least some have originated by supernatural processes that are no longer observable and are not repeatable. This is the basic difference between the evolutionary model of origins and the creationist model of origins. If the evolutionary model is correct, then no Creator is needed. Even human beings are merely the result of natural processes that somehow generated the elementary particles of matter and then organized them into stars, planets, animals, and people — “from particles to people” or “hydrogen to humans.”

      If creation is true, on the other hand, then there is a Creator, and all reality must be related to that Creator and His purpose in creation. Men and women are not the products of capricious natural forces, but rather of purposeful action with specific goals, both for the universe as a whole and for each person individually. Since the choice between evolution and creation ultimately affects every area of human life, it is extremely important that we make the right choice!

      But how can we decide? That’s the question. If we merely go along with the majority view in the intellectual world, we all would be evolutionists, for evolutionary thinking clearly dominates the schools, the media, and most other spheres of influence.

      The majority, however, is not always right. There exists at least a significant creationist minority in this so-called intellectual realm, many of whom were once evolutionists and later became converted to creationism for what seemed to them convincing reasons. In any case, it should be obvious that it is impossible to prove which model is correct, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history and see what happened. Therefore, we must depend upon indirect, circumstantial evidence, and then make our decision. Ultimately, we will decide which model to believe, and then act in faith upon that belief. We will have faith in evolution, or faith in creation, then live our lives accordingly, whether that has been a conscious decision or not.

      In view of the profound — even eternal — consequences involved, everyone ought to examine both models and then determine which to believe. He or she should examine carefully the evidences pro and con in each case, and continually test these evidences, evaluating their validity and meaning.

      It would seem that there are essentially just three lines of evidence that need to be considered. First, there are the factual data, the solid evidence supplied by the observed facts of science and the observed and reliably recorded facts of human history. We can call this the evidence from science. This line of evidence is treated in Volume 2 of this Trilogy, with the conclusion that the evidence strongly favors the creation model, even though it can never prove it.

      But there is an important second line of evidence to consider. The Lord Jesus Christ put it this way: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. . . . Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt. 7:18–20). Does the evolutionary faith generate good or evil results in human society, when it is followed logically and put into practice? What about faith in creation and a Creator — what fruits does it produce?

      This line of evidence is examined in Volume 3 of the Trilogy, with the conclusion again in favor of creation. That is, evolutionism generates bad fruits; creationism generates good fruits. Thus, the creation model, on the basis of this test, is more likely to be true than the evolution model. Again, however, this does not prove creation, for we do not really know what happened in the prehistoric past. We were not there, nor can we travel back in time in some sort of time machine to see what happened. All we can really know is that the inhabitants of the earth seem designed to live and prosper under the guidelines spelled out by their designer, and seem to destroy both themselves and others when operating from an evolutionary basis.

      However, there is still a third type of evidence that must be considered, for one of the two models involves a Creator, and that Creator did observe what happened. He actually caused it to happen! Evolutionists may deny the validity of this evidence, for they tend to reject the very idea of God out of hand, not believing He even exists.

      This, however, begs the question, for it is absolutely impossible to prove the non-existence of God the Creator. Even such a knowledgeable atheist as the scientist Isaac Asimov was honest enough to acknowledge this. In his later years, after authoring more books on more fields of science (reputedly finishing with over 500 books to his credit) than probably any other scientist who ever lived, he admitted:

Emotionally, I am an atheist, I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect He doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.1

      If anyone ever knew the whole field of science and its implications, that person was Dr. Asimov, yet he could not prove there is no God. Neither can anyone else. They may choose not to believe in God, for belief in Him may be uncomfortable to them, but wishing for His non-existence doesn’t make it so. Therefore, to be perfectly honest, everyone should at least admit the possibility that there is a Creator, and that He may (in fact, almost certainly would) reveal the essential facts concerning the origin, meaning, and purpose of His creation to those of His creatures able to receive and understand such revelation.

      Assuming that such a revelation has been given, it follows that it must now be in the book we call the Bible, for this is the only book coming down from antiquity that even attempts to give the origin of the entire universe of space, time, and matter, as well as the origin of life and man. All other so-called sacred “scriptures” СКАЧАТЬ