Sir Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) is credited with discovering and explaining the second law of thermodynamics.2 Ironically, he was a pupil of Sir George Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son.3 Eddington maintained that the second law of thermodynamics holds “the supreme position among the laws of nature.”4

Unlike the theory of evolution, the second law of thermodynamics states that all things decompose with time. This law argues that structures naturally go from order to disorder, from complexity to less complexity, a downward regression over time, rather than an upward progression. Animals, the environment, and objects degrade. They become disarranged. They disintegrate and are reduced to their smallest, simplest parts. They do not organize themselves, as evolution claims, into more complex systems. Instead, over time, there is a clear and irrefutable downward spiral of degradation and extinction.

 “Entropy” (the amount of disorder in a system), according to Eddington, “always increases.”5 “The practical measure of the random element which can increase in the universe but can never decrease is called entropy.”6 In other words, with the passage of time, things will become more random and disorganized, rather than more structured, as Darwinian evolution would have us believe. Eddington maintained that the law demands that the universe must have had a beginning, at which point everything was well organized. Everything has worn out ever since and will eventually come to an end.

In fact, it is worth noting that if a “theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics,” according to Sir Eddington, “I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”7 The theory of evolution from its inception is diametrically at variance with the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore, it is due “to collapse.”

 Let me give you a practical example. If I take some clothes, put them in a closet, and leave them there for hundreds of years, what will happen? We do not need to be archaeologists or paleontologists to know that those clothes will simply decompose, degrade, and eventually become dust, unless they are somehow adequately preserved. Yet, no matter how well preserved they are, those old clothes will never be able to refashion themselves into nice, clean, more modern vestures.

 Although the Scriptures were not written in scientific language, they contain scientific principles. Both the psalmist David and the wise King Solomon wrote that things “wax old like a garment” and become “dust.” Thus, the second law of thermodynamics with its description of entropy appears in Holy Writ.

“They shall perish, but Thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt Thou change them, and they shall be changed.” Psalm 102:26.

“All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Ecclesiastes 3:20.

Sir Eddington made some more powerful arguments that also point to the irrefutable conclusion that the world began through Creation, not in a “big bang.” He admitted that it was incredible to him, but there was no escaping the idea of a perfect starting point of complete order with no randomness.

 “Traveling backwards into the past we find a world with more and more organization… when the energy of the world was wholly organized with none of the random element in it.”

“Moreover, this organization is admittedly the antithesis of chance. It is something which could not occur fortuitously.”

 “It [entropy] has been quoted as scientific proof of the intervention of the Creator at a time not infinitely remote from today…. It is one of those conclusions from which we can see no logical escape–only it suffers from the drawback that it is incredible. As a scientist I simply do not believe that the present order of things started off with a bang….”8

Finally, Sir Eddington wrote: “We admit that the world contains both chance and design.”9 And this leads us to our next creation proof.

• Intelligent design–order and complexity

In Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology,10 William A. Dembski, who holds two Ph.D.s, one in mathematics and the other in philosophy, supplies the following definition: “Briefly, intelligent design infers that an intelligent cause is responsible for an effect if the effect is both complex and specified.” For example, “a single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified. We infer design by identifying specified complexity.”11

 Ellen G. White wrote that the systems and order found in the universe testify of God. It would seem that the entire cosmos was established so that humans could be in the center, in the middle of the macro and micro-cosmos. God is a God of order, and order in the universe is His signature as its Author.

“System and order are manifest in all the works of God throughout the universe. Order is the law of heaven….”12

 When the natural world is observed with a telescope or a microscope or even the naked eye, intelligent design with its “specified complexity” is a difficult concept to dismiss. There is awesome complexity in all life surrounding us. The more science penetrates the secrets of the universe, the more questions arise. All living things exhibit intelligent design, not just at the complete organism level, but also at the organ, cellular, and even deep genetic levels. The eye, ear, nose, and skin are just a few examples of organs so complex that they would not function without all their key parts being present.

 The blood coagulation cascade, for example, requires so many factors to be present, including Vitamin K and proteins, that, if just one is missing, blood clotting cannot occur. Such is the case with the congenital error of metabolism causing hemophilia, a genetic birth defect in which one small bruise can cause the hemophiliac to bleed to death. This was a death warrant for many of Queen Victoria’s descendants across Europe in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

 The psalmist recognized intelligent design in human beings. He wrote: “I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.” Psalm 139:14.

All living things, including human beings, are examples of intelligent design with specified complexity. The anatomy and physiology of each are truly complex, and the organs and cells of each life form are very specific.

 Have you ever opened a clock and seen its many wheels and gadgets? The mechanism is quite complex. Little wheels turn smaller wheels, which, in turn, move bigger wheels to finally move the two hands on the face with precision. Imagine someone discovering a clock and insisting that it came into being by itself? Would that not seem illogical and foolish? A clock gives evidence of both a clockmaker and a clock designer.

 In the Old and New Testaments, this idea extends to nature. Ezekiel saw the Author of the universe sitting on a throne with wheels within wheels in motion, holding up His creation. Each wheel was under the supervision of an extraterrestrial being known as a cherub, a living heavenly being.

 “Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work were as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went. As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four. And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.” Ezekiel 1:15-19.

 Although this reads like a science fiction description, recall that Apple Corporation has invented a phone that talks, shows movies, and delivers email. Some years ago, a company in Israel began research on how to design a wristwatch that could measure drops of sweat and read glucose levels. Just as wheels are proof of an inventor, so creation is proof of a Creator. Under thewheels and the living creatures, there is a “hand” holding it all together. Ezekiel 10:8.

 Modern scientists would do well to acknowledge what the ancient Egyptians testified when they beheld the plague of lice. “Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God.” Exodus 8:19.

 Even Charles Darwin could not escape the thought that the order and system witnessed in the natural world could not all be due to mere chance or the result of environmental adaptation. It was too complex, too precise, and too orderly. Although at times he claimed to be an agnostic, in the end he called himself a theist–a person who believes in a God who created and governs all creation. Darwin wrote about “the extreme difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity for looking far backwards and far into the futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”13

 Darwin concluded in the last paragraph of his book The Origin of Species, that the “grandeur … of life” must have been “originally breathed by the Creator.” The word Creator is spelled with a capital “C.” Although he promoted evolution and argued for macro-evolution, he seemed unable to escape the evidence for a Creator because of the order, system, and specified complexity he observed in nature.

 “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one,… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”14

• The principles of probability

Sir Eddington spoke of both design and chance. The theory of chance is also known as probability. To better understand probability, we turn to a French mathematician. Pierre Simon de Laplace, who in 1812 wrote a book titled The Analytical Theory of Probabilities and was later titled “the Newton of France,”15 defined probability as dealing with possibilities.

 “The definition … of probability … is the ratio of the number of favorable cases to that of all cases possible.”16

 “The measure of this probability … is thus simply a fraction whose numerator is the number of favorable cases and whose denominator is the number of all the cases possible.”17

 So now we ask what the probability is of taking fourteen letters and, after scrambling them, obtaining the word CONSTANTINOPLE. According to Dr. Dembski, such an incident would be both specified and complex. Laplace argued that it would be extraordinary if you obtained such an order of letters from such a random process. He would suspect that the word was not the product of chance but rather of someone deliberately spelling and writing out the word.

Laplace wrote: “On a table we see letters arranged in this order–Constantinople – and we judge that this arrangement is not the result of chance, not because it is less possible than the others, … but this word being in use among us, it is incomparably more probable that some person has thus arranged the aforesaid letters than that this arrangement is due to chance.”18

 The probability of all of the 500 amino acids being in the right sequence among the 20 possible amino acids in nature is 10⁶⁵⁰. The probability of all of the 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time is 10¹⁵⁰.

The probability of the 500 amino acids all combining with peptide bonds is 10¹⁵⁰.

Hence, the total probability obtained from multiplying the above is 1 chance in 10 ⁹⁵⁰.19

“Let us for a minute put aside all the impossibilities we have described so far, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously ‘by accident.’… It would need to be isolated from its natural habitat and be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, it would either disintegrate from exposure to natural conditions on earth, or else join with other acids, amino acids, or chemical com- pounds, thereby losing its particular properties and turning into a totally different and useless substance.”20

 My uncle, Dr. Rufino Rafael Lorenzo, is a veterinarian. While I was working on my Master’s Degree, he shared the following analogy with me. “Suppose you took the complete Encyclopaedia Britannica with its thirty-two volumes and with each volume consisting of hundreds of pages. You decide to tear all the bound pages out of the volumes and then cut out all the paragraphs, then all the words, and, finally, every single letter. You place all the pieces in a large box, shake it violently, and stir all the letters for as long as you wish. When you are finished, you open the box and dump all the pieces of paper on the floor.” He then asked, “What is the probability that all those letters will be so arranged as to recreate the encyclopedia’s words, paragraphs, pages, and volumes in perfect order volume by volume, page by page, paragraph by paragraph, and word by word, as it was originally published? Do you understand how impossible such a feat would be?”

 Dr. Scott M. Huse, in The Collapse of Evolution, presents this same idea in another striking manner. He states that “mathematicians usually consider any event with a probability of less than 1 chance in 10⁵⁰ as having a zero probability.”

“The human body has 11 extremely complex systems that perfectly operate as one,… over 600 skeletal muscles,… 206 bones…. There are 60 trillion cells in an adult human body. The odds of this happening [by chance] are 1 in 10 ^{2,000,000,000}.”21

 That figure is just for one human body. Now add to it the millions of other living species and the billions of living organisms that have previously existed on this planet. What would the probability be for the entire biosphere to have come together purely by random chance? No matter what age is assigned to this planet to have been developed by macro-evolutionary processes, the probability “comes out to be so great that the determined age of the earth is infinitesimal in comparison.”22 If you continue calculating and factor in the entire universe with its galaxies and solar systems with their infinite number of animate and inanimate constituents, the probability that it all came about by chance is beyond imagination.

As a doctoral student, I had the opportunity to go to lunch with a Nobel Laureate, Doctor Konrad Block, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for deciphering the cholesterol synthesis in the human body. He mentioned that mathematics is the purest of all the sciences, followed, in turn, by physics and then chemistry. These hard sciences are more precise than biology, psychology, and sociology. I state this to emphasize that probability, being a branch of mathematics, sits at the zenith of the scientific hierarchy. When applied to the theory of evolution, it is very revealing in showing that its mathematical predictions cannot be ignored.

Simply put, what is the probability that inanimate matter can produce life? Or, what is the probability that nothing can produce something? Zero! That brings us to the next concept that gives additional proof for Creation and buries evolution.

• Spontaneous generation

From antiquity, great minds like Aristotle, Pliny, Virgil and many other ancients “believed in spontaneous generation.”23 Up until the nineteenth century, naturalists and scientists considered spontaneous generation an irrefutable fact and passionately defended it. This theory held that life sprang up mysteriously of itself, not from parent species equal to themselves. “The earth was assumed to be pregnant with the germs of all living organisms which were quickened into life under favorable circumstances.”24

For example, Jan van Helmont, a Flemish physician of the Sixteenth Century, developed a “recipe” for spontaneously generating mice. It consisted of “putting some dirty linen in a receptacle, together with a few grains of wheat or a piece of cheese.” Then, wait for some time to pass, and, voilà, mice appeared. Similarly, from dead, putrefying flesh, worms were “supposed to begin life spontaneously.”25 Spontaneous generation was believed to take place “continuously and universally after death and sometimes during life.”26 This idea asserted that new matter could organize itself into a new species with new shapes, depending on its environment.

As late as the Nineteenth Century, scientists still believed, just as the heathen ancients did, that living things sprang from nothing. And they conducted experiments to “prove” this theory.

In 1809, “Lamarck, a distinguished French naturalist, was among the first modern scientific men who adopted the theory that all vegetables and animals living on earth, including man, developed [or evolved] from certain original simple germs.”27 He believed that life “originated in spontaneous generation.” He believed that as animals are placed in a new environment they “gradually” lose unnecessary organs and “engender” new ones. The noted French author, Voltaire, observed dryly that men denied “a Creator and yet attribute to themselves the power of creating eels.”28

The psalmist declares that the idea of spontaneous generation existed even in his day. He considered it foolishness to take God out of nature and to deny Creation. The “old one hundredth” Psalm, sung by Christians for generations, declares that the universe did not create itself. “Know ye that the Lord He is God: it is He that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture.” Psalm 100:3.

 Eventually a French chemist named Louis Pasteur showed conclusively that “spontaneous generation” was false. One of the most talented scientists of all time, Pasteur contributed greatly to the saving of lives through his experiments and findings. He demonstrated that microbes cause spoilage and could be prevented from “spontaneously generating” through chemical means.

 Pasteur invented “little glass flasks witha long curved neck,” called a swan’s neck flask, inside of which was a liquid containing dead microbes. When the liquid in the swan glass flasks was heated, no spontaneous generation was observed. This was because the air-borne dust, containing living microbes, was not able to pass beyond the curvature of the open- air swan flasks and develop in the liquid inside. When no new life was observed in the liquid inside the flask, the evidence was unmistakable. Life cannot spontaneously generate from something that is not alive.

On April 7, 1864, Louis Pasteur spoke before an audience of scientists at the Sorbonne University in France, and delivered the death blow to the theory of “spontaneous generation.” In his speech, he addressed the questions, “Can matter organize itself?” and “Can living beings come into the world without having been pre- ceded by beings similar to themselves?”29 Pasteur presented two possibilities: Either there was a “fixity of species” so that the offspring was always similar to its parents, or there was a “progressive transformation of one species into another.”30 In the midst of the applause, he concluded his lecture and demonstration by stating: “No, there is now no circumstance known in which it can be affirmed that microscopic beings came into the world without germs, without parents similar to themselves. Those who affirm it have been duped by illusions, by ill-conducted experiments, spoilt by errors that they either did not perceive or did not know how to avoid.”31

Many accused Pasteur of defending “a religious cause” by demonstrating that germs cannot come from any originator except the same germs. To this the scientist replied, “There is here no question of religion, philosophy, atheism, materialism, or spiritualism. I might even add that they do not matter to me as a scientist. It is a question of fact; when I took it up, I was ready to be convinced by experiments that spontaneous generation exists, as I am now persuaded that those who believe it are blindfolded.”32

Can the same be said of those who persist in believing and teaching macro-evolution, and denying the fixity of species? Are they, too, blindfolded by their preconceived ideas lacking experimentation? Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation is a fallacy. Microbes do not evolve into other living things but are similar to their progenitors and cannot come into being without them. Simply put, inanimate things cannot produce life. It is impossible for them to change into a form of life by themselves, no matter how much time they are given.

• The fossil record

When Jesus Christ walked on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a group of Pharisees demanded that He silence the children and youth who were joyously proclaiming Him as the “Son of David.” His reply related to another proof of Creation. He said, “If these [children] should remain silent, the rocks would cry out.”

“And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke Thy disciples. And He answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.” Luke 19:39, 40.

 The fossils unearthed by biologists, archaeologists, and common people all speak with a loud voice in support of the Biblical record of creation. But, what are fossils? In simple terms, “a fossil is the remains of a living being that lived long ago and… [was] preserved under natural conditions” on rocks, in petroleum, tree resins, or other natural deposits.33 Listed below are five basic things that the fossil record teaches us.

 The fossil record shows that the animals which exist today are exactly the same as their predecessors that supposedly lived millions of years ago. The animals have not changed significantly. The fossil record testifies of species fixity, degeneration, or extinction, but not of evolution.

 Under the pen name Harun Yahya, a Muslim scientist published a three-volume set of books, bearing the title The Chronicle of Creation, in which he clearly shows with large photographs and documentation that the fish, birds, mammals, and reptiles roaming the earth today are the same as those that existed “millions of years ago.”34 The fossil record fails to show any significant change in their basic characteristics; rather, animals in the fossil record look exactly like their modern descendants.

 The fossil record shows that in antiquity there was a great variety of species and that these were frequently larger than their modern counterparts. This suggests that macro-evolution has not occurred, but rather that degeneration and extinction have been massive; many animals that roamed the ancient world have become extinct. The fossils also demonstrate that today’s animals are smaller than their predecessors, supporting the second law of thermodynamics that was examined earlier.

 Some years ago, I visited the Page Museum at the La Brea Tarpits in Los Angeles, California, which displays more than a million fossils of postdiluvian animals that were trapped and sank in open petroleum lakes. Their bones were preserved there, showing that the United States was once home to lions, camels, elephants, mammoths, sloths, and horses. These were all giants. Their skeletons are huge compared to the skeletons of today’s lions, camels, elephants, sloths, and horses.

 The fossil record documents virtually no transitional forms or missing links. If evolution actually occurred as a gradual, random process occurring over long periods of time, one would expect to find fossils of millions of such animals–limbs, heads, legs, eyes, ears, fingers, toes, etc. Why have no rocks containing such things been found among the millions of fossils that have been discovered and that supposedly document “millions of years” of evolution?

 The fossil record documents bilateral symmetry in nature, and all living animals have this same characteristic. For example, externally human beings have two arms, two legs, two eyes, and so on. Internally people have two lungs, two kidneys, two sides of the thyroid gland, etc. Each side of the body is nearly a mirror image of the other.

 Nature seems to favor even numbers of limbs. Birds have two wings. Cows, horses, sheep, and dogs have four legs. Spiders, scorpions, and octopuses have eight legs. Bilateral symmetry is seen in much of creation in the past and present.

 Why does the fossil record fail to show odd numbers of limbs? Why are intermediate and random forms lacking? The answer is simple: It is because they do not exist. All organisms were created perfect by the intelligent Designer.

 Dr. Harry Rimmer, American evangelist and creationist, who had a private collection of ancient fossils, remarked: “Species do not blend into higher and subsequent forms in the record of paleontology…. They arise, perfect for their mode of living, suddenly and dramatically, in a manner to be accounted for only on the basis of specific creation. They persist in their present form, … or else they perish with the same suddenness with which they arose.”35

 There is virtually no transmutation of species in the fossil record. Species appear suddenly in their fully developed form, and over time they either become extinct or remain similar to their descendants living today. Only a few fossils have been suggested as proof of evolution. The most well-known is the horse. In the Natural History Museum in Los Angeles, I saw models of horses on exhibit, yet there were many flaws in the bones exhibited. The assembled specimens were actually composites of bones discovered on different continents and not from the same site. Other horse-like specimens were simply not exhibited, because they didn’t fit the scheme the exhibitors desired to portray. For example, a horse con- temporary with the ancient horse models was “too big,” and was “already a true horse.”36 Small horses like the diminutive Shetland pony and the giant Clydesdale also exist today, suggesting that through time there were different sizes of horses, as attested to by the fossil record.

 On closer examination, “the skulls of the so-called four-toed horses differ from the true horse types, the feet differ, the cervical vertebrae differ, and the teeth bear no resemblance whatever to the horse.”37 An examination of the teeth indicates that the diet of these different animals changed between omnivore and herbivore, if they were even truly related.

 The fossil record shows that mammals coexisted with dinosaurs. As a matter of fact, there are fossils of mammals with dinosaur bones found inside their stomachs, attesting to the mammals’ rapid and violent death while still digesting a meal.

 When I was a child growing up in New Jersey, I was taught in school that dinosaurs existed before mammals did and that these two groups did not exist at the same time. It was asserted that dinosaurs had become extinct by the time mammals came into existence. But as I travel around the world visiting different natural history muse- ums, this story line seems to be changing. Dinosaurs and mammals are now known to have coexisted, with dinosaurs feasting on mammals and vice versa.

 National Geographic, which was established by Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone and an avowed evolutionist, issued a small article caption with pictures of a fossil showing a mammal with a dinosaur inside its stomach. In China, a “cat-sized mammal’s skeleton” known as Repenomamusrobustus was found that contained “the remains of its last meal: a young beaked dinosaur called Psittacosaurus.38

 “With large pointy teeth and powerful jaws designed for catching and ripping prey, Repenomamusrobustus show that Mesozoic mammals could compete with the smaller dinosaurs for territory–and food. Its stomach contents … included a hind limb of the young beaked dinosaur, along with a forelimb and several teeth.”39

 Please recall that human beings are mammals. If mammals are now believed to have coexisted with dinosaurs, why not humans? A site in Texas shows dinosaur tracks alongside human footprints. In fact, the tracks appear to show dinosaurs being

herded by a gigantic human being.40

 The apostle Paul writes that death did not exist prior to the creation of mankind, so dinosaurs and human beings, along with the other animals, coexisted in the ancient world. Death only entered the world as a result of human sin. The fossil record consists of petrified animal and plant parts, and so all the fossils were formed under catastrophic conditions after the entrance of sin and death.

 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Romans 5:12.

 The fossil record has preserved the final moments of many animals, including dinosaurs. Their forelimbs and heads are often in a position suggesting that death came violently by drowning. Fossils of fish have also been found in high mountains and in places far from today’s bodies of water. Whale bones have even been found in the deserts of Egypt. What do these findings suggest? They show that there was a massive catastrophic deluge accompanied by deadly meteorites that extinguished almost all life on the planet. And if such a massive destruction occurred, as attested to both in the fossil record and in Genesis 6-9, then the history of Creation, which appears just a few chapters before, should not be dismissed.

 While touring the British Museum with Dr. Eduardo Chang, a skilled surgeon, we stopped at an exhibit of an ancient winged dinosaur, an extinct bird called archaeopteryx. Doctor Chang described how it was preserved quickly while in the throes of drowning. Likewise, while touring Egypt, I learned that some large whale bones discovered in the desert sands of Fayoum are on exhibit in the Cairo Museum. The small area within the Fayoum is called “Wadi al Hitan” which means “valley of the whales.”41

 “More than four hundred skeletons of two extinct species of whale have beendiscovered, along with fossil remains of other marine life such as sea cows, sea urchins, turtles, crabs, rays, shipworms, and mangroves.”42

• The Moral Law

Perhaps the most convincing argument in favor of divine Creation in the minds of many is the existence of a moral code. Just as the natural world has fixed laws, God created a moral law for people to follow. Good and evil both exist in the world. God’s Ten Commandments define good.

 For over 1,000 years, the Israelites had the actual law that God wrote with His finger on two stone tablets and kept it in the sacred tabernacle. In this moral code, God included His testimony that He created the earth, the heavens, and all that is in them. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Exodus 20:11.

 The weekly cycle of seven days has its origin in Creation. There is no physical explanation for a seven-day week. By contrast, the year is defined as one rotation of the earth around the sun; the month comes from one rotation of the moon around the earth; and the day is equal in time to one revolution of the earth on its axis. But the week has no such physical origin. The seven-day week with its Sabbath rest is a testimony of Creation.

 Furthermore, the existence of a law man- dates a lawgiver. James, the stepbrother of Jesus Christ, stated this in his epistle: “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: …” James 4:12.

 If good and evil exist, then there must likewise exist a code or moral law to define this. And if a moral law exists, then a law- giver and judge must also exist. That judge is God the Creator, and that law is the Ten Commandments. This law, encompassing altruism, conscience, voice, and love, cannot be explained by any evolutionary process.

 The head of the genome project, Dr. Francis Collins, shares his testimony of how the principles of the moral law and its implications moved him to abandon his agnostic views and become a theist. “What we have here is very peculiar: The concept of right and wrong appears to be universal among all members of the human species…” throughout time. Throughout cultures, there are “denunciations of oppression, murder, treachery and falsehood.” “Con- sider a major example of force we feel from the Moral Law–the altruistic impulse, the voice of conscience calling us to help others even if nothing is received in return.”

 “When we see that kind of love and generosity, we are overcome with awe and reverence.”43

 Dr. Collins equated the moral law in its simplest and noblest phase with “agape,” or “selfless altruism,” which “presents a major challenge for the evolutionist.” It does not follow the tenet of evolution known as “survival of the fittest.”44

 “It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves. Quite the contrary: It may lead humans to make sacrifices that lead to great personal suffering, injury, or death, without any evidence of [personal] benefit.”45

 The apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that God had placed His law in men’s consciences and minds and written them spiritually in their hearts to give them a sense of duty and responsibility to Him and to society.

 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” Romans 2:14, 15.

• A conversation with my cousin

My cousin Niels is an art dealer specializing in modern Cuban oil paintings; he owns a gallery in Miami, Florida. A little while ago, he and his family visited our family in Georgia and spent the Sabbath with us. As the sun was setting, we were walking in a park and admiring the lake. I said to him: “Let us suppose that God does not exist. Let us imagine that when we die, it is the end of everything and there is no life after death. In that case, I do not regret having lived as a Christian and having followed a self-sacrificing lifestyle. However, if God does exist, and there is life after death, then if you do not believe, you have lost every- thing, and I will have gained everything.” Is it not worth believing?

 The great French mathematician and physicist Pascal put it this way. “‘Let us weigh the gain and loss in wagering that God is,’ he wrote. ‘Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He is.’”46

 In 1870, an Irish physicist, Professor Tyndall, commenting on the denial of Creation and the promulgation of macro-evolution, stated: “Suppose we give up everything…. Suppose we thus give up our morals and religion, all that ennobles man and dignifies his existence, what do we gain?… Nothing.” “The evolution hypothesis does not solve … the ultimate mystery of this universe. It leaves that mystery untouched. At the bottom, it does nothing more than ‘transpose the conception of life’s origin to an indefinitely distant past.’” “Whence came [we]? would still remain to baffle and bewilder us.” “If we admit… [that it took] billions of ages in the past, why should it be unphilosophical to admit it now?” By evolution, God is made to be everything, and “everything acts as God.”47 Thus evolution is actually a type of pantheistic force.

 In conclusion, let us return to the words of the apostle Paul declaring that God created the world ex nihilo. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11:3.