I know it seems like this is not a fair debate. That is exactly and precisely the point of this whole effort. But logic and probability have no moral judgments about ‘fairness’, its just cold hard science. It truly is that creationists only have to be correct on any one of these topics versus evolutionists must be correct on every one. That is the debate. These are the rules. Critics may try to turn this logic around against creationists and say that creation has to explain every thing as well. How true! Which ever is true, creation or evolution, each must be able to explain everything that is in the world. Whichever one cannot is not true.
The advantage in this debate is that creationists don’t have to explain everything in the way that the evolutionists must. Creationists need to explain what we see in the world and in the universe after creation, but acknowledge that there is an all powerful God, and that all things cannot be known by the human mind.
Evolutionists have a much bigger problem. They must, and I mean absolutely without any exceptions and with complete clarity, be able to explain to us in a convincing way how what we see in the world could have come into existence by ‘natural processes’ and random chance events alone. So evolutionists have to explain everything, creationists actually don’t. Creationists only have to convince someone of anything that could not have happened with the evolutionist’s explanation, and that is logically sufficient to conclude that evolution is not true. It is not a ‘fair’ debate. If creationists ‘win’ any one of the multitudes of arguments, we win the whole debate! If creationists win one, they win period.
It’s ALL OR NONE because all things that exist must be the result of evolution, or none of the things that exist are from evolution. That is the practical truth. The theoretical possibility that some, but not all of the things that exist are the result of evolution also results in evolution not being possible and this is discussed in Appendix G.
The logical framework of ALL OR NONE developed here is based on Darwin himself. When he presented the theory of evolution he understood that everything would have to be explained by evolution. If anything could not be explained he knew his theory would be wrong. Here is how he states it:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
We are told by Darwin that if any organ in life exists that cannot be produced though evolution, then evolution is not true. We are only expanding this same logic to all of creation and not limiting the evidence to only the explanation of organs in life forms. It is the exact same logic. This same logic is extended to all things that exist. Evolution must be able to explain everything and if there is anything that cannot exist through the process of evolution, then evolution is just not true. Charles Darwin knew and understood this and told us that this is how we should approach the truth. This is the basis for the evaluation of the truth of evolution.
There is a sequence of events that must have occurred for evolution to be true. All of these events are independent events so if any one of them did not happen then evolution logically cannot be possible. IT’S ALL OR NONE for evolution to be true.
Now the amount of information that is about to be presented can be overwhelming. We are going to think about the formation of planets and moons and oceans and the atmosphere and photosynthesis and plants and life from nonlife, the complexity of life, and this is only the beginning. There is topic after topic after topic. All of these 50 controversies are unproven by evolution. That is why they are controversies. There are so many it seems illogical to think that creationists could be wrong on all of these. Particularly when creationists think they are right on all of them, they have good scientific reasons to think so, and they actually only have to be right on one!
We are nearly ready to begin considering each of the 50 controversies; however we first need to understand what the theory of evolution is saying and not saying for us to be able to evaluate each of these controversies. A quick review and summary of the basic and key aspects of evolution is simple to understand, essential for this book, and is next!