 Okay. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to BC212, our course on Christian apologetics, and we are ready to start. Let's take a moment to pray. Can I request somebody to pray, either in class or online? And then we'll start, please. Father God, we thank You in this time, and we pray that You give us the wisdom, knowledge, and lead us by Your Holy Spirit. Reveal the words by Your Holy Spirit. We surrender this class into Your hand. In Jesus' name I pray, amen. Amen. Alright, so today the plan is I want to finish up all our discussions on creation, creator, that part, and then hopefully move forward into some, start the next topic. Hopefully we'll be able to do that. I think we've spent enough time on discussing on this theme, creation and creator. So I just want to, today I just want to help us think through and address the ideas or the theories of evolutionary biology and also cosmology, or big band cosmology, just to address that. Of course, not going to go into great detail, but just enough for us to know that when we hear these theories, there are questions we can ask, that we can say, hey, this theory is not a proven scientific fact, and there are questions we can bring to the table. So if you will, we started this last week, today we'll try to go through that. So this is lesson number six in your notes, Darwin and modern evolutionary biology. We give a little background to Darwin and about 200 years ago, he was actually starting to be a pastor and then he went on this voyage around the world. And as he went, he was observing, you know, different creatures, animals, plants, different parts of the world. It made him think, and of course he was also influenced by people he worked with, people, in fact, his grandfather seemed to promote these ideas of evolution and so on. And so Darwin was influenced by these ideas and thoughts, and essentially his theory, as he presented it in his books, was trying to actually make a theological argument. He was actually trying to disprove creation, you know, so that's kind of where he was coming from. And so a lot of his arguments, and I've put quotes in different places in the notes from his books, were actually arguments against creation. So he was actually presenting ideas in order to counter the idea or the truth of creation. That was where he was coming from. And his main idea was, okay, so if you want to summarize Darwin's theory in simple words, Darwin was saying that everything evolves, life evolves at one location, and it, you know, it went through a series of variation. Each generation varied, and so each variation then adapted itself to its environment, and then eventually evolved, and that's how we are where we are today. We are an evolved form of this whole process. So the idea is, it started in one place, everything evolved as these animals and creatures went through different parts of the world. They adapted to their environment and developed further. So there was, you know, selection, and there was modification and selection. So every generation, there was some modification. With the environment, there was selection, or with the adaptation, adapting to the environment, there was selection. Whatever could survive kept becoming stronger. And so he tried to prove that through his observations, like what he saw. So he made four major observations. I think we have this listed somewhere here. The first one was, he said, look, the reason we say the evolution happened, that there was modification of these species, creatures, through variation and selection, variation, selection. The reason we can say it first was, he said, there is, this is on page 28, right? Geographic distribution of species. So what he said, you know, if you go to different parts of the world, you see different creatures, you know, say birds or animals, you see. And we can prove, because we are seeing different creatures in different parts of the world, and certain creatures are found only in certain places. We can prove that. So this finding certain creatures in certain places is evidence that everything began in one place, and as they moved, as they migrated to different parts of the world, and as there was continent shift, that means geographical shift, that means, you know, continents separated. So these adapted, these creatures adapted, and that's where you find different animals in different parts of the world. That was his reasoning. But then the counter to that is, well, if that was the case. So the creation account is God created everything all over the world at the same time. Right? It's not God created only animals in Eden. Now, after he separated the earth from the waters, he said, let the waters bring forth creatures. So there were creatures brought in the waters all over the world. You can imagine, like other oceans, they cover the globe. So creatures were created all over. Let there be birds that fly. So there were birds all over the world, right? In every continent, every part of the world, birds. Let me say, let animals come. Animals came all over the world. So it wasn't like everything started in Eden and they all had to walk by land or they had to swim and go to other places, right? No. When he spoke, things happened all over the world. Whereas evolutionary biology, what Darwin is saying is, everything started in one place and they migrated. The reason I can say that is because you're finding different creatures everywhere. But then some examples where this may not, we cannot agree with this because, for example, flightless birds, birds that cannot fly, okay? You find them everywhere. Of course, they're different birds, but you find them everywhere. So you have flightless birds, ostriches in Africa, rears in South America, emus in Australia, kivis in New Zealand. So these are flightless birds, but they're in different continents, right? So if flight example, if flightless birds started in one place, if they were there somewhere in the origin, they would not have been able to go to all these different continents because they can't fly. They had all been stuck in one place, correct? And so how can we say that they migrated and then they became flightless? That will be going down, not going up, right? They all flew to different parts of the world and then they suddenly lost their ability to fly. So we can't even say that. And neither can we say they started in one place and then migrated because if they can't fly, they can't migrate. So just give an example. So you've got flightless birds, birds which cannot move anywhere. But you have these birds in every continent, yeah, they're different birds, but they're there. Or another example, these are two examples where you can say that, say freshwater crabs. So there are crabs that can live only in freshwater. That means they can't migrate. They can't go from one place to another. If they go into the ocean, see what they'll die. Okay. And you find freshwater crabs all over the world. North America, South Asia, Europe, Africa, you find these crabs, freshwater crabs. So again, how could they have migrated to different parts of the world? How could they have survived? Not possible. So it is just an argument. So he's made an argument, but then you can also, so without any proof, you're making an argument. So we are just countering that argument by saying, look, there are other observations you can make which actually disprove that argument. First of all, that argument is being said without any fact. There's no scientific proof. You're just saying this, I saw this, so therefore it's like this. But you also see this. So that's one thing. The second thing was about fossils. So you're finding bones. Now just think about this. And now this is a little bad example, but just imagine. Suppose we're digging back here and we find two skeletons. Somehow we're able to say one is 30 years or 50 years older than the other. Somehow we're able to say, believe me, immediately say that is the father, this is the son. There is no way to say that just because you found two skeletons. And through some means, we say, okay, one is that this. First of all, we don't know, but just imagine you're able to say determine that the difference in time age is about 30 years. And if you say that was the father, this was the son. On what basis can you say it? Today, we have the technology, we have DNA that you can actually do. And then you can trace. In fact, you can trace anywhere in the world. If you have a matching DNA, then you can trace. But remember Darwin's theory, he was coming up with this theory more than 200 years ago. There's no basis for saying something like this. Today, because of DNA matching, then you can say so-and-so is the father, so mother, this is the children. Based on actual scientific evidence, you can say who's the father, who's the mother, genetic information, DNA. Those days they couldn't. But he was saying, see, we are seeing fossils. And if we arrange them in a certain order, it seems like it is evolving slowly. So from monkey, monkey looks almost like man. So put them before and put this fossil in front. So that means man has evolved from monkey. The logic is the same as we are saying, if you find two skeletons, how can you say they are related? There's no way you can say it's related, right? It's a big assumption. Just because they were found in the same space, we can't jump to the conclusion that they are related. But that was kind of the idea of proofos. Can you align them up? It looks similar. So maybe there is a pattern here and so on. But it is just an idea or a theory. And the fact is, so there are other issues, if you can go into detail. For example, in the history of the biology of the earth, they have what is known as a pre-Cambrian and a Cambrian period. The Cambrian period is supposed to be the time when what we find is, at a certain point in history, suddenly we are finding lots of fossils. So suddenly, that means it's almost like there's been an explosion of creatures on the earth. And we're finding there remains. When you dig in the soil here and there, you find, oh, they say, okay, this is all part of what we call as the Cambrian period, more recent times. Pre-Cambrian means before that, which we have to go deeper in the ground because logically layers have been formed. So what is lower in the ground is older, just a logical thought. So fossils that were found deeper in the soil and which they will date back to older times is pre-Cambrian. Cambrian is more recent. And so it has been observed that suddenly, at a certain point in time, there are so many creatures, so we're finding all kinds of fossils. So this is a big problem because if evolution was happening, then you should find fossils happening regularly, regular intervals. You can't suddenly find so many animals, I mean, so many fossils before that hardly any find anything because then there's a big gap. But then of course, the explanation was no, no, no, those things all decayed and they just disappeared. That's why we don't find too many fossils before that the Pre-Cambrian or they just, it all just went away. So you couldn't find it, but actually they were all happening. But this itself is a big question to this whole evolutionary theory based on fossils. And the other thing is there's so much of gap even between the fossils. So it's very difficult to accept. Asha, when we are seeing all these studies and theories, I mean, how can we say that they are authorized? Is there anyone that, I mean, they are authorized to dissolve these theories or like, yeah, they are proven, they are proven. Like if you see Earth and Moon, it's revolving around it and revolving around the Sun. So we can see the proof. But all these things, how can they tell like without authorizing? Is these are authorized or not? So if you think about any field of learning, people are encouraged to express ideas. You know, so if I want to, today I can set up a blog. I can, I can write anything because they call it freedom of speech, freedom of thought, which is a good thing. I mean, every person must be free to express their ideas, views. So yeah, you have your view, you express it. Similarly in the scientific community, as long as you can have some what we call as data or reasoning to support your view, you can put it out there. You know, you can put it out there. So hey, this is what this is my reasoning. This is my theory. I found this, put it out there. And of course, everything will be like, you know, this, it's based on this data. So example, even today, you know, people are scientists are doing research in the labs and they're putting out data. For example, just yesterday, there was, I think one Indian says, it's abroad. I forget the USA, UK, but they found a certain chemical in some star far, far, far away. So they're saying, oh, maybe life is over there. There is life over there because that particular chemical can only be created by living organisms. Now it's come out in the news. But it comes with a disclaimer. The scientist actually has an Indian name. I can't remember this name. I just read the article. His disclaimer is, oh, before I say anything more, let me verify. But the thing is, there is observed or they think it is there, some observation, and they put it out. It's come out as a news article, not a science article, news article. But it's, you know, people will believe it. Some people, oh, there is life in some, some star somewhere far, far away. There is life. So they're making observations. So maybe if he observes it two or three times, he can write the article. And many related science journals will accept it, not because it's proven, but he will say, I observed it four times. And I think there is life. Those who want to research this can research this further. But it will come out in a science journal, somewhere it'll come out. The reason it is accepted is he's made for observations. Maybe he's observed it four times or whatever. He has some basis for which he is saying, but you can't prove it or disprove it. If you want to, you also have to run, do the same kind of experiment and try to see whether what he said is true or not. But also we have seen that many scientists will, big name scientists will fudge this data. In fact, just earlier this year, the president of, I think Stanford University, I think, I forget now which university, but so I don't want to mention any name, but a big university in the US, the president, I think it was on the West Coast. The president of this university had to resign because somebody blew a whistle. They said, hey, he has published four or five papers with false data. Now he's become the president of the university, of a big, well-world famous university. He's a president, but he himself got papers published with false data. I mean, like he actually didn't do the experiments on just so we could just make up data who can check, you know, published. And of course, you know, the more papers you plop up, the more famous you become. If anybody wants to validate what you publish, they have to go into the same experiments. Or they have to run, you know, go through the same process. So it's not easy, right? But he had to resign and it was a very shameful thing, but it just happens, you know, so the point is people are free to express the ideas. And it kind of goes in line with a certain ideology. That means if you are predisposed to the idea of evolution, then you will accept every paper that supports that idea. Whether it's right or wrong, you will, somebody else wrote one more paper, somebody else wrote, and you'll accept it. And you'll go with it. But to check, you have to do experiments. No, it's not easy. So going back, you know, to Darwin's time, he was basing his theories on observations, right, which are not necessarily big experiments, but just observations and conclusions. So he made one another supporting idea based on fossils. His third supporting idea was on vestigial organs on page 31. That means his thing was like this. See, as this evolution is happening, we are finding organs that actually don't have much importance. That means that the presence of such vestigial organs, he said, he argued, is an indication that it is not creation, but it is adaptation. Because why would God create something that has no use? So one thing that he picked on was the appendix, the human appendix. It's inside our body. It's not doing anything useful. It's there. So why would God create the appendix if it is not doing anything useful? So therefore his argument was the human body is not created, but it is showing signs of adaptation as it is evolving. It is getting rid of unwanted parts. But that was his argument then. But now later on, we are finding out that, hey, even what we consider as vestigial organs, they have some role to function, something they're doing. At that time, they didn't know. But now, like this appendix, it's producing certain kinds of blood cells. It is helping in the immune system. So it is having some role just that they didn't know. And then it's happening now. So we can't. So again, the theory that using vestigial organs to support evolution doesn't hold up. And we also have a biblical answer for less perfect organs. Look, there is decay. There's been corruption, decline in things since the fall. So we can have a theological response to this if he is so interested. The last one argument was he said what we call as analogy and homology. That means he's saying there are structures that look similar. So they look similar, but they are formed differently. So analogy means they serve the same purpose, but their structure is different. So example, wings, the wings. So the wings of a, what does this bumblebee or whatever he mentioned here, butterfly and bat. So both are, the wings are used to flying, but structurally, they're very different. Wings of a butterfly, very flimsy. You can just, wings of a bat has bones and, you know, ligaments. Both are used to flying. Both wings are for flying, but the structure is very different. That is analogy. Same purpose to fly structure is very different. So if the genes, so, I mean, so he said, so that time there was no knowledge of genes. So he said, see, that is one case, then a homology, the structure is, again, the structure is same, but the purpose is different. So bat and purpose, both are strong things, but one is to fly, one is to swim. Okay, so that is homology. Same structure, different purpose, swimming, flying, same homology. So he was saying, so his argument was, see, this is showing adaptation. Same structure, but purpose is different. One is swimming in the water, one is flying. So it has come out of the water, now it's in the air. Same structure. So you can imagine, you know, purpose coming, becoming a bat. Same thing, you know, it was used to in the water, now we're choosing the air. It's flying. Okay, analogy. So butterfly bat. So look, they are different. They have adapted, they have become stronger from some flimsy wings of wings of this butterfly. It has evolved to something very strong. He was using argument, but those days there was no genetics. So if we extend that idea to genetics, then we could say that, hey, if the structure is the same, and like this, you know, we can look at other structures, eyes, all those things, we can look in different things. If you say, okay, homologous structures, they are the same, then they should come, they should have similar genes. Okay, then if they have similar genes and they are homologous, okay. And if they're analogous, they should have, genes should be different. Genetics. Then, okay, yeah, maybe there is something to this, what he is saying, but when you start, look at Jerry, it disproves. You can have homologous structures, but the genes are different. You can have analogous structures, genes are same. So that idea of using these structures to support evolution again goes out the window, like it doesn't hold up. So this is just to show you that Darwin used these four observations to give rise to his theory. Of course, this was happened 2000 years ago. Over time, we have with more information, we are able to see that these arguments don't hold, but the ideology that he promoted has been so embraced by people that they, even in the face of information, they don't want to give up on that ideology or whatever they find, they want to support that ideology. That's the problem. That may say, I am an evolutionist, so I will stand by that. That is my ideology, I believe. So then they'll stand, these people stand by it. So even if there are these very obvious gaps and problems, they will try to, no, no, we'll find some information, we'll find some things. Let me see any questions on the online class before we go to the next lesson. Any questions? If we see about this vestigial organs also, if it was correct what he was said, adaptation. So I mean, you are saying the study actually happened 2000 years ago. 200 years, his study. 200 years ago. If it is correct, we should not have this appendix right now. It would have gone away. True. Yeah. Okay. Any questions? Now, of course, if you're, for those who are interested, you can always explore these subjects further. And I've given some websites at the end of the chapter that you could go to. There are a lot of Christian believing scientists who are responding to these things. They are doing research and they are writing books and they're responding and saying, hey, these are all the problems that are there in Darwin's theory and evolutionary biology. And so you can't jump to these conclusions, you know, so they are responding to these things. So you can explore this further. Okay. Let's go to the next chapter, lesson seven. So now we go to another idea, which is called the Big Bang Theory of cosmology. That means, so cosmology, when we say cosmology, it's really hot. We'll put the fan a little faster. If you don't mind. Thank you. Okay. The Big Bang Theory. So when we say cosmology, we are saying how the universe began. Okay. So this theory basically says that maybe about 14 billion years ago there was energy, space and mass. It was contained in a very dense hot state. There was a small place, singularity. One singular place, everything was there. And then there was this big explosion, release of energy, which then converted into forms of matter over time. And then, you know, the smallest particles began to be formed, you know. So it evolved over time, particles, and they come by and they form, you know, atoms and atoms form compounds. And it evolved over time like that, over 14 billion years. So, and then, of course, it's not that every, the whole thing has been described in perfection, but that's okay. This could have happened. And if this happened, then according to our understanding of physics and our understanding of quantum physics, this is what should have taken place and this is what should have taken place. The whole process, they're trying to explain how it could have happened. So it's not like it's been proven. That means nobody has been able to actually make it happen. It's a theory. You're imagining, okay, let us imagine there was density, mass and energy. We had all these three things. We had this and there was so much of energy. And, you know, we can just put any number to it if you want because you're imagining so much and then it gave rise to this. And then there's a big explosion and this, this, this happened. So over time, and then we tried to explain it through our knowledge of quantum physics and so on. But then immediately as we've done before, you know, there are two big problems. One is this on page 35. There is a starting point problem, which means, hey, where, even if you say there was so much of energy, so much of matter, so much of, where did this come from? Like, how did it come so much of energy? Where you got it from? If you're saying it started like that. Simple question. Okay, for that, we don't have an answer. We're making a big assumption that imagine there was, if there was. So much of energy, space and matter, we can then come up to the theory that things could have evolved. So that's a starting point. How do you even imagine that starting? What happened then? And then there's the design problem, which we also have mentioned before, which is you're saying some explosion happened and you're saying everything came out so beautifully. Which we know in practice never happens. You don't have to do too many experiments. You know, you just throw something on the ground, you throw a collection of whatever object on the ground. It is going to be completely random and it's going to be completely chaotic. It's not, it's not like all the alphabets will arrange very nicely in some sentence and give you a very meaningful sentence. Those kinds of things don't happen. So the design problem in how could all these things come into place just because there was an explosion with so much of energy. So these are two basic, basic questions. We don't have to be a scientist to ask these questions. Just simple. But we also have people, scientists who study this theory, who are looking at all these things and then they are asking very intelligent questions. So the next few things are more very, you know, questions that are put out by scientists themselves saying, hey, if you're saying Big Bang Theory and this is what happened, then these are the questions we can ask. So the next four things. So we can ask these very basic questions, starting point problem design problem. But scientists are asking even more serious questions. So for example, let's say, okay, according to the Big Bang, the initial particles that were formed should have been monopoles. That means they only have one pole. So when we look at a magnet, a magnet is North Pole and South Pole has both. But according to theory, first there was, there should be particles with only a single pole. The problem is we don't find any of that anywhere in the universe. So there is no evidence to that. If you're saying the theory, this is how it happened. And you want us to believe that theory, there should be some evidence that it actually happened. We don't find these monopoles. Similarly, point number two, again, these are the scientific questions. There's very little antimatter. That means if matter was produced, they also had to be what is referred to as antimatter. So it is similar to matter, except that the charge of the particles had opposite. So they're saying we don't see antimatter, equal amounts of antimatter. So again, if this Big Bang actually had to occur, you should see evidence of this. You're not finding it. According to theory, it should be there. But we're not seeing that. Third is what is referred to as population three stars. That means these were the earliest stars that were first formed with the lightest elements. So initially very light elements like hydrogen helium and lithium were formed. They gave rise to stars and these stars evolved and bigger, bigger, stronger stars were formed, etc. But according to the theory, these population three stars have a lifetime of 14 billion years. That means they should be still shining somewhere. But they can't find any. So again, how can we believe that this actually happened when you're not finding these evidences, which are part of the theory. And another fourth scientific question would be what is referred to as the cosmic inflation or cosmic. So basically what we are saying is what we are finding is we are finding that if you go to two different parts in the universe, two extreme parts. So if you imagine this universe expanding like a cone, it's expanding like a cone. If you go to one side of the cone and you go to the other side of the cone, you're finding the temperatures are same in equilibrium. So if there was this, if a really an explosion happened, which was very disorderly chaotic, it was not giving, you know, if nothing, it was just completely unorganized, disorganized. These two positions would never be in contact. So they could not be in equilibrium. So technically, just technically, they would not be in equilibrium. But we are finding they are in equilibrium. That means they were, you know, they were, the temperatures are the same, but it's a disproving of the theory that there was a random explosion, uncontrolled explosion. So that's another question that we could put out there. So like this, and you know, there would be more questions that challenge the Big Bang theory. So as a non-scientist, we can ask two simple questions, the starting point and the design. You don't have to be a scientist to ask those two questions. How did it start? How did all come so orderly? And as scientists, scientists themselves are asking very scientific questions, which is challenging the whole theory itself. So of course, the response would be that this generally given is we are yet to discover these things. Maybe in the future, we will discover. And in another words, wait, wait, let's see, you know, okay, fine, fair enough, let's see. But at the same time, you know, we're talking, we are here in 14 billion years, supposedly you should see something, you know, at least some evidence to the theory having happened. So that's it. And again, you can go and read a lot more on these things, if you're interested. The last, I just want to just, lesson number eight, what I want to just point out is, you know, in terms of other related questions, like how old is the earth? What about fossils? What about dinosaurs? What we must understand basically is that this whole way of estimating age can be questioned. Because typically we are using radioactive decay. So carbon dating, the way it works is we are saying the amount of emission decays, you know, in a known rate over time. So if you work, if you know how much has how much, you know, emission is happening now, you can work backwards and say it took so many years. So therefore, this thing is so many years old. However, just that can be questioned because we don't know for sure how much when and where things started. Second, we don't know what external forces took place in between time, you know, that could have either added to or diminished from the amount of radiation that a certain particle is giving. We don't know. None of us were there. We're just assuming everything was in steady decay. So our whole idea of carbon dating or radioactive decay using that as a measurement is subject to question. And I'm just pointing you to some of these resources. The answers and genesis is a very good website that you can go and look at. They address lots of things, lots of things, whether it is, you know, carbon dating or fossils, dinosaurs, lots of other things. So it's a very good place to go and study if you want more information. And just to mention that these things can be questioned. And we don't need to accept, you know, when they say, oh, here we found the bones of a skeleton or a fossil of a dinosaur, which was so many thousand years old. We don't have to accept it. It's based on what we think has taken place. So let me pause here today. Any questions on this? Okay, so we'll stop here. We'll get into the next lesson after the break. We're going to change. First, I heard that so many people on this earth, like most of these atheists also, they believe this cosmology like this subject other than this Darwin's theory. So what made them what made these many people to believe in this cosmology? Is there anything like how Darwin told about this, these few things? Is there anything that like we can accept or we can think like, oh, it's maybe true like that in this cosmology? Hmm. So the question is what is causing so many people to accept, you know, something like example or something like the big band? Why are so many people accepting it? I mean, we can look at it from the natural, we can look at it from the spiritual natural. See, when you go to school in science, you study science, most of our textbooks will have something on this, something on Darwin's theory, something on Big Bang. So little students, you know, sixth grade, seventh grade are reading it. They have to learn in order to write the exam. You have to learn so that you write the exam, you pass and it is presented as though this is the right thing. Even though these are only theories, the scientific community knows these are only theories or ideas that that we are using to try to explain how life came and how the universe began. But because they are taught right from early age that, you know, this is part of the education, people as per science subject, everybody tends to take it. And at that point, nobody is going to really question, maybe some, some may think and question, but how many are going to question? It's in the subject, learn it. And then from there, from then on it starts that, yeah, this is how life came until somebody sits down and thinks in questions or, you know, you're reading scriptures and it says, okay, but the scriptures are saying God created, so which is right and you have to explore. So, so I would look at that as one reason, not the only but one reason. The other, of course, the spiritual side is that the enemy wants to blind the minds of people with ideas, with theories, with philosophies. And so they will keep coming up with these things that will blind the minds of people, distract from the truths. Okay, let's take a break now. We'll come back in 10 minutes and get into our next chapter. We're going to change focus a little bit as we move forward. Thanks.