Why bother feeding your children?
According to some of the most common arguments put up by evolutionists (attacking scientists who claim that there is a great deal of evidence to support creation) not feeding your children should be a smart thing to do.
What do we mean? Well, creationist scientists often point to the fact that evolution (from nothing to nature) contradicts the well-attested observation that you can’t get something from nothing. There are even laws of science (the Laws of Thermodynamics) which relate to this. Order tends to disorder, complex things break down and tend to become simple — not the other way around.
Aha, say some evolutionists, look at the green plant. The earth is open to the sun’s energy, and this energy makes the plant grow and get more and more complicated. So, they say, all it takes is energy pouring in and you can get an increase in order and complexity.
But a little thought shows how misleading that is.
If the sun’s energy is all it takes to get growth, why not save on grocery bills and let your children grow by placing them in the sun? The fact is that it takes a highly complicated programmed mechanism inside the plant to harness the energy and get a predetermined outcome. Children do have programmed machinery in them, but not the specific type needed to grow from sunlight, like plants have.
However, in the imagined evolutionary belief, there were no such machines and programs on the ‘primitive earth’. Every observation we can make confirms the fact that simple things, without programmed machinery, will become simpler — energy only hastens that process.
Looking for New Laws
A few years ago, NASA scientists obtained a multi-million dollar grant to try to find the laws that would enable simple chemicals to become the complex chemicals of life.
This means that their scientific search began with a faith that such a change has happened — yet science is supposed to be based on observation.
Those who reject the supernatural Creator God revealed in the Bible must search for new (as yet undiscovered) laws, because the ones we know argue so clearly against spontaneous generation of complexity. They therefore point to an intelligent beginning for all the programmed machinery of life.