Sid: There are innuendos in college and in high school, calculated plans to talk people out of their faith and it’s called the theory of evolution and every Bible believer knows that it’s not true because as a Bible believer we believe in creationism. But isn’t it good to get scientific answers to these objections rather than saying “Well I just believe it.” I mean haven’t you wrestled with people saying how old the earth is and how old the Bible says it is, and how there’s a conflict right there, and people have come up with various theories? Well on yesterday’s broadcast I was interviewing Dr. Carl Baugh who is founder and director of Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas, and he just blew those arguments out of the water. Carl today I have to ask you this question, there’s so much about cloning and DNA and we’re getting so close to creating human life, what would your response be?
Carl: Alll…right now that’s a very interesting topic. You probably don’t know, perhaps you do we’ll talk about it later that I’m the scientific research director of the world’s first hypobaric biosphere dealing with the living systems in a context like we had originally from a Jewish, Hebrew-Jewish, Christian, Judeo context Genesis and Exodus. We’re actually simulating those conditions and examining living systems and what would occur there. There is a lot of popular talk about creating life in a test tube, but when you get to the individuals involved in the projects they admit readily that they are not creating life at all. What they’re taking is existing life form and using what’s termed genetic recumbenance of recombining portions, strands of DNA from one living system with the strands of DNA from another system and since it’s already living to begin with it is sometimes temporarily a viable entity lives for a period of time, bizarre life forms but they’re not creating life. The law of biogenesis states very clearly that only life begets life. Now we can toy with life, we think we can improve life but we really can’t. Every living system has a genetic potential within a certain realm and while that genetic potential can be shuffled on the surface, and we call that microevolution. No problem with microevolution that’s variation within genetic boundary, but it’s macroevolution where the theory is that somehow mutational change environmental adaptation natural selection can give you an increased amount of information to lead to a life form. That really isn’t true, you can only get living systems out of living systems. So the cloning which is really a duplicate copy, again begins with a living system, but then they will introduce new genes into a living system and call it a new life form. Well it’s really a combination of 2 life forms and normally it has a very limited viability.
Sid: Let me change the subject just for a second, there are people that say they are Bible believers and they’re scientists and they there are certain aspects of the theory of evolution. They are scientific and they’re not going to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater they’re going to keep it. Are there aspects of the theory of evolution that are scientific?
Carl: There are aspects if we are talking microevolution. That is change within genetic information, that’s microevolution, but it’s the theory that over periods of time mutational change, or various small catastrophes, alter the genes so that you get another life form that is a higher organism, that is totally unscientific. Many good Bible believing professional Christians have been led to believe that the earth is old so that there have been changes of one species, or one kind. In the Hebrew you would call that, or we would call that the beremum, the kinds, one kind leading to another, but that has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. Plus in the book I talk about life origins and the fact that those life origins have never been demonstrated to have occurred naturally in fact can’t. Like on page 16 I quote Professor Leslie Orgell stating:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.
And he’s right and good Bible believing Christians often do not know the facts. You see one field trust another life. The geologist at the university… you go to the geologist and you say “Show me evolution.” He’d say “Well I can’t show it to you go to the biologist we trust him he has the information.” You go to the biologist and say “I need information proving evolution.” He says “Well I can’t give it to you go to the paleontologist he’ll give it to you.” You go to the paleontologist and he says “Well we interpret the fossils but we really can’t prove evolution you’re going to have to go the geologist.” So it’s circuitous route…
Sid: It’s called “Passing the buck” (laughing).
Carl: Passing the buck is exactly right (laughing).
Sid: Dr. Baugh but what about, I mean these are questions that I have pondered. I believe the Bible but I’ve pondered these things but what about from time to time you open up the newspaper and you hear about the missing link. Is there any truth to these things? I mean these are real scientists that are involved in studying these missing links the apes that go back to the humans.
Carl: I have an entire chapter dealing with progression of life forms in the book dealing with that very subject. Anthropologist, physical anthropologist, or paleoanthropologist, those who deal with the distant ancient past history of mankind as they determine like to bring up the various missing links, but amazingly every single specimen disproves the original theory so that we finally come to the conclusion… and in the book I verify this by leading professors. We finally come to the conclusion that on one hand we have 8 sometimes bizarre lower primates, on the other hand we have homosapien man, or Homo habilis, or homo erectus, we have those interpreted in form or another, but when the final data come in you only have two chance. Sometimes you’ll have a human skull that’s slightly bizarre because of various conditions and inbreeding which can produce Neanderthal types in a matter of just 3 generations. Did you know that Sid?
Sid: No, never.
Carl: You can get Neanderthal types, we have that documented in the literature, in just 3 generations. So we isolate a culture of people and have inbreeding or limited genetic viability then you get bizarre characteristics. Sometimes you’ll find in a fossil or a grave burial site various individuals that look a little bizarre but they are not apes. Now let’s get to the technical data to prove that an ape can never become a man. One of the scholars I quote in the book, Dr. Barney Maddox, a geneticist, shows that the difference between the lower primates, or chimpanzees, or apes we would say in general, the genetic difference between an ape and a man is only 1.6%. Now at first that appears to be very alarming. Here you have an ape 98.4% genetically identical or similar to a human being. So wouldn’t it be very easy to bridge that gap? Not at all! First of all that 98.4% of genetic information has to do with the fact that he has a spinal column, has appendages, we have a spinal column we have appendages. He has a skull, he has a braincase, he has a brain, he has eyes and nose and mouth, he has hair, he has legs, actually an ape really has 4 arms in a very specific sense. But all of those are 4 appendages and all of that requires genetic information so that is 98.4% identical to us because we have arms, we have legs, we have hands, we have feet, an ape has 4 hands actually but we call those again 4 appendages. We have a skull, we have a braincase, we have a cerebrum all these things together comprise genetic information, but it’s the 1.6% difference that is extremely important. At first glance it would appear that bridging that 1.6% gap would be easy but it is absolutely impossible. I mention Dr. Barney Maddox a specialist in genetics and he showed that 1.6% difference represents 48 million nucleotide differences. Any accumulation of 3 these in succession, or adjacent to each other, totally destroys the host organism. So Sid what we find in actual scientific research is, it is impossible to bridge the gap from ape to man. Each is species specific and genetic specific. In fact I quote in the book on page 76 “An admission by Scientific American that the study of human origins,” that’s where we’re talking about a fossil man “seems to be a field in which every discovery raises debate to a more sophisticated level of uncertainty.” And in the book on page 77, I think we may want to discuss those at a later date. We talk about each of these Piltdown man, Nebraska man which turned out to be an extinct pig, Australopithecus…
Sid: How come we don’t hear… we hear they found this missing link and all the publicity but we never find out that it turned out to be a pig?
Carl: Because of the liberal position to secularism. We have a generation that has liberal press and academia which turns deliberately from any reference to design and creation and assumes evolution to be the case.