Creation TruthCreation ProcessCreation LawsCreation DaysGenesis FloodEvolution

Contact Us





Creation…Evolution…Science…The Bible - What Should We Believe?


People are confused. They are taught one thing in school and another thing in church. If they begin to grasp the truth about creation (that God is the Creator) they are ridiculed.

-   Those who take Genesis literally and believe in a young earth are usually put in the same category as those who believe in a flat earth. The argument usually goes, “Only fundamentalist, religious extremists accept that creation nonsense. Sure there are problems with evolution, but don’t worry, as scientific knowledge increases they will all be resolved.”

-   These arguments can be unsettling for genuinely searching people.


But will the problems with evolution ever be solved?

-   Evolutionary theory has been subjected to significant changes over time. Changes continue even today.

-   The battle over evolution has been fought between theologians and scientists, but now the battle is being fought between scientists.

-   Special creation still remains the only alternative, which answers all of the problems with origins - provided one is prepared to believe in God.



-   Are we accepting what we are taught in school textbooks, the media, and museums on these subjects, without investigating the underlying beliefs upon which the conclusions are built?


-   Are we undermining our faith at the same time, by questioning God’s account of creation?


Few people understand how evolution relates to:

1.      The Bible

2.      Their Worldview

3.      Reality


By starting with the Bible we can gain a correct understanding of these issues, thereby strengthening our faith.





The resources on these topics are large. Pick a subject, come up with an idea to explain it, and there are “scientific” studies to support it.


With all of the different origin theories and the different interpretations of the evidence can be truly confusing for someone searching for answers.


Debate is not just between Christians and evolutionists, there is debate among scientists, and unfortunately there is debate among Christians as well.


-   Our job as Christians is not to force feed our beliefs but to clearly and humbly explain them.

1PE 3:15 …always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

1 Peter 3:15 (NASB)


-   It is not our responsibility to convince people of the truth; we can only make the truth known and leave the convincing (or convicting) to God.


First of all we need to realize that the debate over origins is not a discussion of science vs. religion, but one of worldview.


Worldview is defined as a way of looking at the total world based on what you believe and the way you understand what the world is all about.


All worldviews must address these areas:

1.      The origin of the universe

2.      The origin of life

3.      The origin of man

4.      What is mans purpose?

5.      What happens when we die?


-   Naturalistic/Materialistic/Evolutionist Worldview – Everything came about through time, chance and natural processes now operating in the world. There is no purpose. There is therefore ultimately no right or wrong.


-   Biblical Worldview – God created all things. Everywhere we see plan, purpose, and intelligent design.


Both worldviews are based on presuppositions and both use scientific evidence to support their conclusions.

-   What is interesting is that the same evidence is used.





Why is the Belief in Evolution so Strong?

-   “Evolution is fact,” is what the media and the education system teach, while biblical truth is criticized as a myth.

-   The 2004 National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) position paper states the following (19):

-    “Policy makers and administrators should not mandate policies requiring the teaching of ‘creation science’ or related concepts, such as so-called ‘intelligent design,’ [or] ‘arguments against evolution.’”

-    Response: Why shouldn’t arguments against evolution be presented?


-    “Explanations that are not consistent with empirical evidence or cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science. As a result, explanations of natural phenomena that are not based on evidence but on myths…are not scientific.”

-    Response: If this statement is true than evolution is not a part of science because there is no evidence and it cannot be tested.


-   “There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place.”

-   Response: This is a false statement. There is very little agreement.


-   “Few other ideas [evolution] in science have had such far-reaching impact on our thinking about ourselves and how we relate to the world.”

-   Response: In “thinking about ourselves,” if evolution is true than we have no purpose and “how we relate to the world” means why not abandon all morals?


-   “Science by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge.”

-   Response: There is a presupposition here that God does not exist. What about when Antony Flew quoted Plato, “Follow the evidence wherever it leads.”


-   A recent Plain Dealer article discusses the Ohio State School Board vote in March 2004 approving a lesson plan entitled, “Critical Analysis of Evolution.” In the article a school board member makes the following statement (9):

-   Ohio teachers will teach good science despite scientists’ fears that a state school board vote earlier this year has opened the door to the study of creationism.”

-   Response: Why can’t evidence against evolution be discussed?


-   What worldview is demonstrated here?…Naturalism

-   What are they presupposing?…There is no God.

-   How then MUST the evidence be interpreted?…Evolution is true, we came from nothing.





The New Religion


There can be no argument about how science has improved our lives in just about every area:

-    Health, Transportation, Energy, Exploration and Communication to name a few.

-    But where are people now putting their trust and faith?…IN SCIENCE!


Man thinks science will cure disease, close the hole in the ozone layer, and that science will even bring world peace.

-    Stanford Magazine article, “Peace through science on the Israel-Jordan Border.” (20)

-    Optics and Photonics News article, “Peace through science.” (21)

-    The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) even has a program called, The NATO Programme for Security Through Science. (22)


Jesus says…

MT 6:24 “ No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other…

Matthew 6:24 (NASB)


God says…

EX 20:3 “ You shall have no other gods before Me.

Exodus 20:3 (NASB)


The Psalmist says…

PS 40:4 How blessed is the man who has made the LORD his trust, And has not turned to the proud, nor to those who lapse into falsehood.

PS 118:8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD Than to trust in man.

Psalm 40:4, 118:8 (NASB)


Jeremiah says…

JER 17:7 “ Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD And whose trust is the LORD.

Jeremiah 17:7 (NASB)


Where has modern man put his trust, his faith and his hope?…IN SCIENCE

-   But the foundation of origins is based on something completely un-testable, completely un-observable, completely un-provable…Chance.


We are told that Chance resulted in the origin of the universe, the origin of life and ultimately all of us.

-   All matter in the universe spontaneously erupted into existence at the exact moment.

o How?…Chance

-   Time didn’t exist before matter and when matter spontaneously erupted into existence time began.

o How?…Chance


-   Over time, the matter formed stars, planets, solar systems, galaxies…the entire universe, as incomprehensible as it is.

o How?…Chance

-   Over time, matter formed a series of chemical reactions, that could absorb and use energy from the environment and self-replicate.

o How?…Chance

-   Over time, this self-replicating matter was able to adapt to its surroundings, develop a mechanism of heritage (DNA) and evolve into what we call “life.”

o How?…Chance.

-   Over time the components that comprise a cell came into being.

o How?…Chance.

-   Over time, from this first cell, all life on earth emerged.

o How?…Chance

-   And finally Man emerged, you, me, the entire human race.

o  How?…Chance.


-   David Hume (philosopher from Edinburgh, Scotland, 1711-1776) makes the following statement about chance in his work, “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”:

-   “Though there be no such thing as Chance in the world; our ignorance of the real cause of any event has the same influence on the understanding, and begets a like species of belief or opinion.” (23)

-   Translation: Chance is only our ignorance of real causes.


-    We can apply David Hume’s statement to scientists of today…if chance is the cause then scientists are really ignorant of the real cause…GOD!!


-    Thomas Aquinas (12th century monk from near Naples, Italy, 1225 – 1274) makes the following statement about whether God exists in his work, Summa Theologica”:

-    “In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (nor indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself, because in that case it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” (24)

-    Translation: Not only is it possible that God exists, but it is logically necessary that He exist for anything to exist at all.


HEB 2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.

Hebrews 2:10 (NASB)


REV 4:11 “ Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”

Revelation 4:11 (NASB)


GE 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 (NASB)









But where is modern man putting his faith?…In a new religion called, “science” and the God of this new religion is called “chance.”

-   Much like the prophets and priests of Baal trying to call fire down from heaven in 1 Kings 18:19-40 they are calling to their God of “chance” to provide some evidence that he is responsible for everything we see.

-   The priests and prophets of this new religion are scientists who say that all there is in the universe is matter and that everything can be explained in naturalistic terms.

-   Just like Elijah, we should question, “is he listening,” “you are not speaking loud enough.”


Remember, if someone is starting from a worldview that there is no God, how can the evidence be looked at any other way? It doesn’t matter what the evidence says, it has to be made to conform to a naturalistic explanation.


As inconceivable as this seems, naturalistic theories about origins and evolution demand that everything is the result of Chance-Time-Matter.


The question we need to ask is, “If this is true then where is the evidence?”

-   Again, the answer goes back to which worldview is best supported by the scientific evidence.



Charles Darwin


Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in Shrewsbury, England. He was born on the same day as Abraham Lincoln. His father, Robert Darwin, was a physician. Charles’s mother, Susannah Wedgwood Darwin, died when he was eight years old.


At age sixteen, Darwin left Shrewsbury to study medicine at Edinburgh University. Uninterested in medicine, he eventually went to Cambridge University to prepare to become a clergyman in the Church of England. After receiving his degree, Darwin accepted an invitation to serve as an unpaid naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle, which departed on a five-year scientific expedition to the Pacific coast of South America on December 31, 1831.


Darwin’s research resulting from this voyage formed the basis of his famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, published in 1859. Here Darwin outlined his theory of evolution, challenging the contemporary beliefs about the creation of life on earth.


Darwin died on April 19, 1882, and lies buried in Westminster Abbey.

The Definition of Evolution


The word evolution can mean different things:


1.      Macroevolution is what scientists are referring to when they talk about evolution.

-   This is the general theory of evolution; this is Darwin’s theory. The view that nonliving substance gave rise to the first living material, which subsequently reproduced and diversified to produce all extinct and living organisms.

-   When people discuss evolution you can be certain they are referring to macroevolution.

-   Like all theories they change over time. The current Darwinian theory is still foundationally similar to Darwin’s original position, but with refinements and modifications due to over a hundred years of research.

-   In modern Darwinian evolutionary theory, the history of the development of life began when a mix of chemicals present on the earth spontaneously produced a very simple, one-celled life form.

-   This living cell reproduced itself, and eventually there were some mutations in the new cells produced. These mutations led to the development of more complex life forms.

-   A hostile environment meant that many of them would perish, but those that were better suited to their environment would survive and multiply. Nature exercised a process of “natural selection” in which the organisms most fitted to the environment survived.

-   More and more mutations eventually developed into more and more varieties of living things, so that from the very simplest organism all the complex life forms on earth eventually developed through this process of mutation and natural selection.


2.      Microevolution refers to small developments within one species, so that we see bacteria become immune to antibiotics, different breeds of dogs, and different colors and varieties of roses being developed.

-   Innumerable examples of micro­evolution are evident today, and no one denies that they exist.

-   Unfortunately they are frequently claimed as evidence for macroevolution and are really just temporary population differences with no genetic change.

-   For example, Phillip Johnson in his book “Darwin on Trial” (18) discusses Kettlewell's observation of “industrial melanism” in the peppered moth, where the prevailing color of the moths changed from white to black and back to white again when leaves on trees were light colored, then covered with soot from pollution, then again light colored when the pollution ended.

-   Moths that did not match the leaf color were more easily seen and eaten by predators.

-   However, no evolutionary change occurred at all, for both black and white moths were still industrial moths, just as black and white horses are both still horses. In fact, the moth functioned to preserve its genetic identity in differing circumstances, rather than evolving or becoming extinct.


-   Microevolution is not the sense in which the word evolution is usually used when discussing theories of creation and evolution. However, microevolution examples are always used by evolutionists to prove macroevolution theories.


Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

The concept of evolution by natural selection in Darwin’s own words are as follows:

“As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form.”


Scientists perceive that Darwin’s theory contains the following six major premises:

1.      Species tend to overproduce.

“The potential rate of propagation in species is high. A female salmon can lay up to 28 million eggs in one season.” (6)

-   Response: This is not always true. Many species produce limited offspring.


2.      A struggle for existence.

“Because few species show a tendency to actually increase in numbers, there must be some sort of struggle through which many progeny are eliminated.” (6)

-   Response: This is not always true either.


3.      Variation among individuals of the same species.

“Anyone who has ever raised dogs, horses, rabbits, cats, or any kind of flowering plant, or has observed mankind, already is familiar with the truth of this statement.” (6)

-   Response: This is nothing more than selection of alleles, or a loss of genetic material. This variation is not the result of new genetic material.


4.      Survival of the fittest.

“It stands to reason that in the struggle for survival, those organisms that have a favorable adaptation of some sort would have the advantage and thus would be more likely to survive. This term is equivalent to the term natural selection.” (6)

-   Response: There is an inference here that “new” genetic material must be present from which to select from, that species develop favorable adaptations outside of their already existing genetic makeup.

-   This is simply not true. What is being referred to is “macroevolution,” but with “micro-evolution” examples being used as proof.

-   However, this statement is true for the selection, or loss, of existing genetic material.

-   A host of evolutionists and scientists question the efficacy of selection and mutation as a mechanism for generating macroevolution changes. For example…


-   Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould makes the following statement about this issue: “Macroevolution (major structural transition) is nothing more than microevolution (flies in bottles) extended. If black moths can displace white ones in a century, then reptiles can become birds in few million years by the smooth and sequential summation of countless changes. Change of gene frequencies in local populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes – or so the current orthodoxy states. Many evolutionists view strict continuity between micro- and macroevolution as an essential ingredient of Darwinism and a necessary corollary of natural selection. [However,] The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. I do not see how most major evolutionary transitions can be accomplished at all…Yet transitions between major groups must have occurred in the history of life.” (25)

-   Evolutionists Muller and Newman state the following, “…following Darwin himself, that the sources of new form and structure must precede the action of natural selection, that selection must act on what already exists. Darwinism lacks any ‘theory of the generative.’” (37)

-   Gilbert states, “Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.” (37)


5.      Variations are hereditary.

“Studies of inheritance demonstrate the soundness of this premise, for most individual differences are found to be hereditary.” (6)

-   Response: Yes this is true, individual differences are heredity because genes are passed on from parents to offspring, or are eliminated altogether.

-   An example would be a baby born with an extra toe. However, when that baby grows up and produces offspring, the offspring do not have extra toes. Likewise, a cat with extra ears does not pass on extra ears to its offspring.

-   In the case of hereditary disease, that also is passed on.

-   These are examples of devolution.

-   Are there any examples of new beneficial traits?…No.










6.      Through accumulation of favorable hereditary characteristics new species eventually develop.

“Because no one has ever witnessed the origin of a new species in nature, this part of the theory is conjecture. However, the evidence from living and fossil forms of life impels almost every biologist to accept this conclusion.” (6, pg. 8)

-   Question 1: Where does the fossil record support this premise?

-   This is a statement from the college textbook Biology, “The fossil record was quite fragmentary in Darwin’s time, and he was troubled by the dearth of transitional fossils linking modern life to ancestral forms. The record of past life is incomplete even today…we will evaluate a hypothesis that purports to explain why transitional fossils are not more common…(referring to Punctuated Equilibrium)” (10, pg 435)

-   A National Geographic article, “Feathers For T. Rex? New Birdlike Fossils are Missing Links in Dinosaur Evolution,” makes the following statement about a fossil found in China known as Archaeoraptor, “It’s a missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly.” (26)

-   Four months later National Geographic had to recant this statement. It turned out that the Archaeoraptor was really a composite of a bird body and an animal tail. The following statement was made by National Geographic, “Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.” (27)

-   There is also the Archaeopteryx, which is considered a missing link between dinosaurs and birds. As it turns out the Archeopteryx is really just a bird. (28)

-   Conclusion: There are no missing links. The fossil record does not support new species development. What few “missing links” scientists claim exist are questionable.


-   Question 2: Where do living forms support this premise?

-   This is a statement from the college textbook Biology, “Common descent is evident in anatomical similarities between species…” (10, pg 435) “homologous structures defined as Structures in different species that are similar because of common ancestry.” (10, pg G-12)

-   This is an example of circular logic, ”They are similar therefore they have a common ancestor.” “They have a common ancestor therefore they are similar.”




A.   It All Really Starts with the Big Bang


Before we can discuss the origin of life we should look at the origin of the universe.

-   In the textbook, The Cosmos, the following statement is made about the origin of the universe, “First there is nothing – not time, not space, note even emptiness, since there is no space to be empty. Then, from this void, this utter nothingness so complete that no word can make it imaginable, springs…a universe, suddenly there, but far smaller than the smallest dust mote. Particles that can exist only in the extreme conditions of this era flicker spontaneously into existence. Then about a billion years after the moment of cosmic birth, the darkness is broken. Swarms of stars begin to ignite in the hearts of slowly wheeling hydrogen clouds. These are galaxies in the making, the prototypes of star systems that will ultimately spangle the heavens we see today. This scenario is the modern successor to the creation myths of antiquity.”  (7, pg. 12-13)

-   I want to focus on the last statement, creation myths


What is Mythology?


Reading from Collier’s Encyclopedia, “Mythology is a body of traditional tales of a particular people, especially those associated with religious beliefs. A myth is an attempt to explain something – a natural phenomenon…[i.e.] why does the sun cross the sky?” (11, pg 114)

-   At the time, the people would not have considered their beliefs to be a myth.

-   In the future, if Christ does not come first, will scientists look back and wonder at the mythology of the 20th century, that everything happened by chance?


Cosmological Difficulties:


-   The Faint Sun Paradox

-   The National Science Education Standards states the following, “As an example of this long-term stability, students find that the geologic record suggests that the global temperature has fluctuated within a relatively narrow range, one that has been narrow enough to enable life to survive and evolve for over three billion years.” (29, pg. 188)

-   The University of Arizona Astronomy Department states this, “The Sun is about 4.5 billion years old. Since the formation of the solar system the Sun’s output has increased by about 40%.” (30)

-   How can the temperature on the earth have been stable for 3.5 billion years while at the same time the Sun have an output of 40% less than today? Which one is wrong?



-   Conservation of Angular Momentum

-   Cornell University Astronomy Department states, “Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates counter-clockwise. Uranus was likely hit by a very large planetoid early in its history. Venus rotates backwards compared to the other planets, also likely due to an early asteroid hit which disturbed its original rotation.” (31)

-   Uranus and Venus are spinning the wrong way according to the Law of Angular Momentum and theories about how the solar system formed.

-   What about galaxies spinning the wrong way in relation to the Big Bang theory?


-   Slowing of Earth’s Spin (Adding Leap Seconds)

-   According to NASA, “The interaction of the Moon and the tides is pumping angular momentum out of Earth’s spin and into the Moon’s orbit.” (38)

-   The United States Navel Observatory states, “Since the first leap second in 1972, all leap seconds have been positive and there were 22 leap seconds in the 27 years to January, 1999. This pattern reflects the general slowing trend of the Earth due to tidal braking.” (33)

-   How much faster would the earth have been spinning if it were 3.5 billion years old? How would a faster spinning earth affect life on earth?


-   Moon Recession

-   According to NASA measurements the Moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. (32)

-   At a recession of 3.8 cm/yr the moon would have been in contact with the surface of the earth just 1.4 billion years ago.

-   This of course has significant impact on old earth theories as well as steady state theories (effects on tidal actions, spin and orbit). A closer moon also would have flooded the earth twice a day just millions of years ago.


B.   Challenges to Evolution


Since Charles Darwin first published his Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, there have been challenges to his theory by Christians and non­-Christians alike.


The most recent critiques of current Darwinian theory demonstrate that:


1.     Genetic Variation

After more than one hundred years of experimental breeding of various kinds of animals and plants, the amount of variation that can be produced (even with intentional, not random, breeding) is extremely limited, due to the limited range of genetic variation in each type of living thing.

-   Dogs who are selectively bred for generations are still dogs, fruit flies are still fruit flies, etc. And when allowed to return to the wild state, the offspring of the most highly specialized breeds quickly revert back to the original wild type.

-   Natural selection, claimed by Darwinists to account for the survival of new organisms, is really a conservative force that works to preserve the genetic fitness of a population, not to change its characteristics.


2.     Natural Selection

“Survival of the fittest” is thought to mean that those animals whose different characteristics give them an advantage will survive, while others will die out. Again, the inference here is that there is “new” genetic material, which is not true.

-   In actual practice almost any characteristic can be argued to be either an advantage or a disadvantage.

-   Darwinists have even accounted for obvious disadvantageous characteristics by invoking pleiotropy, which is the idea that several genetic changes may occur all at once, so that the negative ones come along with the positive ones.

-   On this basis no existing characteristic in any animal could be cited to disprove the claim that the fittest survive, for it really becomes a claim that those that have survived, have survived, so it must be true.



-   How then do we really know that the survival of the fittest has been the mechanism that has led to current diversity of life forms?

-   How do scientists know which characteristics have given an advantage in survival to certain animals?

-   The answer provided by evolutionists is, “By observing which ones have survived.”

-   Response: This is another example of circular logic…”A species characteristics are the result of natural selection due to survival of the fittest.”      ßà“Natural section due to survival of the fittest results in a species characteristics.”

-   Of course neither the fossil evidence, nor current living organisms, supports this.





3.     Form Dictates Function

The mutations required to produce complex organs such as an eye, a bird’s wing, a liver, kidney, or hundreds of other organs (not to mention body systems like the circulatory, or nervous system) could not have occurred in tiny mutations accumulating over thousands of generations, because the individ­ual parts of the organ are useless, and give no advantage, unless the entire organ is functioning.

-   Darwinists are left saying that it must have happened because it happened. (18)

-   An example of the need for all of the parts of a complex organ system to be put in place at once is pointed out by Kofahl and Segraves in their book, The Creation Explanation. (13)

-   They describe the “Bombardier Beetle,” which repels enemies by firing a hot charge of chemicals from two swivel tubes in its tail. The chemicals fired by this beetle will spontaneously explode when mixed together in a laboratory, but the beetle has an inhibitor substance that blocks the explosive reaction until the beetle squirts some of the liquid into its “combustion chambers,” where an enzyme is added to catalyze the reaction. An explosion takes place and the chemical repellent is fired at a temperature of 212°F at the beetle’s enemies.

-   Kofahl and Segraves ask the question whether any evolutionary explanation can account for this amazing mechanism: Note that a rational evolutionary explanation for the development of this creature must assign some kind of adaptive advantage to each of the millions of hypothetical intermediate stages in the construction process. But would the stages of one-fourth, one-half, or two-thirds completion, for example, have conferred any advantage?…No.

-   Before this defensive mechanism could afford any protection to the beetle, all of its parts, together with the proper explosive mixture of chemicals, plus the instinctive behavior required for its use, would have to be assembled in the insect. The partially developed set of organs would be useless. Therefore, according to the principles of evolutionary theory, there would be no selective pressure to cause the system to evolve from a partially completed stage toward the final completed system.


4.     The Fossil Record

The fossil record was Darwin’s greatest problem in 1859, and it is an even greater problem today. In Darwin’s time, hundreds of fossils were available showing the existence of many distinct kinds of animals and plants in the distant past. But Darwin was unable to find any fossils from “intermediate types” to fill in the gaps between distinct kinds of animals showing some characteristics of one animal and a few characteristics of the next developmental type.

-   In fact, many fossils exactly resembled present-day animals showing that (according to the chronological assumptions of his view) numerous animals have persisted for “millions of years” essentially unchanged.


Darwin realized that the absence of “transitional types” in the fossil record weakened his theory, but he thought it was due to the fact that not enough fossils had been discovered, and was confident that further discoveries would unearth many transitional types of animals.

-   However, the last 140 years of intensive paleontology research have still failed to produce one convincing example of a transitional type. The few fossils that are claimed to be transitional are questionable.

-   Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard says that there are two characteristics of the fossil record that are inconsistent with the idea of gradual change through generations:

a.       Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

b.      Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

-   An article on fossils in Science magazine states, ”The level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (36).


So difficult is this problem for the Theory of Evolution that many scientists today propose that evolution came about in sudden jumps so that new life forms appeared quite suddenly. This view is called “punctuated equilibrium,” meaning that the ordinary equilibrium of the natural world was occasionally interrupted (punctuated) by the sudden appearance of new life forms.

-   This is the position of the National Science Teachers Association, “Recent evidence suggests, however, that gradualism is not totally supported by new fossil finds. It seems that fossil gaps are actually not flaws in the fossil record but a true picture of how species have originated. ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ has been proposed as an explanation that supports the fossil rock record as an accurate account of evolutionary events. Fossil records indicate many species ‘maintain equilibrium’ or remain unchanged and then ‘suddenly’ new changes happen. These new forms come from preexisting ones and remain intact with little change for periods of long geological time until the next episode, or punctuation, takes place. To best understand these changes, they need to be tied to genetics and how such rapid changes might occur.” (35)

-   Interesting that the lack of evidence is now “the evidence” for how evolution happened.


But how could thousands or millions of genetic changes come about all at once?

-   No explanation has been given other than to say that it must have happened, because it happened.

-   Since Darwin’s time, neither of the two fundamental premises of Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory have been validated by one single discovery or scientific advance:

1.      The idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell.

2.      The belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process.


-   Basically, we have an evolutionary tree with all of the branches, but none of the nodes.

-   In addition, we have no “living” examples of transitional animals. Where are all of the fibians (fish – amphibians), amphibetiles (amphibian – reptiles), or repmals (reptile – mammals)? All we have are complete animal phyla, no transitions, either living or fossils.


5.     Homologous Design

The structures of living organisms do show relationships, but Darwinists simply assume that relationships imply common ancestry, a claim that has not been proven.

-   Moreover, there are amazing molecular differences between living things, and no satisfactory explanation for the origin of those differences has been given.

-   Of course, similarity of design at any level (including levels above the molecular level) have often been used as an argument for evolution.

-   The assumption by evolutionists is that similarity of design between two species implies that the “lower” species evolved into the “higher” species, but the proof for that assumption has never been given.


-   Recapitulation (Haeckel’s Embryos)

-   Generations of students have been misled by a set of drawings of embryos published over 120 years ago by German biologist Ernst Haeckel. (34)

-   They show vertebrate embryos of different animals passing through identical stages of development.

-   It turns out that not only do the different animals NOT pass through identical stages of development; they don’t even look alike as Haeckel suggests. Haeckel intentionally added or omitted features and didn’t account for size difference.


-   Similarities in design among all living things can equally well be taken as evidence of the work of an intelligent designer, God Himself.






6.     Origin of Life

Probably the greatest difficulty of all for evolutionary theory is explaining how any life could have begun in the first place.

-   The spontaneous generation of even the simplest living organism capable of independent life (the prokaryote bacterial cell) from inorganic materials on the earth could not happen by random mixing of chemicals: it requires intelligent design and craftsmanship so complex that no advanced scientific laboratory in the world has been able to do it.

-   To quote a now-famous metaphor from Fred Hoyle, "That a living organism emerged by chance from a pre-biotic soup is about as likely as that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

-   Chance assembly is just a naturalistic way of saying “miracle.”

-   In fact, one could argue that the 747 is more likely to occur accidentally, because intelligent human designers have been able to make a 747, but they have not been able to make a living cell.

-   Remember Hume and Aquinas?

-   Hume…”Chance is only our ignorance of real causes.” (23)

-   Aquinas…”Not only is it possible that God exists, but it is logically necessary that He exists for anything to exist at all.” (24)


Some attempts have been made to calculate the probability of life arising spontaneously. Robert Kofahl and Kelly Segraves in their book, The Creation Explanation, give a statistical model (13):

-   They begin with the assumption that every square foot of the earth’s surface is somehow covered with 95 pounds of protein molecules that can mix freely, and are all replaced with fresh protein every year for one billion years.

-   They then estimate the probability that one enzyme molecule would develop in one billion years of the earth’s history.

-   The probability is one chance in 80 billion.

-   However, could life start with just a single enzyme molecule? What is the possibility that an active enzyme molecule, once formed, could find its way through thousands of miles and millions of years to that randomly formed RNA or DNA molecule which contains the code for that particular enzyme molecule’s amino acid sequence, so that new copies of itself could be produced?

-   Zero for all practical purposes. Kofahl and Segraves report a study by an evolutionary scientist who formulates a model to calculate the probability for the formation, not just of one enzyme molecule but the smallest likely living organism by random processes. He comes up with a probability of one chance in 10340,000,000 -that is, one chance in 10 with 340 million zeros after it!

-   But Kofahl and Segraves note, “Yet Dr. Morowitz and his fellow evolutionary scientists still believe that it happened.”


-   It is tragic that the common opinion, perpetuated in many science textbooks today, that evolution is an established “fact,” has continued to persuade many people that they should not consider the total truthfulness of the Bible to be an intellectually acceptable viewpoint for responsible, thinking individuals to hold today. The myth that “evolution has disproved the Bible” persists and keeps many from considering Christianity as a valid option.

-   The problem with statically looking at origins is that it does leave “a chance.” The point is to show that the probability that it could it even happen is incomprehensibly larger than the age of the universe and is therefore zero.

-   The assumptions themselves are impossible, therefore the probability is zero. Again, the idea is attempting to show a zero probability.


But what if some day life were actually “created” in the laboratory by scientists?

1.      First of all this would not be “creation” in the pure sense of the word, since all laboratory experiments begin with some kinds of previously existing matter. It would not give an explanation of the origin of matter itself.

2.      Second, most contemporary attempts to “create life” are really just very small steps in the gigantic process of moving from nonliving materials to an independently living organism, even one consisting of only one cell. The construction of a protein molecule or an amino acid nowhere approaches the complexity of a single living cell.

3.      Third, but most important, what would it demonstrate if the collective work of thousands of the most intelligent scientists in the world, with the most expensive and complex laboratory equipment available, working over the course of centuries, actually did produce a living organism?

-   Would that “prove,” that God did not create life? Quite the opposite: it would demonstrate that life simply does not come about by chance but must be intentionally created by an intelligent designer.


Many Scientists understanding the objections against evolution have proposed other theories:

-   Francis Crick; who won the Nobel Prize for helping to discover the structure of DNA molecules, proposed in 1973 that life may have been sent here by a spaceship from a distant planet, a theory that Crick calls “Directed Panspermia.” (14)

-   It seems ironic that brilliant scientists could advocate so fantastic a theory without one shred of evidence in its favor, all the while rejecting the straightforward explanation given by the one book in the history of the world that has never been proven wrong, that has changed the lives of millions of people, that has been believed completely by many of the most intelligent scholars of every generation, and that has been a greater force for good than any other book in the history of the world.


To quote Wayne Grudem author of Systematic Theology, “Why do people commit themselves to beliefs that seem so irrational? It seems as though they will believe in anything, so long as it is not belief in the personal God of Scripture, who calls us to forsake our pride, humble ourselves before him, ask his forgiveness for failure to obey his moral standards, and submit ourselves to his moral commands for the rest of our lives.” (4)





Now lets remove God as the Creator, as the Supreme Judge, as the One who defines the purpose of life and look at…


The Destructive Influence of Evolutionary Theory

It is important to understand the incredibly destructive influences that evolutionary theory has had on modern thinking.

-   If in fact we are not created by God or responsible to him, but are simply the result of chance, then of what significance is human life?

-   Again, if we are merely the product of matter-time-chance, to think that we have eternal importance, or any importance at all, is to fool ourselves.

-   If you stop and honestly reflect on this it would lead you to a sense of deep despair. It comes as no surprise that the world is filled with millions of people with no hope.


If all of life can be explained by evolution, and if God did not create us, then there is no Supreme Judge to hold us morally accountable.

-   Therefore, there are no moral absolutes in human life, and people’s moral ideas are all subjective, good for them, but not to be imposed on others.

-   In fact this leads to the only certain thing…that nothing is forbidden, nothing is right, or wrong.


There is another consequence of evolutionary theory:

-   If the inevitable processes of natural selection continues to bring about improvement in life forms on earth through the survival of the fittest, then why should we hinder this process by caring for those who are weak or less able to defend themselves?


-   Should we not rather allow them to die without reproducing so that we might move toward a new, higher form of humanity, even a “master race”?


In fact, Marx, Nietzsche, and Hitler all justified “ethnic cleansing” on these grounds.



Challenges to the theory of evolution will continue. One only hopes it will not be too long before the scientific community publicly acknowledges the implausibility of evolutionary theory, and textbooks written for high school and college students openly acknowledge that evolution simply is not a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life on the earth.





One Thing as Christians we can be certain of is:


In the words of Francis Schaeffer….

“…we can approach both scientific and biblical study with the confidence that when all the facts are correctly understood, and when we have understood Scripture rightly, our findings will never be in conflict with each other: there will be ‘no final conflict.’ This is because God, who speaks in Scripture, knows all facts, and he has not spoken in a way that would contradict any true fact in the universe.” (5)





1.      It Matters What We Believe by Mike Riddle, 2003

2.      It All begins with Genesis by Sheila Richardson, 2002

3.      The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible by James Strong (1822-1894), 1996

4.      Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Dr. Wayne Grudem, 1994

5.      No Final Conflict by Francis Schaeffer,

6.      Evolution: Concepts and Consequences by Lawrence S. Dillon, 1973

7.      The Cosmos by Time-Life Books, 1988

8.      Search for the Truth by Bruce A. Malone, 2003

9.      The Plain Dealer article Creationism issue stirs discussion at Case by Angela D. Chatman, 10/17/04

10.  Biology by Neil A. Campbell, 1990

11.  Collier’s Encyclopedia, Volume 17, 1997

12.  Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, 1925

13.  The Creation Explanation by Robert Kofahl and Kelly Seagraves, 1975 OR as an online book at

14.  Time article Science (Were We Planted Here?), September 10, 1973

15.  Young Students Learning Library, Volume 8, 1992

16.  Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe, 1998

17.  The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, 2004

18.  Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson, 1991

19.  National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Position Paper, online at

20.  Stanford Magazine, online at

21.  Optics & Photonics News article Peace Through Science, August 2004

22.  The NATO Programme for Security Through Science online at

23.  An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume (1711 – 1776)

24.  The Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274)

25.  Natural History article The Return of Hopeful Monsters by Stephen Jay Gould, June/July 1977

26.  National Geographic article Feathers for T. Rex?, November 1999

27.  National Geographic letter to editor on November 1999 article Feathers for T. Rex?, March 2000

28.  Science article The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaur Halted?, October 24, 1997

29.  National Science Education Standards by the National Academy of Sciences, 1996

30.  The Sun (University of Arizona) online at

31.  Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer (Cornell University) online at

32.  Moon Fact Sheet (NASA) online at

33.  Leap Seconds (U.S. Naval Observatory) online at

34.  Science article Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered, September 5, 1997

35.  National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) Fossil Formation, online at

36.  Science article The Earliest Hominins – Is Less More?, March 5, 2004.

37.  Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington article The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories by Stephen C. Meyer, August 4th, 2004

38.  Ask an Astronomer (NASA) online at