Creation vs Evolution
Introduction
Imagine you’re taking a long walk alone in the woods–you’re really out in the boonies. You’ve been walking for several hours and there’s no civilization for miles. There’s no path to speak of, so the going is slow and methodical.
Suddenly, something catches your eye. Something bright and shiny is several yards in front of you on the ground. Each time you move your head to get a better look at it you’re blinded by light. It must be reflecting the sun.
You veer off to see what it is. Whatever it is, it sure doesn’t belong out here in the middle of nowhere. When you reach the spot, you bend over and brush some leaves aside to reveal a beautiful Rolex watch. You can’t believe your luck as you admire the jewels on its face. It looks brand new.
After the initial joy of what you’ve found, you get even more excited thinking about showing people back home. You can’t wait to tell them about how you stumbled across a Rolex watch in the middle of the woods, a watch that must have evolved over millions–maybe billions–of years. A watch that almost certainly began as a one-celled organism and somehow, someway–by pure chance–evolved into this beautiful and intricate timepiece. A Rolex.
Absurd? Of course. But is this conclusion that much different than the conclusion that human beings evolved–by chance–from a prehistoric fish in the bottom of a pond?
Are humans–and all of creation, for that matter–the result of a divine act of an eternal, supernatural being, or some kind of cosmic accident? Is mankind a creature of dignity, created for a purpose, or, as one writer put it, a “cosmic insignificance?”
How about you? Are you a creationist? That is, do you believe that God created everything? Or are you an evolutionist? That is, do you believe that there’s no God and thus no creator and that simple, one-celled organisms evolved into more complex life forms over millions of years?
While some people argue that there are other theories about the origin of life, generally speaking there are just these two: creation and evolution.
Here’s what D.J. Futuyma, an evolutionist, says:
“Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the Earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.”
Dr. Henry Morris, from the Institute for Creation Research, agrees.
“Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic systems of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far as origins are concerned.”
Both writers are right. Together, the two theories encompass all potential options about the origin of life. Within these two options, however, are a variety of beliefs.
There are some people–many Christians, in fact–who believe in both creationism and evolution. That is, they believe in theistic evolution which says that God put the universe into motion and then stepped back and allowed natural processes to take effect.
Likewise, there are two kinds of creationism–Biblical and scientific. Scientific creationism ignores Christianity and Biblical teaching.
As you probably know, the traditional Christian belief, largely based on the Genesis account of creation, is that God created the universe. This view, however, is hardly dominant anymore. Many Christians are now theistic evolutionists.
While the Bible needs to be our guide in all things, I believe it’s critical for us to temporarily put it aside and examine the evidence.
While some of you might be uncomfortable with that, especially those who believe in Biblical creation–I believe it can be extremely valuable. We need to understand opposing viewpoints and we need to understand–and be able to defend–what we believe. Too many of us can’t defend our points of view and we end up being steamrolled by the opinions of others.
What do we believe and why do we believe it.? That’s our goal. What do we believe about the origin of life and why do we believe it? Can we defend our point of view?
Forgetting the Bible for a few minutes, which theory is the most logical and rationale? Which theory is supported better by the facts?
In order to write this article, I forced myself to look at both theories as objectively as I could, side-by-side, ignoring anything the Bible has to say. It was one of the best things I have ever done. I understand both sides better than ever before. It’s my prayer that your eyes will be opened to the truth, just as mine were.
I agree with Dr. Morris when he said:
“…if we can demonstrate to be false (falsify) either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option.”
For those of you who may be getting a little nervous, don’t worry, we’ll eventually get to the Bible: Genesis to be exact. But fair warning, we won’t get to any Scripture in this article. That’ll be for articles that follow. Before we’re through, we will know all about the origin of the universe, the origin of Earth, and the origin of mankind.
We’ll attempt to answer questions such as “Where did we come from?” and “How did it all start?”
In this article, however, we’ll spend all of our time talking about evolution and creationism and determining which makes the most sense, and which is the most logical and compelling theory based on the evidence. And once again, as a reminder, we’re going to temporarily put the Bible aside.
Let’s begin.
Neither View Is Truly Science
In its broadest definition, science is the study of the wonders of the universe. In order to conduct science, human beings (i.e. scientists) observe the universe, gather information, make hypotheses or guesses, and then test their hypotheses with experiments to see if their theories are correct.
This definition of science can be found in any text book.
If that’s true, then evolution and creationism cannot be science. Neither can be proven scientifically. No one was there when the universe originated. The origin of life cannot be recreated in a science lab or a test tube. In fact, the origin of life is REALLY a matter of history, not science. What is past and unobservable cannot be considered science in its purest sense.
This initial point cannot be overemphasized. Scientists, on either side, cannot claim to know what happened and when. It’s impossible. Neither side can scientifically prove how life came about. None of us was there to observe the origin of the universe and we cannot recreate how it was in the beginning.
So all we’re left with are theories or guesses on what happened.
Both theories, however, are scientific in the sense that they attempt to explain data related to the origin of life. While we will continue to refer to evolution and creation as theories in this message, a better label might be explanatory scientific models.
When I was a child in public school I was only taught about evolution. The law prevented me from being exposed to creationism. At least back then my teachers and textbooks used the “T” word: “THEORY” of evolution.”
Unfortunately, that’s not the case for today’s children and their textbooks. Evolution is stated as fact, not a theory. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and read a story that advocates evolutionary viewpoints as if the theory were really a fact.
Evolution taught as fact is all around us. During a recent exhibit at the Chicago Field Museum, visitors could browse exhibits with signs that said such things as “You are the product of countless mutations…All life stems from one common ancestor, a single cell living in a warm sea.”
Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, it’s irresponsible to present it as fact. It’s wrong to present EITHER viewpoint as fact. NEITHER can be proven, and certainly not proven scientifically.
Duane T. Gish, from the Institute for Creation Research, says this:
“Since neither is a scientific theory and each seeks to explain the same scientific data related to origins, it is not only incorrect but arrogant and self-serving for evolutionists to declare that evolution is science while creation is mere religion. Creation is in every sense as scientific as evolution.”
Neither View Is More “Religious” Than The Other
That’s the next point that must be made early on. Creationism is mistakenly referred to as “religion.” In truth, creationism is no more religious than evolution.
To begin with, no theory on the origin of life can be without philosophical and religious implications. Creationism, for instance, implies a creator. There is no question that this can lead to a theistic outlook on life, since something or someone made the universe.
By the way, the kind of creation science that many advocates of that view want to implement in our country’s public school system is NOT Biblical creationism. Like this initial message, they avoid teaching about Christianity and the Bible. They deliberately do not teach about “religion.” Advocates of what is referred to as creation science only want to present what they believe is a reasonable theory on the origin of the universe. They want to present creationism in a philosophical and neutral manner.
In its purest form, evolution is non-theistic and has enormous philosophical and religious implications as well. While not all evolutionists are atheists, generally speaking the view advocates natural laws and processes and rejects the existence of a creator.
In fact, while creationism is the basis for only three religions, Henry Morris points out that evolution is the underlying premise of at least 13 religions or philosophies (Atheism, Humanism, Animism, Shintoism, Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, New Age Mysticism, Ancient Pagan Religions, Non-Orthodox Islam, Non-Orthodox Judaism and Non-Biblical Christianity).
The idea of evolution being just as religious as creationism has even been admitted by evolutionist L. Harrison Matthews. He wrote this:
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory–is it then a science or faith?”
Like creationism, evolutionism has a profound affect on how its believers view the world.
Listen to what evolutionist R. Lewontin says:
“Yet, whatever our understanding of the social struggle that gives rise to creationism, whatever the desire to reconcile science and religion may be, there is no escape from the fundamental contradiction between evolution and creationism. They are irreconcilable world views.”
Lewontin is right. Creationism and evolution are BOTH world views which BOTH have enormous philosophical and religious implications. Neither is more “religious” than the other.
Duane Gish adds this:
“(L.C.) Birch and (P.R.) Ehrlich have used the term ‘evolutionary dogma,’ (D.E.) Green has referred to Darwinism as a ‘religion of science,’ an ‘orthodoxy preached by its adherents with religious fervor,’ and (Theodosius) Dobzhansky and Teilhard de Chardin proclaim that all theories, hypotheses, and systems must bow before evolution in order to be thinkable and true. One could easily search the evolutionary literature to find many other examples that reveal the religious nature of the evolutionary world view. It can thus be stated unequivocally that evolution is as religious as creation, and conversely, that creation is as scientific as evolution.”
Remember, let’s remind ourselves that we are NOT talking about Biblical creationism at this point. That’s important for us to remember as we examine both theories. We’re NOT discussing Christianity or the Bible right now. We’re examining two different theories on how to interpret what can be observed in nature.
Scientists Make Mistakes
One final point that we need to make before examining both views in-depth is that scientists are human and make mistakes. Even non-Christians are painfully aware of that.
All humans, including scientists, do not always objectively seek truth, wherever it might lead. Each of us holds biases toward particular viewpoints. So, there are scientists in both camps that do not always practice good science.
To sum up these three initial points, then:
Both views are theories and cannot be proven scientifically.
Neither theory is more religious or more scientific than the other.
Scientists, like all of us, make mistakes.
High-level Overview Comparing Evolution And Creation
Now let’s begin our actual comparison and start with a high level overview of both theories and how they differ.
1. Creationists believe that there is a self-existing, eternal creator. Evolutionists believe in a self-originating or self-existing universe.
2. The theory of evolution teaches that the universe was organized by itself. Meanwhile, creationists believe that the universe was created by divine fiat.
3. Evolutionists believe that the basic systems of the universe have been developed and are still developing by natural processes. In contrast, advocates of creationism say that the basic systems were completed in the past by supernatural processes.
4. Creationists believe that the universe is actually “winding down”–that is, it’s slowly deteriorating. On the other hand, evolutionists say that the universe is evolving upward and becoming more organized and improving all of the time.
A Brief History Of The Two Views
While creationism–especially Biblical creationism–was the popular view in the Western World for many years, it’s probably safe to say that’s not the case anymore.
Even though evolution had already been established as a theory in some scientific circles, Charles Darwin stepped to the forefront in 1859 when he published his book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. By the end of the nineteenth century, the book was regarded by many as the greatest intellectual discovery of the century. One writer even referred to Darwin as the “father of evolutionary theory.”
Darwin believed in uniformitarianism, the belief that all things continue by natural processes as they always have done and that there’s no room for any supernatural intervention.
He said this: “…probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on the Earth have descended from some primordial form, into which life was first breathed.” He also termed the phrase “survival of the fittest,” which hypothesized that animals somehow changed from one species to another and that only the fittest species survived. He also first coined the phrase “natural selection.”
While many of his ideas were certainly not new to the scientific community, his book led a revolution of sorts against scientific creationism. Many scientists–especially those who were openly atheistic–hailed Darwin’s ideas as ground-breaking.
From that time forward, the theory of evolution has grown immensely popular in the Western world, particularly in the United States. As we mentioned earlier, many Christians combine the two theories into what’s referred to as theistic evolution.
For the purpose of this article, however, we’re going to compare atheistic or non-theistic evolution with non-Biblical creationism, also commonly called scientific creationism.
Again, we are deliberately steering clear of Christianity and the Bible so we can objectively see which view fits the evidence better.
In-Depth Comparison And Details Of Evolution And Creation
This is where the rubber meets the road. Which is more logical, rationale and believable? Evolution or creation?
Spontaneous generation
Creationists say that someone or something that is eternal created the universe. In contrast, a common evolutionary belief is that of spontaneous generation–the belief that living things can arise from non living things.
Spontaneous generation was a popular concept during the period of Enlightenment, the early days of the scientific revolution. Some scientists during that time believed that the sudden appearance of tadpoles in a mud puddle or bacteria on bread proved spontaneous generation. In other words, self-creation.
In the middle of the 1600s, however, Italian scientist Francesco Redi performed the first experiments disproving spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur of France followed Redi’s findings with those of his own in the nineteenth century. Pasteur, through well-documented experiments, also disproved spontaneous generation as a scientific possibility.
Despite repeated attempts by scientists to reproduce chemical evolution, none have ever been successful.
Thus, the law of biogenesis–the law that states that life can only come from life–was widely accepted in the scientific community.
Modern evolutionists have rejected this law of science, however, and have renamed spontaneous generation abiogenesis, which means the opposite of biogenesis. Regardless of what it’s called, it still means something creating itself from nothing or self-creation.
Dr. John D. Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, says this:
“Spontaneous generation has long ago been disproved, but evolutionists say it happened at least once.”
In keeping with what seem like ever-changing terms, evolutionists also speak of the origin of life in terms of “creation by chance.” Again, no matter what it’s called, it still carries the idea of self-creation.
And what’s wrong with the idea of self-creation?
Common sense, logic and the law of causality tells us that if something exists now, something or someone must have caused it. If there was ever a beginning of creation, time, space and matter–there has to be something or someone that is eternal and self-existent. There must be a being that transcends everything and everyone.
Without an all-powerful being to begin the ongoing chain of cause and effects, nothing could ever come into existence. Imagine a row a dominoes on end. When one domino falls against another that causes a chain reaction. This analogy would be a good one for the theory of evolution. But where did that first domino come from? And who or what pushed the first one into the second one and so on? Someone or something had to have started the whole thing.
The logic is compelling: nothing can come from nothing. If something doesn’t exist, it can’t create itself, much less something else. An absolute law of science and logic is ex nihilo nihil fit, (out of nothing, nothing comes). Nothing produces nothing. It doesn’t exist. It doesn’t grow, work or breathe. And it certainly can’t create. And why? Because it’s nothing.
Close your eyes for a minute and try and imagine nothing. Absolutely nothing. Now ask yourself a question. If there ever was nothing, how can there possibly be anything now without someone or something that is eternal and transcendent to bring it into existence.
But what about the argument that matter itself is eternal?
While much could be said to refute this argument, the most compelling argument is that matter is not a being and doesn’t have the power to create. It’s irrational to believe that matter–in other words, part of or all of the universe–is eternal. Matter doesn’t have creative powers. It doesn’t make sense to believe that it has existed at all times and then, breaking even more laws of science and logic, began creating things different than itself.
Only life can create life and we are always left with the reality that something, somewhere had to have created and begun life and the universe.
Chance
What about the argument that everything in the universe came about by chance?
First of all, chance is not a being or a thing or energy of any kind. Chance is simply a mathematical possibility, nothing more.
The Webster Dictionary defines chance as “something that happens as the result of unknown or unconsidered forces.”
In other words, chance tells us about the possibilities in light of a multitude of variables.
When we flip a coin we say that there’s a fifty-fifty chance that it will be heads. But chance doesn’t influence what happens at all. How high do I flip the coin? Will it hit anything on the way up or down? Will I catch it in my hand or allow it to drop on the ground? THOSE things determine whether the coin is heads or tails. Chance has nothing to do with it. Chance is a mathematical possibility, nothing more. It has no power whatsoever.
To say that the universe came about because of chance is essentially the same argument to that as self-creation or that it was created by nothing.
R.C. Sproul says this:
“…the option of self-creation is intellectual suicide. It may be a popular idea socially but it cannot withstand even a rudimentary intellectual critique.”
He goes on to say this:
“What are the chances that the universe was created by the power of chance? Not a chance.”
While even creationists cannot explain the presence of something or someone who is eternal, something or someone who created all things, one thing is clear: their theory of a creator makes much more sense than the alternatives: self-creation, matter that is eternal, or chance. The latter three concepts are illogical and contradict well-established laws of science.
The Big Bang Theory
But what about The Big Bang Theory?
First of all, we have to essentially ignore the logical arguments that we’ve just made. Believers in The Big Bang Theory say that the universe as we know it–all matter and energy–was concentrated in a very small spot.
Never mind how this small spot, this unknown object, came about, but here it was. After sitting there for an unknown period of time, for some reason, all of a sudden, the object exploded. The explosion eventually resulted in the stars, galaxies and planets as we know them today.
Without getting too technical, the main evidence to support The Big Bang Theory is what’s referred to as the “red shift” of light coming from stars as we view them from Earth. In other words, the light that is observed from some galaxies by astronomers appears to be shifted to the red side of the spectrum. This is thought to be due to the Doppler effect on light.
Here’s what Paul S. Taylor says about the Doppler effect and the “red shift” of light in his book, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book:
“If an object is moving away from the viewer, the light is stretched out and therefore appears to be slightly more red. Conversely, an object moving toward the viewer is compressed and appears slightly more blue.”
So when some scientists observe that “red shift,” they believe that means that galaxies–again, not all galaxies–are rushing outward from some central point. In other words, these scientists say that the galaxies are moving away from a central point due to an explosion that originated at the particular point.
Taylor points out several difficulties with the so-called “red shift” evidence, however. Here is one of many.
“Various galaxies have been discovered which are in pairs and separated by relatively little distance. Some are even connected by a luminous matter. In some cases, one of the two galaxies in the pair has a radically different “red shift” from the other. Does this mean there is an extreme speed difference between the two galaxies? This seems absurd, since these galaxies are either touching or extremely close together. Could it be that the observed color difference has nothing to do with the Doppler effect?”
For those of us who aren’t scientists, there is probably a more obvious problem with The Big Bang Theory, and that has to do with explosions.
Logically, an explosion in space would distribute matter generally evenly in all directions. This is not to say that it would be perfectly distributed, but, for the most part, we would expect a relatively balanced explosion in all directions. Yet, we know that our universe is not at all uniform. In fact, scientists have found vast spaces of emptiness, as well as very concentrated and dense areas of matter.
Another problem with The Big Bang Theory is that explosions typically cause chaos and disorder, not organization and order. Explosions DESTROY things, not form things. It’s hard to imagine a volcano spewing lava and then, after it’s all through, we find a city at the base of the mountain, complete with skyscrapers and roadways. Explosions destroy and create disorder, they don’t become more organized and create order.
While The Big Bang Theory is an interesting idea, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of fitting well with all of the facts. By the way, even if The Big Bang Theory is true, many creation scientists believe that it would not contradict their beliefs.
Design
What about the question of design?
Creation scientists believe that design speaks of a designer or creator. The human body, particularly the brain, are some of the most amazing and complex matter in the universe. Meanwhile, the Earth is highly organized and the only planet known to be suitable for life.
Even the atheist philosopher Immanuel Kant expressed awe of the obvious presence of design in nature.
Dr. John D. Morris says this:
“We can look at living organisms and see that they are incredibly complex, with well-designed, interdependent parts, each aspect far beyond our own human ability to understand fully, let alone duplicate. Each living thing is governed and energized by the information-loaded DNA molecule, consisting of myriads of genes and proteins, sub components of exquisite precision, each doing its job and each depending on the other to do its job. Evolutionists say it all happened in a step-by-step sequence by a totally random process. Creationists say it was designed.”
There are approximately 11 million species of life on Earth, including humans. Did that just happen by chance, or did someone or something make it happen?
If the Earth were either 10 percent larger or 10 percent smaller, then life would not be possible. Did that just happen by chance, or did someone or something make it happen?
The earth’s atmosphere, availability of water and ozone layer is uniquely geared to supporting human life–no other place in the universe is capable of sustaining life. Did that just happen by chance, or did someone or something make it happen?
The average human brain weighs just over three pounds but can outperform what 500 tons of electrical and electronic equipment can do. Did that just happen by chance, or did someone or something make it happen?
In speaking about the human eye, even Charles Darwin said this: “To suppose that the eye, with so many parts all working together…could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Sir Fred Hoyle, an astronomer, said that the chances of a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a 747 is about the same as life coming from chaos. Mathematicians have found that the chances of one cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power, and that anything over 10 to the 15th power can never happen, in any amount of time.
In other words, the complexity of life lends itself much more to the creationist viewpoint than that of the evolutionist.
First Law of Thermodynamics
What about the differences of opinion on whether the universe is getting better and more organized or the universe is deteriorating and winding down?
To answer that question, we need to look at the First Law of Thermodynamics, the branch of physics that deals with heat energy. This law, also called the law of conservation of matter and energy, states that matter and energy are interchangeable and can’t be created or destroyed.
If that’s so, since matter cannot be created or destroyed, we logically conclude that creation is complete and is also being conserved. While this law supports the creationist viewpoint–everything that exists was created at the same time in the past–it contradicts the evolutionary belief that the universe is still evolving, still improving, and still creating new species.
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics also contradicts evolutionary teaching.
That law states that the total amount of energy in the universe remains unchanged, but that some energy is always becoming unavailable for useful work.
This law also states that for every action there is a loss of usable energy.
Simply put, the universe is deteriorating and running down.
Wherever we look we can see this law in action. For instance, it’s a well known fact that the sun is slowly burning out. Humans get old and eventually die. A house built many years ago slowly deteriorates. Over time, things break down and get worse. Left alone, chemical compounds eventually break apart into simpler materials–they don’t become more complex.
This law of science puts it in direct conflict with the theory of evolution, which says that all things IMPROVE or become BETTER or more ordered over time. Everyday observations reveal that objects tend to go from an orderly state to a disorderly state when natural processes are allowed to act.
Whereas evolutionists argue that there is an upward trend in the universe, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and observation of the world around us shows just the opposite: there’s a downward trend in the universe.
At this point the evolutionist will argue that seeds grow into plants and babies grow into adults. That’s true, but that is what they were designed to do. Normal growth is NOT the same as evolution. Evolution occurs when a chihuahua mates with a great dane and their offspring are cats, not when a puppy grows up into what it’s supposed to be: an adult dog.
Paul Taylor says this about the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
A number of scientists believe the second law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of evolution. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of creationism.”
Laws of mathematics
But what about the evolutionary teaching that the universe came into being millions or billions of years ago? Is that mathematically possible?
According to the book Science: Order & Reality, mathematicians have calculated how long it would take a monkey to type, on its own, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.”
According to those mathematicians, using the laws of probability, a BILLION monkeys would have to pound on their typewriters for 120, followed by 60 zeroes, years before one of them could do it. I don’t know if there’s even a name for a number that high. By the way, one billion only has 10 zeroes in it.
These and other mathematical calculations show that it is highly unlikely that the universe has evolved to its current state over even one billion of years.
Geology
What about geology? Doesn’t geology, the study of the structure of the Earth, prove the evolutionary viewpoint? Let’s see.
Paleontologists–those who study plants and animals through fossils–believe that the history of the world is recorded in the rocks that make up the earth’s crust. Evolutionists believe that fossils of organisms which first evolved are found in the lowest strata–or layer–of rock. So those rocks are believed to be the oldest. On the other hand, the youngest rocks, those in the upper strata of the earth’s crust, are said to contain organisms of things that have evolved more recently.
So, by starting at the bottom of this geological column and working our way to the top, we can supposedly “see” evolution.
From here, geologists and paleontologists theorize that there are geologic eras which illustrate the history of the Earth. Three examples are the Cambrian, Mesozoic and Paleozoic.
But is geologic dating accurate?
Whenever an evolutionary geologist has to assign an age to a particular rock layer, he or she looks to see what fossils the rocks contain. If the scientist believes that those organisms have evolved recently, the geologist assumes that the rock layers are young. On the other hand, if a fossil is believed to have evolved millions of years ago, the strata is assumed to be an ancient one.
Nowhere in this dating process is the actual structure and chemical nature of the rocks themselves taken into consideration.
On the other hand, evolutionary paleontologists determine the dates of fossils by checking to see what ages geologists have assigned to rock layers. That determines whether the fossil is dated old or young.
Incredibly, both geologists and paleontologists are blind to this poor reasoning. It’s circular and not scientific at all. The geologist dates rocks and strata by what fossils he finds in them. Meanwhile, the paleontologist dates fossils by what age of rock strata they are found.
This circular reasoning is hardly the most valid way in which to date either rocks or fossils.
In terms of the geologic column, not a single complete column showing all geologic ages can be found. Not even one. In order to see all of the geologic layers we have to travel to numerous places around the world.
If the geologic ages really took place, it seems very, very odd that the complete column cannot be found anywhere.
As Dr. John Morris points out, there are many inconsistencies in the so-called geologic columns. Here is just one example:
“As it turns out, 95% of all fossils are shallow marine invertebrates, mostly shellfish. For instance, clams are found in the bottom layer, the top layer, and every layer in between. There are many different varieties of clams, but clams are in every layer and are still alive today. There’s no evolution, just clams!”
In other words, why are clams found in all geologic layers? Aren’t species supposed to change? That’s what the evolutionist believes, so how can that possibly be?
Furthermore, so-called older strata with so-called older fossils have been found on top of what are commonly believed to be younger strata with younger fossils. Evolutionists can’t explain how this can be, especially since there’s no evidence for any kind of disturbance of the layers.
Creation scientists have no problem at all explaining the abundance of fossils and why so-called “older” fossils and so-called “newer” fossils are often found in positions that are not consistent with evolutionary beliefs. A world-wide cataclysmic episode, most probably a flood, would easily account for what is found geologically.
Afterall, in order for a dead animal or plant to become a fossil, it must become buried almost immediately–otherwise it would decay or be eaten.
An event such as a flood would have quickly buried both plants and animals. Evidence for a worldwide flood, which is advocated by many creationists, is also bolstered by the fact that fossils of land-dwelling and sea creatures have been found buried together. In Australia, for instance, fossils for a possum, a toothed whale and a shark were all found at the same site!
And that’s not all. In a cave in Maryland, fossils of different mammals, reptiles and birds were all found. If that isn’t interesting enough, the fossils represent animals from tropical, moderate and polar regions, all together in one site. Additional evidence for a cataclysmic event such as a flood are fossils that are found standing on end and in other positions that strongly imply sudden fossilization.
How can all this be? No one really knows, but the creationist’s belief about a cataclysmic worldwide event such as a flood provides a very reasonable explanation. The remains of all kinds of animals could have been easily transported and deposited all over the Earth, depending upon where the currents took them.
In other places, water could have caused instant entombment of plants and animals, even in upright positions.
The idea of a worldwide catastrophe posts serious problems for evolutionists. That’s because many believe in uniformitarianism which, in simple terms, means that all natural processes are the same as they have always been, that there has never been any worldwide cataclysmic event such as a flood.
Geologic evidence that appears to support creationism more than evolution is bolstered even more by the fact that no transitional forms have ever been found.
If the theory of evolution is true, we should find a least ONE fossil of the many, many transitional forms that would be necessary for a fish to evolve into an amphibian, an amphibian into a reptile, a reptile into a bird and a mammal, and a mammal into a man.
No “missing link” has ever been found, however. Not a single one. In truth, there are numerous missing links that have never been found.
Gary Parker, a creation scientist who used to believe in evolution, says this:
“In textbooks you get the impression that evolutionists have found all sorts of things–missing links. They used to know that they had the missing link. First it was Piltdown man. Well, that was a fake that fooled the experts. Then, they knew it was Nebraska man at the Scopes trial. Well, that was the tooth of a single pig. So evolutionists have constantly had to change their stories.”
R.C. Sproul adds this:
“…the doctrine of macroevolution is one of the most unsubstantiated myths that I’ve ever seen perpetuated in an academic environment.”
Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould, however, claim to have evidence of evolution in action. Yet his so-called “proof” is of MICROevolution or mutations, not MACROevolution or transmutations. Creation scientists agree that microevolution have taken place. Of course there’s been mutations and of course there’s been adaptations of species. That’s not the same as macroevolution or transmutations, however, where one species changes or evolves into a new species.
While there are lots of what are referred to as horizontal variations within each created “kind,” there’s no evidence–either from present time or fossil records of the past–of any vertical variations or transitions from one type of animal to a new, more complex kind.
Dr. Henry Morris says this:
“No fossil has ever been found with half scales/half feathers, half legs/half wings, half-developed heart, half-developed eye, or any other such indicator.”
Did you hear what he said? NO fossil has ever been found that shows evolution. Not a single one!
Even Charles Darwin lamented the fact that no fossil representing evolution had been found during his lifetime. He did say, however, that he thought that was because not enough fossils had been found at the time. He predicted that, in time, lots of transitional fossils showing evolution of species would be found.
Well, here it is 100 years and hundreds of fossils later, and still no evidence for evolution.
As we’ve seen, contrary to popular belief, geology does not prove the theory of evolution. Far from it. In fact, much of geology actually seems to support the creation theory much more.
Josh McDowell, in his book Josh McDowell Answers Five Tough Questions, says this:
“We conclude our survey of evolution and creation by stating that there is no direct evidence of the macroevolution proposed by scientists who presuppose a naturalistic and mechanistic world. On the contrary, many pieces of evidence pointed to by evolutionists can be used by creationists to support the creation model.”
Sir Fred Hoyle says this:
“…the scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Carbon-14 Dating
Advocates of evolution at this point will say “Hold on!” and point out the importance of carbon-14 dating. But is that a reliable way in which to determine when plants and animals lived?
First, a layman’s explanation on the method. Carbon comes in many forms, including one less-common form called carbon-14 or C14 for short. Because it falls apart or disintegrates easily, carbon-14 is radioactive. As soon as a plant or animal dies, the amount of C14 in the remains gets smaller and smaller. Because we know how quickly carbon-14 decays, in theory we can measure how long it has been since the plant or animal died.
Unfortunately, the method is far from perfect. In fact many scientists are skeptical as to its accuracy.
Listen to what Gary Parker says about carbon-14 dating:
“I signed up for a graduate course in geophysics to learn firsthand about radioactive decay dating methods and found out there were lots and lots of problems with the method.
“Our last assignment was to go over all of the assumptions you have to make before you can convert a radioactive measurement into a guesstimate of age. About midway through this list of 14 assumptions, the professor just interrupted himself and said, ‘If a Bible-believing Christian ever got hold of all this stuff, he’d make havoc out of the dating system.’ So he chuckled one more time and said, ‘Keep the faith. Keep the faith.’ …Here, the strongest case for evolution, these millions of years, just evaporated.”
Here are some examples of dating that have embarrassed evolutionists over the years, as documented in The Answers Book by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling and Carl Wieland:
Coal from Russia, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years.
Natural gas from Alabama and Mississippi should have been 50 to 135 million years old, yet C14 gave dates of 30,000 to 34,000 years, respectively.
Bones of a sabre-toothed tiger from the LaBrea tar pits, supposedly 100,000 to one million years old, gave a date of 28,000 years.
A freshly killed seal dated by C14 showed it had died 1,300 years ago. (FRESHLY KILLED!)
Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old (LIVING!).
Living snails shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago. (LIVING!)
For those of you who think all of these examples are dreamed up by creation scientists, listen to what R.E. Lee said in the highly respected Anthropological Journal of Canada:
“The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious…It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.”
Suffice to say that carbon-14 dating has some serious flaws and should NOT–on its own, anyway–be considered a reliable method in which to estimate the age of dead plants and animals. While some creationists believe that it has some merit, it must be monitored very carefully and based on accurate assumptions.
C O N C L U S I O N
As we wrap up this article, let’s review what we have learned in our comparison between evolution and creationism.
1. Neither theory is technically science.
2. Neither theory can be proven.
3. Neither theory is more “religious” than the other.
4. Scientists, like all of us, make mistakes.
5. Something cannot come from something–there must be a cause in order to have an effect.
6. Since nothing can come from nothing, there must be something or someone that is eternal and superior to everything else.
7. Chance refers to mathematical probability–it has no power to create.
8. The Big Bang Theory, while an interesting hypothesis, has many unanswered questions.
9. The complexity and intricate design of the universe strongly suggests a creator or designer, not millions or billions of years of random evolution.
10. The First Law of Thermodynamics, which says that creation is complete, supports the creation viewpoint and contradicts the theory of evolution.
11. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that the universe is deteriorating instead of getting better, also contradicts evolution while supporting creationist beliefs.
12. Mathematically, it is highly unlikely that the universe evolved over billions of years.
13. Contrary to popular belief, geology actually supports creationism, NOT evolution.
14. Carbon-14 dating is frequently flawed and should not be the sole determination of age.
Creation science should be taught in the public schools
Based on what we’ve talked about in this article, I think it’s reasonable that creation science be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Duane Gish says this:
“Academic and religious freedoms are guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and public schools are supported by the taxes derived from all citizens. Therefore, in the public schools in the United States, the scientific evidences which support creation should be taught along with the scientific evidences which support evolution in a philosophically neutral manner devoid of references to any religious literature.”
Notice that Gish said that no religious literature–no Bibles or anything remotely Christian–should be a part of teaching creationism in public schools. While Christians would naturally prefer that Biblical creationism be taught, at least our children would be exposed to both theories and be able to make their minds up for themselves.
R.D. Alexander, author of the book Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy, says this:
“No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be able to teach students to think…Creation and evolution in some respects imply backgrounds about as different as one can imagine. In the sense that creation is an alternative to evolution for any specific question, a case against creation is a case for evolution, and vice versa.”
Gish and Alexander are right. If science is the pursuit of truth as observed by nature, why not present both views? Isn’t that more fair than how it is today? Aren’t we all seeking truth?
Your conclusion?
What about you? After what you’ve read, which theory do you think is true? Apart from the Bible, which theory do you think best fits the available evidence?
Remember what Henry Morris said? We quoted him at the beginning of this message. He said:
“…if we can demonstrate to be false (falsify) either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option.”
If you’ve been a believer in evolution, after hearing this objective comparison maybe you feel like Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History. He said this:
“One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff (evolution) for more than twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. It’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long.”
Don’t be misled. Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.”