Creation vs. Evolution
0. Introduction and table of contents
The following is an organized presentation on the creation vs. evolution controversy. This is the fourth revision of a set of essays which I had originally submitted in note 840 of the now-archived Christian_V5 conference, with first revisions submitted in note 24 of the Christian_V6 conference and note 35 of the Biology conference, and second and third revisions submitted in note 25 and 640 of the now-archived Christian_V7 conference as of this writing, respectively. (These are employee-interest forums at my place of employment.)
It is my hope that this will provide a logical and coherent framework for defending the fact of special creation and the abrupt appearance of life on earth against the popular dogma of evolution.
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” (1 Pet 3:15)
Table of contents:
0. This introduction and table of contents
1. An abstract of the presentations to follow
2. A defense of Creation
3. “Chance” is not a cause
4. Life from non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis?
5. Random genetic mutations
6. Natural Selection
7. Genetics and Micro-evolution
8. What about Taxonomy?
9. Transitional forms
10. The fossil record of life forms
12. Stratified layers of rock containing fossils
13. Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism
14. Radioisotope dating methods
15. Dating methods that suggest a young earth
16. The “Ape-men”
19. Some objections to the design/chance arguments
20. Extra-terrestrial intelligence
21. Resource list
22. Primary source references
As a preface to this document, I want to point out that it is a shame that we have to continue to refute the same arguments that evolutionists keep bringing up over and over again in their attempts to argue against the fact of creation, which fact has been well established since the day the earth was created ex nihilo several thousand years ago. Nevertheless, the neo-Darwinian dogma of the spontaneous auto-organization of random chemicals into complex biopolymers, by chance forming complex self-replicating automatic machines that then evolve into more and more complex self-replicating automatic machines through genetic transcriptional errors and the injection of random noise, filtered into highly coded information and structures by predators, the climate, and other mindless agents working together to produce an ecosystem capable of sustaining and improving all these countless life forms for billions of years has managed to permeate, over the last 150 years, the thinking in major scientific circles, the media, and secular education, even penetrating some professing Christian institutions.
It is also a shame that the masses have bought all this based on some circular reasoning about fossils, where fossils tend to be found buried, similarities between various life forms, the presence of certain decay products in rocks, and other inherently speculative arguments about the past, based on phenomena that exist in the present.
If I hope to accomplish anything, it will be to simply encourage critical thinking. One must get past the arguments ad populum (that its popularity counts for something), ad hominem (that if you attack the person making the argument, this counts for something), and especially ad baculum (that there are people who have the clout to decree it as true), to ask the key questions and challenge the unsubstantiated assumptions and thinking of those who would hold to the evolution position. Today there are an increasing number of anti-creationist authors who are producing books and periodicals that make this relatively brief presentation insufficient to deal with all the points in dispute. Those defending creation today who don’t have the time to devote their life’s study to gaining expertise in all fields of inquiry must principally be prepared to think critically, logically, and challenge unsubstantiated assumptions made by these people. They must also keep a level head in the face of some vicious attacks and diatribes that will be directed against them, as is advised in the scriptures (1 Peter 3:15-16).
By way of definitions, I want to point out that when I speak of “evolution,” I am referring to the popular contemporary use of the word, which in a nutshell is the belief that all life forms are related by ancestry, and that the first life form occurred spontaneously, all due to completely natural processes.
When I speak of “creation,” I am referring to the inherently obvious fact that the origin of all life forms can be attributed to a creator who purposefully created them with planning and intent, and the documented fact that this occurred over the course of a week’s time several thousand years ago.
This document is not a scientific thesis, but an apologetic intended to be submitted and defended by me in an interactive, online electronic forum. I claim no copyright on this document, and grant its use to the public domain. I have not written it with a view towards receiving any sort of financial or other personal gain, and I request that others utilizing this document do likewise. Those copying and disseminating this document shall assume full responsibility for defending it. I do not agree to defend this document in any forum that I did not submit it, due to the practical limitations of my own time. The original source of this document is located at http://www.ultranet.com/wiebe/e.htm
The originality of content of this document ranges from mere paraphrases of material from a wide assortment of authors to entirely original material that I have not seen expressed by any other author. The mix is probably about 50/50.
I should point out that I do not consider myself an authority on the leading edge of modern creationism, although it may seem so to the uninitiated. Those wishing to be on the forefront of knowledge must look beyond this paper. I am not a scientist, but an engineer by education and profession. Even so, it is my conviction that no substantial scientific training or experience is required to confront evolutionism and defend recent creation.
I wish to thank my critics, especially those anti-creationists whom I have encountered along the way, for helping to expose deficiencies in my presentation, which has contributed greatly to the continuing refinement of this document. I also wish to thank those who have encouraged me by telling me that this presentation has made a difference.
Garth D. Wiebe
1. An abstract of the presentations to follow
This is an abstract of the presentations on the creation/evolution issue that follow:
As design demonstrates the existence and capability of a designer, the inherent design in life, the earth and the universe implies the existence and capability of its Designer. The best source of information regarding a design can be had by inquiring of the designer. A designer provides better and more authoritative information about his design than the design does about itself. In the case of life on earth, the Designer has unmistakenly identified Himself and revealed specific information about some of the circumstances surrounding creation. (See 2. A defense of Creation)
Chance does not cause anything. In fact, within the laws of probabilities and statistics we should not expect order and selection to be the result of “random” processes. Order and selection are the result of directed, non-random causes. (See 3. “Chance” is not a cause)
Living matter does not and could not have been spontaneously generated from non-living matter. The laws of biochemistry, probability and statistics, and basic information theory are against it. It has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. (See 4. Life from non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis? )
Effects caused by random genetic mutations (that is, those that are phenotypically expressed) are almost always bad. Once in a while they produce some interesting benign abnormalities. But no one has ever shown them to be beneficial, so as to result in complex and sophisticated designs. (See 5. Random genetic mutations)
The “survival of the fittest” clause is a tautology and success does not imply complexity. Natural selection shouldn’t be expected to result in functionally different or more complex designs. Putting natural selection together with random genetic mutations doesn’t help matters. (See 6. Natural Selection)
Genetics disproves evolution. Animals vary based on coded genetic information that is already there. This is the principle of micro-evolution, which has been verified by the scientific method. (See 7. Genetics and Micro-evolution)
Similarity does not imply ancestry. The animals don’t have ancestral dates attached to them. Evolutionary taxonomy is an effort based purely upon speculation and prior acceptance of the evolution model. (See 8. What about Taxonomy?)
Any discussion of “transitional forms” is based purely upon speculation and conjecture, and is therefore moot and useless. (See 9. Transitional forms)
The fossil record of life forms does not support evolution. The animals now fossilized were as complex back then as they are today. They seem to have appeared abruptly. The fossil record is consistent with creation according to separate kinds. “Hopeful monster” theories are without foundation and fallacious. (See 10. The fossil record of life forms)
The fossils themselves don’t have dates attached to them. Furthermore, the process of fossilization should not be expected to occur gradually, but better fits within the model of a geological catastrophe. (See 11. Fossilization)
Burial order does not imply ancestry. The various stratified layers of rock do not have dates attached to them. The ordering of fossils within them are best modeled as a consequence of a geological catastrophe. The ordering is also too inconsistent to fit within the evolutionary model. (See 12. Stratified layers of rock containing fossils)
There is no basis for assuming uniform geological processes and ruling out catastrophic events. There is no basis for even assuming the uniform and consistent application of natural law throughout all time. Uniformitarianism is an ideology without a foundation. (See 13. Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism)
Current methods for dating rocks and organic material using radioisotopes involve many assumptions about initial conditions and the environment that are not known. The dating results are inconsistent. Objects known to be young have been dated using these methods with erroneous results. These dating methods therefore cannot be considered reliable. And even if they were reliable, age does not in principle imply ancestry. (See 14. Radioisotope dating methods)
Many dating methods exist which would similarly suggest that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old. While these methods also have their own set of unverifiable assumptions, they invalidate, or falsify, the few dating methods that would seem to suggest an old age for the earth. (See 15. Dating methods that suggest a young earth)
There is no substantial evidence for the existence of ape-men, or any hypothetical sub-human ancestor of man. As far as we know, there is, and has always been a single species that was totally human since the beginning. There also exist and have existed various species of apes, some extinct, and some still living. Perhaps there might also have existed some degenerate or diseased descendants of modern man. (See 16. The “Ape-men”)
Science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and is not sufficient to evaluate the issue of either creation or evolution. Nevertheless, the fact of creation is obvious. In conclusion, it may be stated that the overwhelming evidence points to creation and rules out evolution. (See 17. Science)
Faith is “confident belief, trust,” “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” To believe evolution over creation one must ignore the overwhelming evidence available for creation. It is better to place our faith in the Creator, rather than the creation. (See 18. Faith)
Rebuttals are provided to common objections to the design argument and chance argument. (See 19. Some objections to the design/chance arguments )
A quantitative comparison is made between a hypothetical message from outer space and the complexity/coding of a living structure, demonstrating that if one accepts purpose, planning, and intent as the cause for one, then one is compelled to accept purpose, planning, and intent for the other. (See 20. Extra-terrestrial intelligence)
A resource list of books, pamphlets, tracts, videos, magazines, and research organizations is provided for further reference. (See 21. Resource list )
A list of primary source documents cited by the secondary sources is given for footnoted points in essays 14., 15., and 16. (See 22. Primary source references )
2. A defense of Creation
In the computer industry, we know that any computer system functions according to a design and contains highly coded information. Because of the complexity of this design and the highly coded information, we attribute the origin of design in such a machine to an intelligent designer and coder. In fact, the more sophisticated the machine, the more planning and forethought we attribute to its development and the more intelligence and ability we attribute to the designer. Computers themselves can assist as tools in the process of designing other computers, but ultimately the origin of the design can be attributed to careful planning and intent apart from the machine and tools themselves or any process of nature.
No one would suppose that something as complex and sophisticated as a computer happened together by chance or by natural processes. This idea would be considered an absurd proposition. So it is with life forms on earth.
Life on earth is far more complex than computer equipment. In fact, the collective know-how of the greatest minds in all of human history have failed to produce a machine of the sophistication and success of even the simplest replicating life forms. The inherent design in the life forms on earth and the coded information contained therein must be attributed to a designer of vastly superior intelligence and ability than man.
It is set forth here as something obvious that design proves a designer and coded information proves a coder. We simply conclude from consistent life-experiences that when we stumble across something that has design, this demonstrates the existence of a designer, and likewise that coded information demonstrates the existence of a coder. From consistent experience we also know that a creator is not the creation, but that a creator exists outside his creation. The evidence in the world around us, by itself, is reason for us to deduce the existence of a Creator, who exists outside of his creation. (See Rom 1:19-20, Heb 1:3)
I am an engineer by trade. If I want to find out how a particular piece of computer equipment was designed, I can go about it in a couple of different ways. One thing I can do is examine the piece of equipment, taking it apart, measuring it, etc., to try to come to a conclusion about what makes it tick. The other thing I can do is go find the designer and either talk to him or consult the blueprints and other documentation associated with the device. Of the two methods, the source of the most authoritative information is to consult the designer and his documentation.
From the principle that the design in life forms today demonstrate the existence of their creator, the surest way to resolve the creation/evolution controversy is to see if that creator has revealed specific information about the circumstances concerning the implementation of the design.
Written testimony from the Creator includes things like the following (paraphrased): “I am the only God who ever existed or ever will. There is no other god besides me.” (see Isa 43:10); “I created the universe by myself. There was no one else with me when I did it.” (see Isa 44:24); “God created the heavens and the earth in six days”; “God created each animal after its own kind.” “God created the first man Adam from the dust of the ground, and the first woman Eve from the first man’s rib” (see Gen 1-2).
Now, anyone can claim to be the creator, and anyone can fabricate information as if it was from the creator. One of the important things we must look for is evidence that a piece of spoken or written testimony really did come from the creator.
As Creator, God has validated his testimony by causing things to happen in his creation which are specifically intended for us to take note of his existence and his specific revelation to us. We call these phenomena “miraculous” because they are supernatural phenomena.
Examples of God’s supernatural intervention are such as: Parting the Red Sea, allowing a virgin to conceive, saying that he will flood the whole earth, then doing it; predicting events in the future with 100% accuracy; incarnating himself as a man, allowing his body to be killed and buried, then raising himself up from the dead after three days. Multiple witnesses have seen these things happen and heard the Creator speak and have written them down as reliable testimony which we can now refer back to. Such events are not considered natural phenomena, and so by definition fall outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Keep in mind that in accumulating information, we rely largely on indirect information about what people have observed. Even a scientist does this, and an evolutionist does too. An evolutionist cites most of his information from written or spoken testimony by people who have observed things, and a minority of information from personal experience. Just like a creationist.
An adequate defense of the authenticity and reliability of the ancient historical records that make up what we now call the bible is beyond the scope of this document, so will have to be assumed as a premise. Although the bible is not required to defend the fact of creation and the existence of the Creator, it is required to defend the historical time frame and circumstances in which creation happened and the identity and personality of the Creator.
We conclude that life on earth came about by a special creative act of God. A whole set of life forms, including man, was created at once. This happened on the order of several thousand years ago, and the process took less than a week. We don’t fully understand all the “hows” and the “whys” in every detail, but we pursue further knowledge given those details that we are sure of, accepting the authority of what the Creator has to say over the more limited information we obtain by examining His creation. The Creator is more knowledgeable, and none of us was there to observe life come about on earth.
Hopefully this not only provides a defense for “creation,” but also explains why “creationists” are always appealing to the Creator (God) and testimony that comes from Him (the Bible). Because if you really want to know about how something was designed, it’s best to first consult the person who designed it.
3. “Chance” is not a cause
“Chance” does not cause anything.
If I flip a coin, you might say that there is a 50% chance that it will come up heads and a 50% chance that it will come up tails. But this is only an observation, not the cause for it to come up heads or tails.
Say I flip a coin and it comes up heads. What was the cause for it to come up heads? Consider: We understand the laws of motion, statics and dynamics, friction, etc. If we could analyze each aspect of the position of the coin in time and space, and take into account all the forces that act upon the coin, we would conclude that the coin is doing just what it is supposed to do under the circumstances. In fact, if I could set up all the same conditions and flip the coin again in exactly the same way, it would by necessity come up heads each time. It would take a miracle for it not to.
The fact of the matter is that I am too clumsy and lack the skill and ability to cause a coin that I flip into the air to come down in any particular way. So we conclude that there isn’t enough intelligence and skill behind my coin flips and consequently we expect a random distribution of results. We conclude that it is my lack of skill and ability that will result in disorder and chaos.
Probabilities and statistics are mathematical observations of things. For things that seem to occur in a random way, we attempt to predict an outcome using a mathematical model. If the results don’t fit the model, then we must conclude that either we have done our math wrong or the thing just isn’t behaving in a random way. In the case of a sequence of coin flips, you expect chaos and disorder in the long-term, producing a random sequence of heads and tails.
Suppose I announce that I am going to repeatedly flip a coin and hope to come up with a sequence of all heads. So I proceed to flip the coin, and it comes up heads. You say, “OK.” I flip it a second time, and it comes up heads again. You say, “OK.” I flip it again, and it comes up heads again. You say “Hmmm, OK.” Say I flip it again, and it comes up heads a fourth time. You say “Hmmm.” Say I flip it again, and it comes up heads a fifth time. You say “Wait a minute, what’s going on here?” I flip it again, and it comes up heads a sixth time. You say “Stop, this isn’t fair.” I say, “Why?” You say, “It isn’t random. You’re doing something to make that coin come up heads each time.” I flip it again, and it comes up heads a seventh time. I say, “Look, millions of people have flipped coins throughout history. This was bound to happen sooner or later.” I flip it again, and it comes up heads an eighth time. You say, “Come on, what are you doing?” I flip it again, and it comes up heads a ninth time. I say, “Nothing. Really! I’m just flipping this coin and it keeps coming up heads by chance.” I flip it again, and it comes up heads a tenth time. You say, “You’re a liar. What do you take me for, some sort of fool?”
Now, if it is true that a million people have tossed coins throughout history then maybe you should have waited until at least 20 throws (since 2^20 is a million), before even considering crying “foul.” But most people, in fact, won’t. Why did the observer in the above example not wait that long? Because after 10 tries he concluded that he could call the coin-thrower a liar based on the non-random results. Statistically, he would have only 1 chance in a thousand of being wrong!
Given the immensely lower probability of things happening in the evolutionary scheme of things, one should conclude (to be consistent) that evolution didn’t happen. That person would have a 1 in 1000000000000…(fill in some enormous number of zeros)…0 chance of being wrong, solely on the basis of sheer probabilities. In any case, this person is not to be taken for some sort of fool.
4. Life from non-life: Spontaneous Biogenesis?
In considering creation/evolution, we must keep in mind that “chance” does not cause anything. A person defending evolution often excludes an intelligent creator as an explanation for the cause of things happening, and in the void substitutes “chance.” But “chance” can be one of the evolutionist’s worst enemies.
First of all, what the evolutionist’s “chance” creates (figuratively speaking), the evolutionist’s “chance” ought to destroy, in the long run. Chance is equated with randomness, and randomness is equated with disorder and chaos. Life on earth is an example of incredible order and complexity. What, then, was the cause for this order and complexity?
The classic evolutionary concept of spontaneous biogenesis involves living matter coming about from non-living material by chance. For example, let us suppose that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane and energy can combine to form amino acids. That this first step can happen is indisputable and has been verified through laboratory experiment (such as in the famous Miller/Urey experiment of 1953). However, to proceed beyond this point to living proteins by chance would involve a major miracle of such great proportion that one would think it easier to just accept the obvious (that it didn’t happen “by chance”).
Amino acids are molecules that have a three-dimensional geometry. Any particular molecule can exist in either of two mirror-image structures that we call left-handed and right-handed (in layman’s terms). Living matter consists only of left-handed amino acids. Right-handed amino acids are not useful to living organisms, and are in fact often lethal. The random formation of amino acids produces an equal proportion of left-handed and right-handed molecules. This has been confirmed by laboratory experiment and is essentially what Miller produced in his famous test-tube experiment (putting methane, ammonia, and water together and zapping them with electrical discharges.)
Life as we know it cannot consist of a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. So it would take an enormous sequence of coin-flips (in which the coin came up heads each time) to come up with a protein that could constitute living matter. Yet there is more.
Proteins consist of amino acids linked together with only peptide bonds. Amino acids can also combine with non-peptide bonds just as easily. In fact, origin-of-life experiments in the laboratory yield only about 50% peptide bonds. So, it would take another enormous sequence of coin flips to come up with a protein that could constitute living matter. Yet there is more.
Any particular protein contains amino acids that are linked together in a particular sequence geometrically. At a minimum, that sequence must be correct for any given protein at all the active sites which comprise about half of the amino acids in the protein. Proteins contain anywhere from 50 to as many as 1750 amino acids, depending on the particular protein.
There are about 20 common amino acids that comprise the basic building blocks of life. Any particular protein must have all the correct left-handed amino acids joined with only peptide bonds with the correct amino acids at all the active sites. Yet there is more.
Let us consider the sequence of chemical reactions necessary for us (or rather, “nobody”) to produce one particular protein contained in living matter: One amino acid can combine with another amino acid in a condensation reaction to produce a peptide (two amino acids linked with a peptide bond) and water. One peptide can combine with another peptide in a condensation reaction to produce a polypeptide and water. And so goes the sequence of chemical reactions that supposedly can produce one protein essential to living organisms that can reproduce. Let’s stop again, and consider what has happened thus far.
Each condensation reaction described above is reversible. That is, it can occur in either the forward or the reverse direction. That means that “randomness” would be consistent with things breaking down as they are being put together. But to top it off, the popular scenario involves things happening in a primordial sea, implying an excess of water. Since a condensation reaction produces water, and there is already excess water in the presence of the chemical reaction, there is much more opportunity for any complex molecule to break down into the more simple ones. Thus, a polypeptide should combine with excess water to produce monopeptides, and a monopeptide should combine with excess water to produce amino acids. The initial reagents of the supposed equations that are given as a pathway to life are favored, in the presence of excess water. Yet there is more.
Amino acids can react and form bonds with other chemical compounds, and not just other amino acids. Assuming that there is more in our “primordial sea” than just amino acids and water, we will encounter scenarios where these other reactions will take place instead of the ones we want to produce a protein.
An oxygen-rich atmosphere, such as we have today, is one example of what would ruin the chemical reactions proposed for the origin of life. It is for this reason that we have the Oparin Hypothesis, which states that the atmosphere must have originally been reducing, rather than oxidizing, containing very little free oxygen and an abundance of hydrogen and gases like methane and ammonia. Circular reasoning is employed to defend the Oparin Hypothesis.
The above only considers the formation of a single protein, not to mention that there are many different kinds of proteins necessary to form the simplest single-cell organisms. And we haven’t even begun to address the formation of the various nucleic acids and other chemical constituents of life, which must be simultaneously present (by “chance”). Finally, all these must occur in in a specific arrangement to form a complex structure that would make for a reproducing organism (by “chance”).
Many evolutionists are now proposing that not proteins, but DNA or RNA occurred first. Consider that this is moot, since the same amount of information must be coded into the nucleic acid to synthesize a protein as is represented by design and structure of the protein itself. This makes such scenarios to be at least as unlikely.
The spontaneous organization of nucleic acids into DNA or RNA suffers in concept from the same problems that the spontaneous organization of amino acids suffers from. All nucleic acids must be right-handed, form particular bonds, in a particular arrangement, in chemical reactions that proceed in a particular direction and aren’t spoiled by other chemical reactions.
Some evolutionists are proposing that life originated not in a primordial sea but on some clay template. Again, this is moot, since the clay template must by necessity be as complex as what is formed on the template. This makes such scenarios to be at least as unlikely. Furthermore, the evolution of informational “defects” in the crystalline structures of clays has never been observed or demonstrated in theory. Shifting the medium for evolution from biological molecules to polyaluminum silicates solves nothing.
The classic examples given for the formation of some of the basic building blocks of life by chance therefore lacks substance on a theoretical basis both according to the principles of chemistry, the principles of probability and statistics, and the principles of basic information theory.
Without proper theoretical or experimental basis, a scientific hypothesis cannot be supported. The formation of living matter from non-living matter by chance remains within the realm of speculation without foundation.
References: 1, 2, 7, 20
5. Random genetic mutations
Most of us understand that the information that represents the data and instructions for a computer program has a particular code, designed specifically by the software engineer. What would we expect to happen if, once the program was loaded and running, we zapped the binary image from which it was executing with a random change of some data bit?
In most cases, the program would probably crash or seriously fail to accomplish anything useful. In some cases, the program might continue on oblivious to the change. In a very few cases, the program might exhibit some interesting aberrant behavior. But in no cases would we expect to get a more complex program or a program of a totally different kind.
So it is with random genetic mutations. Life forms are more complex than any computer program that we have ever designed. Random genetic mutations are bad. When they have an observable effect (i.e., are phenotypically expressed), they are almost always to the detriment of the organism, killing it, maiming it, making it sterile, etc. Sometimes, interesting aberrations are the result. But never has anyone demonstrated that a mutation has benefitted an organism in such as way as to create an innovative function or a more complex or different kind of life form.
“Chance” does not cause anything. Things that are caused by processes that we observe to be “random” we associate with increasing disorder, not more complex design.
Random genetic mutations are claimed to be a key factor by which simple life forms evolve into more complex ones. A scientific hypothesis is tested through laboratory experiment/observation and theoretical analysis. Regarding random genetic mutations being a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we may conclude the following:
In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities and statistics. Randomness is associated with disorder, and disorder is not associated with selection.
In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has demonstrated that random genetic mutations have created innovative functionality. They have never been observed to create more complex or functionally different kinds of life forms.
When considering the idea of “beneficial mutations,” keep in mind that mere reproductive success in the presence of a particular environment is not sufficient to account for innovative functionality and increased complexity. One can imagine a scenario where a runaway computer program, as a consequence of its malfunction, begins to consume system resources beyond what it was designed to, even getting in the way of the proper execution of other programs that are also running under the same operating system. That program may have been more than successful in its own right, but it experienced a deterioration of function that was not advantageous in the grand scheme of things. Cancer within living organisms is a good example of this in biological systems.
Sickle-cell anemia is an example of a mutation which gives one a reproductive advantage over normal people in scenarios where malaria is rampant, because people with sickle-cell anemia aren’t as susceptible to malaria. But sickle-cell anemia itself is a lethal disease and represents a deterioration of function when compared with a normal person who has no disease. If malaria became so rampant in the world that only people with sickle-cell anemia survived, then the final population would be worse off functionally than the non-mutant population that lived before the plague hit. This is not “evolution.”
The important thing to remember is that random genetic mutations are the consequence of transcriptional errors and random noise corrupting highly coded information. In the long run, living things should be expected to deteriorate as a whole, implying the reverse of evolution. If anything, the complex should evolve into the simple.
References: 13, 14
6. Natural Selection
The concept of natural selection involves a tautology and is not a cause that would be expected to result in different or more complex designs.
A tautology is a statement that includes all possibilities and is therefore useless. A tautology cannot be used in defense of a position since it is a restatement of the obvious and contributes no useful information.
Here is the “survival of the fittest” tautology:
Q: Who survives? A: Why, the fittest do, of course!
Q: And what do the fittest do? A: Why, they survive, of course!
Q: And who are the survivors? A: The fittest.
Q: And what do they do? A: Survive!
Every instance of an animal living or dying can be explained by the “survival of the fittest” clause, regardless of whether evolution or creation actually took place.
Consider how natural selection applies even in the computer industry, where we know the origin of things. The good computers sell and people buy the good computers. The lousy computers don’t sell, and people don’t buy the lousy computers. The proliferation of the best computers and the extinction of the worst is observed. And lo and behold, the computers have actually gotten better and more sophisticated. But this is not an explanation for the origin of the the computers and their inherent functionality, but only their survival in the marketplace. In each case, every aspect of the sophistication and complexity of a computer can be attributed to intelligent design by actual designers.
The neo-darwinian evolutionist should be challenged to explain by what process of nature the innovative functionality of life forms originates. Predators eating prey is not a vehicle for the origin of any innovative functionality, but only its possible destruction if one trait should be driven to extinction. And random genetic mutations should be expected to corrupt the existing coded genetic information. Furthermore, the animals, their predators, cosmic radiation, harmful chemicals, and genetic transcriptional errors have not been shown to be working in some sort of grand coalition with each other towards a common engineering effort.
This last point is worth repeating, for evolutionists tend to provide an evasive justification based upon random genetic mutations and natural selection. When it is pointed out that random genetic mutations are but meaningless noise, the evolutionist counters that natural selection filters it into something useful. When it is pointed out that natural selection doesn’t provide any new genetic codes, the evolutionist counters that new information arrives through genetic mutations. But genetic errors, cosmic radiation, and other natural environmental influences are random, and predators are self-serving, merely purposing to kill and eat those less fit to survive, leaving alone those who are more fit to survive. And the mere fact that these survivors are successful in the fight for survival doesn’t compel them to be endowed with new functions and codes that weren’t there before. In fact, we should expect just the opposite in the presence of cosmic noise.
Success does not imply complexity. Evolutionists should be challenged to explain why higher life forms, such as humans, are compelled to exist just because certain lower life forms, such as bacteria, are successful in the fight for survival.
Since neither natural selection nor random genetic mutations nor the two put together have been demonstrated as a vehicle for the design of innovative functionality, the concept of neo-darwinian evolution (design by mutation + natural selection) cannot be supported, scientifically or otherwise. We should instead expect variations in animals that are limited to already-existing genetic information.
In the long run, the opposite of evolution should be expected to occur as the total pool of highly coded genetic information is gradually corrupted. Complete extinction of all life forms is the ultimate end, as the pool of genetic information finally deteriorates into random data that is no longer useful to fulfill any purpose whatsoever.
7. Genetics and Micro-evolution
Genetics disproves evolution.
Given that neither random genetic mutations, nor natural selection, nor both put together can be considered a vehicle for one kind of animal to change into a functionally different or more complex kind of animal, then variations in interbreeding animals must be restricted to what is already in the gene pool.
One classic example given for evolution is the peppered moth. In the mid-19th century, 98% of peppered moths were light. The light moths blended in well with the mottled gray lichen on the trees. With the industrial age, pollution killed the lichen on the trees, making them dark. Birds selected the light moths for their meal and overlooked the dark moths. By the mid-20th century, 98% of the moths were dark.
Question: What did the peppered moth evolve into?
Answer: A peppered moth.
Each species of animals has a gene pool. A gene pool is simply all the different genes that all the members of a species collectively has. Already- existing genetic information allows for variations to occur among members of that species as individuals within that species interbreed. In the case of the peppered moth, the genetic information already existed in the gene pool, and one genetic trait became more common in the population as a result of the changing environment and the fact that birds use their eyes to spot their food.
Variations such as this demonstrate the concept of what is often referred to as “micro-evolution.” A scientific hypothesis is verified through theoretical analysis and laboratory experiment/observation. Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in theory (according to the rules of genetics) and in practice by observation.
It is important not to quickly jump to the conclusion that any particular beneficial trait was due to a mutation. Already-existing genetic information can find latent expression in the presence of new environments. Also, there are genes that can turn on and off upon being subjected to a particular environment. Evolutionists cite all sorts of alleged examples of beneficial mutations. The burden of proof is on them, however, to show that a particular beneficial trait was a mutation to begin with.
It should also be noted that sometimes animals within one species form distinct groups which no longer interbreed. Since the word “species,” by definition, is a group of animals which interbreed, you might say that new “species” of animals have been formed. Does this demonstrate evolution?
No it does not. In fact, this also works to disprove evolution. Evolution requires that the gene pool be expanded to allow for more variations to occur. Instead, what has happened here is that the gene pool for each of the splinter groups has gotten smaller. Each new group has a smaller set of genetic traits in its collective pool of genes, and so will now exhibit less variation over future generations. Since less variation means less of an ability for the new species to collectively adapt to its environment, then we should expect a greater likelihood of extinction (not evolution) to occur if this process of speciation is taken to its limit.
The important thing to remember in all of this is that the genetic information was already there from the beginning. And further advances in selective breeding and genetic engineering will only further disprove evolution by demonstrating that such selective changes in life forms requires planning and intent.
References: 14, 37
8. What about Taxonomy?
Similarity does not imply ancestry.
Taxonomy involves classifying animals according to their physical or genetic characteristics. There are countless species, and among them there are many similarities, physically and genetically.
One who is an evolutionist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that there must be common ancestries between various kinds of animals.
One who is a creationist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that there must be a common designer and design principles for all the various kinds of animals.
In both cases, the conclusion is based on prior acceptance of either the principle of evolution or creation.
Correlation does not imply a cause-effect relationship. If two life forms “A” and “B” are similar, this does not imply that “B” evolved from “A,” any more than it implies that “A” evolved from “B.” Evolutionary charts drawn up to illustrate ancestral relationships between all the various life forms are therefore entirely hypothetical and speculative to begin with. And it would be circular reasoning to argue that the charts support evolution.
The important point to keep in mind is that all the animals exist in the present. Fossils also exist in the present. We weren’t there to observe either evolution or creation happen. So similarities between species do not demonstrate that either creation or evolution happened.
9. Transitional Forms
The issue of whether or not “transitional forms” exist is not a productive topic to debate in the creation/evolution controversy.
Some evolutionists use similarities between three particular animals to argue that animal A evolved into animal B based on the fact that animal X exists.
Some creationists use the dissimilarities between these same animals to argue that animal A did not evolve into animal X and animal X did not evolve into animal B.
Said evolutionists keep seeking to justify their “transitional forms” on account of the similarities and despite the differences.
Said creationists keep seeking to rule out “transitional forms” on account of the differences and despite the similarities.
Anything is good enough for the evolutionist, and nothing is good enough for the creationist. Neither will ever satisfy the other or a discerning observer.
A scientific theory is validated through experimental observation and/or theoretical evaluation.
Neither party actually observed the origin of animals A, B, or X, so neither party is qualified to argue scientifically from an experimental perspective whether or not animal X is a “transitional form.”
Neither party can justify the origin of animals A, B, or X from a theoretical perspective, since no scientific theory exists to explain why animals A, B, or X must exist with their particular characteristics.
It can be concluded that a discussion of “transitional forms” is moot and useless.
10. The fossil record of life forms
The fossil record of life does not support evolution.
The fossils which are found in what are usually considered the lowest deposits are alleged to belong to the Cambrian era of approximately 800 million years ago. In these rocks are found the fossils of various shellfish and crustaceans, sponges, worms, jellyfish, and various other complex invertebrate life forms.
If you were to go scuba diving today, explored the bottom of the ocean, and then explored a hypothetical ocean full of the life forms that are now represented by Cambrian fossils, you would probably not be able to tell the difference, except that many species have now become extinct (e.g. trilobites). In all, you would find fewer life forms today than you would in this “fossil ocean.” This in itself would suggest the opposite of evolution.
Charles Darwin actually represented the fossil evidence as being a hostile witness to his theory, as documented in his famous book The Origin of Species. He claimed that the abrupt appearance of life and lack of transitional forms was the most serious objection to his theory.
However, it should be noted that the fossil record of life-forms does not prove either evolution or creation, even though it is most consistent with the latter. Neither does the fossil record disprove either evolution or creation. The fossils that exist, exist in the present. And the fossils that don’t exist prove nothing. We weren’t there to observe either creation or evolution happen. Prior belief in either evolution or creation determines how one interprets the data, whether it be eons of evolutionary history preserved in gradual deposition or catastrophic burial from a worldwide flood.
Today, some evolutionists have even turned to other theories, such as the “hopeful monster” theory, in which Ma and Pa X-o-saur simply give birth to a Z-o-pus (without proposing the vehicle by which such a thing could happen, or explaining where said Z-o-pus would get its mate). Another proposal is the “life seeded by aliens from outer space” theory, which also has no foundation and just shifts the problem to some other planet.
“But doesn’t the existence of fossils demonstrate that life has been around for hundreds of millions of years?” No it doesn’t.
When we talk about fossils, we usually refer to the petrified remains of animals that died a long time ago. It is often claimed that animals which have died fall to the ground and are slowly buried by the accumulation of sediment and fossilized in the process. This is not a reasonable assumption, nor is it supported by experimental observation.
When an animal or plant dies, its remains are quickly eaten by scavengers and decomposed by bacteria, etc. Any remains are also affected by weather. Fish in the sea that have died usually float to the surface and are soon eaten (as opposed to settling down on the sea floor, waiting to be slowly buried by sediment and fossilized.) How then, should we expect a fossil to be formed?
The most reasonable explanation involves a catastrophe. To get such a fossil, you would have to suddenly and quickly bury the animal under tons of sediment, so that it would be isolated from scavengers and excluded from the effects of weather. Only then should you expect the petrification process to work.
Also, these fossils in and of themselves do not give any indication of the age of the animals that they represent, for they are just impressions of once-living organisms that have died.
Scientists who are not set on ignoring the biblical record generally agree that most fossils are most likely the result of the worldwide flood that is described in the Genesis record, with its cataclysmic geological implications.
Reference: 13, 18, 19, 35
12. Stratified layers of rock containing fossils
Burial order does not imply ancestry.
In many places in the world, you can find stratified layers of rock in which are embedded various fossils. The fossils found in each layer make up an approximately ordered sequence, from the fish in the lowest layers to the land-dwelling mammals in the highest.
The evolutionist and the creationist come up with entirely different stories from this picture, depending on the prior acceptance of either evolution or creation.
The evolutionist pictures a gradual build-up of each stratum, or layer, over hundreds of millions of years of the accumulation of sediment, gradually fossilizing dead animals in the process. The oldest evolved life forms that supposedly arose out of the sea are logically to be found in the lowest layers. The most recently evolved life forms are to be found in the highest layers.
The creationist pictures a global catastrophe (the flood), which over a very short period of time causes the sudden upheaval and deposition of earth and sediment in some geographical areas. This upheaval buries animals in that ecological niche, dumping layer upon layer of sediment on them amidst swirling underwater currents. The fish are naturally to be found at the bottom because they dwelt in the lowest elevations, in ponds, lakes, and rivers. They were the first to be buried, and the least able to escape the deluge. The mammals are to be found at the top because they lived in the highest elevations in the region, and also were the best equipped to escape the deluge, resulting in them being the last and the fewest to be buried.
The problem with evolutionary thinking is that fossils of various “evolutionary periods” are not consistently found in the proper strata. In many places, fossils representing “more recent” life forms are found in strata far below their supposed ancestors.
The existence of polystratic fossils (fossil life forms that are found buried vertically through several layers of strata, such as trees and long cone-shaped mollusks) also disproves the evolution story, since this would require that the organic remains of such life forms remain intact and unfossilized for millions of years in place above the ground, awaiting the deposition of successive layers of strata.
For the evolutionist, the mere existence of polystrates and fossils of “recent” life forms below the fossils of their “ancestors” disproves their hypothesis. Evolutionists cannot explain polystrates at all, and they resort to theories of “overthrusting” to explain how older strata ends up over newer strata, even though such a phenomena has never been observed, and even though they cannot explain where the geologic forces should originate. Overthrust theories also demonstrate circular reasoning as evolutionists try to use the geologic column to support their theory, then use their theory to explain away inconsistencies in the geologic column.
However, the creationist acknowledges that the ordering would be approximate, based on the chaotic nature of the flood, and that different strata models would be found in different parts of the world, based upon the local ecosystem and what animals dwelt in it. And fossils buried through several layers of strata would obviously not be a problem.
References: 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 35
13. Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism
Uniformitarianism is the philosophy wherein it is assumed that the geologic features of the earth have been laid down through uniform processes, gradual erosion and gradual sedimentation being examples. A philosophical extension of this principle is that all phenomena in the universe can be explained by the uniform application of the laws of nature; put another way, that all phenomena are natural phenomena. And a philosophical consequence of that principle is that there is no Creator who exists outside of the creation who is able and willing to intervene in the natural order in a supernatural way.
Catastrophism is the viewpoint wherein it is assumed that at least some of the features of the earth have been laid down as a result of a catastrophe. A philosophical extension of this principle is that some phenomena may be explained by exceptions to the laws of nature; put another way, that not all phenomena are natural phenomena. And a philosophical consequence of that principle is that there is the allowance for a Creator who exists outside of the creation who is able and willing to intervene in the natural order in a supernatural way.
Since at least one worldwide catastrophe (the flood) has been historically documented, catastrophism is backed by historical record.
Uniformitarianism has no backing for it. It is just a baseless presupposition. Even if uniformitarianists don’t accept the historical record, they have no scientific basis for assuming that a worldwide catastrophe has not ever occurred.
A scientific theory is validated through theory and experiment.
No theory exists to show that a worldwide catastrophe cannot occur.
No experiment has been performed to show that a worldwide catastrophe cannot occur.
No theory exists to show that all phenomena are natural phenomena.
No experiment has been performed to show that a supernatural phenomenon cannot occur.
Evolution is defended based upon the assumption of uniformitarianism. Because uniformitarianism is not defensible, therefore its application in the defense of evolution is not valid.
No man was there to both observe and document the formation of the major geological features of the earth. Neither do the features have dates attached to them in any coded form.
The idea of gradual sedimentation and fossilization already mentioned are examples of uniformitarian interpretations. Other examples range from multiple Ice AgeS and plate tectonics, to such cosmological assumptions as that the speed of light has always been the same as what it is now (implying that the universe must be old because it took the light from stars so long to get here. [Note: This should not be construed as an endorsement of the Norman/Setterfield light-decay theory])
Multiple Ice AgeS seem to be a basic assumption in geography books and are spoken of as having occurred in a time frame of at least hundreds of thousands of years, consequently precluding an earth that is only several thousand years old. This is nothing more than an assumption, based on other unverifiable assumptions, including even the assumption that N00,000 layers of ice were laid down annually.
Yet, in the polar ice has been uncovered large coal deposits and the frozen remains of animals and plants which used to live there. The meat of some animals is so well preserved that it has been fed to livestock. Corals, which can only survive at temperatures above 20 degrees Celsius, frozen fruit trees, and other tropical life forms are found frozen in the polar regions.
The interesting thing is that fruit trees have been found frozen with the fruit still on them and woolly mammoths frozen with food still in their mouths. What caused them to freeze so quickly?
Plate tectonics assumes that the continents of the earth are riding upon some huge geologic conveyer belts that meet at the mid-oceanic ridges. But where do the mechanical forces come from to operate such a mechanism? And why are there multiple fractures perpendicular to the ridges?
Scientists who accept creation have suggested some reasonable explanations as alternatives to conventional wisdom. These should not be presented as scientific facts, or even theories, but working hypotheses:
The presence of a vapor canopy over the earth, similar to that found on Venus and Saturn’s moon Titan, might have created an incredible greenhouse effect on the earth, making the climate tropical all over the globe. Genesis 1:7 says, “And God made the firmament (expanse of the sky) and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.”
What may be submitted as one alternative to the “gradual ice age” concept is that at the time of the flood there was an immense vapor canopy around the earth which collapsed (the “floodgates of heaven” of Gen 7:11). The polar regions and significantly beyond were soon frozen. In time, the global environment and atmosphere stabilized, and a good portion the ice extending down from the polar regions receded. All this happened orders of magnitude faster than what is now assumed, yielding a single “ice age.” After the flood, a rainbow was provided as a sign of God’s covenant (Gen 9:13-14). (Underneath a world-wide vapor canopy, a rainbow would not be possible.)
It has been argued, even within the creationist community, that a vapor canopy is not sufficient in itself to explain the worldwide flood as documented in the scriptures. Another alternative is that at the time of the flood, there was an immense subterranean chamber of water (“the fountains of the great deep” – Gen 7:11) which collapsed under the weight of the earth above it, spewing water/vapor and mud into the atmosphere which primed the hydrodynamic cycle and precipitated as rain or was frozen high in the atmosphere and fell to the earth in the polar regions as ice cold enough to freeze animals on contact. Perhaps also coal and oil deposits in the polar regions are there because huge mats of uprooted vegetation floated there during the Flood.
This latter scenario, referred to as the “hydroplate hypothesis” contradicts the popular plate tectonics hypothesis (and also possibly the vapor canopy hypothesis). It also explains (hypothetically) many more geologic features of the earth. According to this hypothesis the mid-oceanic ridges are not the intersection of moving plates, but the place where the earth underneath where the layer above the water first cracked and gave way bulged up. The continents are not constantly moving on some geologic conveyer belt, but literally slid on top of the water of the collapsing subterranean chamber to their present locations where they are now nearly motionless. The mountains were formed where the continents eventually hit something and buckled upwards. Paleomagnetic anomalies showing “reversals” (actually not complete reversals in flux, but reversals about an average non-zero flux level) reflect originally magnetized materials that moved away from the mid oceanic ridges. The continental shelf defines the edge of the original plates and is submersed under only shallow water because that is where the edge of the newly-formed continents, rapidly eroded by moving water underneath, submerged and settled.
An adequate description of the hydroplate hypothesis, its geologic implications, and a comparison to conventional geologic explanations is beyond the scope of this document. Furthermore, even within creationist circles there is contention and debate over competing theories. As an example, there also exists a “catastrophic plate tectonics” theory, which is hotly debated against the “hydroplate hypothesis”.
The descriptions above are not meant to categorically argue for any particular catastrophistic theory, but rather to illustrate that there are alternatives to conventional “scientific” wisdom. This conventional “wisdom,” which is presented as dogma, is based upon uniformitarianism, which is not defensible.
In any case, once the allowance is made for an all-powerful creator, it is a small matter to allow for him to have acted supernaturally upon the earth, which means that a natural, scientific explanation may not even be appropriate.
References: 5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19, 44
14. Radioisotope dating methods
One of the problems in the creation/evolution dilemma was that we weren’t there to observe either happen. Can we determine how long ago an animal lived by examining its organic or petrified remains or by examining rocks found in the vicinity of the dead animal?
Several methods have been proposed for dating of animal remains and rocks by measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes. The general public tends to view them as high-tech “hocus-pocus,” so people often aren’t prepared to question their validity and tend to assume that the measurements are valid. But are they?
The following are the major radioisotope dating methods and their associated problems.
Cosmic rays hit Nitrogen-14 in the earth’s atmosphere, producing radioactive Carbon-14. Plants absorb the Carbon-14. Animals eat the plants. Animals eat animals. Eventually all living things are supposed to have the same amount of Carbon-14 in them.
When the animal or plant dies, it quits eating and so takes in no more Carbon-14. The Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 over time. Measuring the amount of Carbon-14 left in the animal remains is supposed to tell you how long it has been since the animal or plant died.
It is universally accepted, even among evolutionists, that Carbon-14 is only useful for dating the organic remains of living tissue and that it only works up to about 20, 30, maybe 60,000 years. So Carbon-14 dating is irrelevant to the discussion of the time frame of macro-evolution, which is supposed to have occurred over hundreds of millions of years.
It is assumed that the level of atmospheric Carbon-14 has been constant for tens of thousands of years, when it has only been measured since the early part of this century. This is a ratio of 1/1000 over the span of the proposed measurement period. (Tree-ring dating and other methods of historical dating have provided some corroborating data for some samples, however.)
Things like the strength of the earth’s magnetic field affect how much cosmic radiation gets through to the atmosphere (which affects how much Carbon-14 is produced.) The strength of the earth’s magnetic field has declined since it was first measured in 1835.
It is assumed that the rate of radioactive decay of Carbon-14 has never changed. However, in the laboratory, it has been demonstrated that the rate of decay of Carbon-14 can be significantly changed by application of an electric potential (specifically, 9 standard deviations for a potential difference of 180 volts in one particular experiment. )
It is assumed that no exchange of Carbon-14 between the animal remains and the environment has occurred since the animal died.
Successive Carbon-14 measurements of individual specimens have been shown to produce conflicting results, the differences amounting to about a 1:2 ratio. And dating of specimens of known age has produced erroneous results. For example, why was a fresh seal skin dated at 1300 years?  Why was a living mollusk dated at 2300 years?  How does an antler end up 5340, 9310, and 10,320 years old at the same time?  How does a piece of bark end up both 1168 and 2200 years old?  How does a mastodon die from the outside in over a 750 year period of time, 7820 years after it was born?  How does the “prehistoric” village of Jarmo in northern Iraq end up archeologically occupied for 500 years and radioisotopically occupied for 6000 years? 
Potassium-40 decays into Argon-40. When molten lava solidifies, it has some Potassium-40 in it. Potassium-40 trapped in the rock decays into Argon-40. The amount of Argon-40 that has formed in a rock since it solidified is supposed to tell you how long it has been since the rock was formed.
Potassium-40 also decays into Calcium-40. The rate of decay into Argon-40 vs. Calcium-40 is not accurately known. Uranium dating methods (see below) are used to “calibrate” the Potassium-Argon method. So to begin with, Potassium- Argon dating cannot be more accurate than Uranium isotope dating.
It is assumed that no Argon was originally trapped in rock when it solidified.