Evolution: Fact or Fairy Tale?

10 Things Evolutionists Don’t Want You to Know

Copyright © 2004 Laurie Brown

Published by Calvary Chapel Publishing (CCP),

a resource ministry of Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa

3800 South Fairview Rd.

Santa Ana, CA 92704

The right of Laurie Brown to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Neither the publishers nor the author can accept liability for the use of any of the information stated in this book or for any consequences arising out of their use, nor can they be held responsible for any errors or omissions that may be found in the text or may occur at a future date as a result of changes in rules and laws.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright holder except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or in the case of brief quotations in articles and reviews, or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Application for the copyright holder’s written permission to reproduce any part of this publication should be addressed to the publisher.

First printing, 2004

All Scripture quotations in this book, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

1-931667-95-0

Printed in the United States of America.

contents

Acknowledgements              5

Introduction              7

1              A Theory in Crisis               9

              Time

              DNA

              Irreducible Complexity

              Scientists Agree

2              A Religion, Not a Science              17

              What Does It Mean to Be Scientific?

              What Is Religion?

3              Against the Geological Evidence               23

              Catastrophe Theory

              Mount St. Helens Explosion

              Incorrect Dating Methods

4              Against the Fossil Evidence               27

              Mystery of the Missing Millions

              Living Fossils

5              Desperate for a Missing Link               33

              Archaeopteryx—the Flying Dinosaur

              Flight or Fantasy

              Evidence of Design

6              A Hopeful Monster Theory               39

              Punctuated Equilibrium

              Hopeful Monsters

              Monsters and Miracles

7              Survival of the Fittest Fakes              43

8              Not Proved by Speciation               49

              Created Kinds

              Mutations

              A Snail’s Pace

              York Groundsel

              Bacteria Resistance

              Mosquitoes

              Breeding Programmes

9              Disproved by Dinosaurs               55

              Evidence from Science

              Evidence from the Bible

              Historical and Cultural Evidence

10              Disgraced Pseudo-Science              61

Bibliography              67

acknowledgements

I would like to thank Phil Pechonis, Brian Brodersen, and Terry Murray for help with the concept and ideas for this book. Additional thanks to Terry Murray and Audrey Brown for proofreading the manuscript and suggesting helpful changes. The pre-release copy was also reviewed by Brian Grantham-Hill of Torbay Christian Creation Topics, and Geoff Chapman of the Creation Resources Trust. I would also like to thank the staff at Calvary Distribution whom I found extremely professional and helpful in their editing.

introduction

In 2001, I was invited to write an article on the scientific arguments against the evolution of birds for a national weekly newspaper. The response from the evolutionists was hostile, and, to my surprise, their counter arguments lacked scientific rigour. They were often based on dated, discredited facts, and were characterised by both a failure to understand exactly what evolution is, and an unswerving loyalty to their beliefs, despite evidence to the contrary.

Subsequently, I was required to lecture to undergraduates in the Animal Science class on the ‘misuse of scientific data’, and chose as my topic the unscientific nature of, and the frauds found throughou t , the theory of evolution. As a teacher, of course, I was not permitted to offer the biblical creation model as an alternative; I was merely to present the facts and failings of the theory as well as the subsequent pseudo-scientific industry that it has spawned. To my surprise, while there were certainly sceptics, the majority of young people were open and responded positively to the debate, expressing the doubts they had also had on the subject. Consequently, these students were quite willing to challenge scientific arguments and to insist upon higher levels of scientific rigour. They wanted proof for what they were being taught by their professors and by the media.

Since 2002, I have given a short public address each year at Calvary Chapel’s Creation Festival held in Woolacombe, North Devon, England. As a direct result of these talks, both Christians and unbelievers have requested written material on these topics. That is why this book was written. My desire was to provide a book that is easy to read for the vast majority of people who are not scientists, and one that also addresses key issues surrounding this debate. I give the glory to the one true God who created it all and who alone is the true author.

Laurie Brown

November 2004

1

a theory in crisis

The 150-year-old conflict between evolution and creation science still rages on. Many believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think anything of science is proven fact, and must be accepted. Much of science is taught on television, radio and in school textbooks as sacred scientific law, when it is yet unproven.

The anti-creationists have a dark secret they are determined to keep buried. Their theory is in crisis. They know evolution could not have occurred on this planet. This is why they are desperate to find evidence of life on Mars and other planets. Then they can sit back, breathe a sigh of relief, and explain that life evolved somewhere else in the universe and was then planted on the earth in its final form. There are three primary reasons for their despair: time, DNA evidence, and the concept of irreducible complexity.

Time

The evolutionary science community knows that there is just not enough time for evolution to have occurred on earth. The theory requires a staircase of successive, beneficial, cell mutations. It is theorized that these mutations are recorded into a life form’s genes, thereby allowing the mutation to become a hereditary characteristic. Mutations are copying errors in the genes when the cells replicate. To get from a molecule to a man, new information must be continually added to the evolving life form.

However, this theory goes against the observable scientific evidence of what happens when cell mutations occur. Usually the mutation is of no benefit; in fact, a mutation is harmful to the life form. There are, nevertheless, a few examples of beneficial mutations. One example involves the sickle cell anaemia disease, carried largely by those of African decent. Red-blood cells infected with sickle cell anaemia have a shorter lifespan than cells infected with malaria, and appear to give immunity. However, the adult life spans of those affected are so reduced that it is difficult to truly judge these statistics as an advantage.

Several questions need to be answered before one can determine whether there has been enough time for evolution to occur on this planet. These include: knowing the average lifespan of each living organism, both past and present; how frequently mutations occur; and how many of those mutations need to occur before a beneficial mutation is produced. From this we must find how many beneficial mutations are needed for the cell to advance up the magical yellow brick road from the ancient, mythical pond of goo , to you.

Cell mutations are copying errors that occur in the genes when cells divide. Mutations are rare, occurring only once in every ten million cell divisions. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must have been billions of mutations up through the evolutionary ladder from amoebas to fish, from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds, from mammals to men. Was there enough time? No.

If we ignore the scientific evidence for a young earth, and assume the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then we would need more than one beneficial mutation per second since time began, to get anywhere near the diversity of life seen on earth today.

The chances of this happening in order to produce just one simple cell have been estimated at 1 in 10 raised to the power of 57,800, or (1x1057,800). This is a big number and means 10 x 10 x 10 … and keep repeating this multiplication 57,800 times! In the science of mathematical probability, any number raised to a higher power than ten to the fifty, let alone to 57,8000, is considered impossible. And this is before we complicate the math with the fact that there were more life forms living in the past than there are alive today! Consequently, if we know that even a simple cell cannot evolve by beneficial mutations, then there is no chance for progressively higher life forms.

Evolutionists know that the math doesn’t add up, and so they are desperately seeking life on other planets so they can say evolution still happened and was transported here, perhaps by using Mars as a temporary biological airport. This theory is called ‘panspermia’. Its high priest is the late Francis Crick, of Watson & Crick fame, the Nobel Prize winning discoverers of DNA. He believed that ‘seeds of life’ are mystically spread throughout the universe. He knew there was no explanation to prove how non-living chemicals could evolve into life on earth, so he ‘boldly went’ where no scientist had gone before: into space as a refuge for this belief system. In doing so, Francis Crick pushed science into storybook, without opportunity for observation or testing.

Many people have taken this theory still farther, believing panspermia to be fact rather than fiction. They believe that life on earth was begun by aliens. However, we should not be discouraged; in many ways these scientists are catching up with the Bible, which does indeed teach that life here was planted and designed by an outside source. Now they just need to realize it was by a creator God, not aliens.

DNA

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is the building block of life. DNA is a code stored in the nucleus of every cell in your body. Amazingly, DNA strands contain the gene sequences for all your characteristics, such as height, sex, and eye colour.

It has been estimated that man’s collective knowledge base doubles every eighteen months, and that our knowledge has increased exponentially since evolution was proposed as an explanation for life on earth. When Darwin was alive 150 years ago, we had, by today’s standards, an elementary understanding of cell biology. In fact, we used to talk about a ‘simple’ cell. We now know that there is no such thing as a simple cell; even the simplest cell is infinitely more complex than the space shuttle.

Previously, the term ‘black box’ was used to explain systems or processes that could not be investigated. Science identified the inputs and outputs of a system, but not always the process in the middle. To simplify the investigation, everything not understood was put into a ‘black box’.

Input ---> [black box] ---> Output

Take, for example, photosynthesis: the process by which plants make energy for growth and development. The inputs are carbon dioxide and water, and the outputs are sugar and waste oxygen.

Carbon dioxide + Water ---> [unknown process systems] ---> Sugar + Oxygen

(black box)

The bit in the middle, the actual photosynthetic process involving light energy trapped by the green pigment called chlorophyll, in addition to other chemical cycles, was not understood, so scientists would put this unknown in a black box. All of the ingredients of photosynthesis need to be present at the start to produce the reaction that creates sugar. If anything is missing, then sugar is not made, and the green plants would have died out long ago. This means that photosynthesis cannot have evolved. It must have been created as a finished system in the beginning. In fact, we are still unable to reproduce photosynthesis in a laboratory today. Every time you spoon sugar onto your cereal or into your coffee, or look at the green colours in the countryside, you are witnessing proof that evolution is a lie.

The same is true for our understanding of cell tissues. One hundred and fifty years ago, science knew nothing about genes and DNA. Cells were thought to be no more than blobs of jelly. Scientists’ observations were limited; consequently, they termed what they saw as a ‘simple cell’, and once again put what they didn’t understand into a black box.

However, the problem for evolutionists is that with the rapid advances in molecular biology and detection techniques, this black box has become a Pandora’s box that casts certain doubt on the theory of evolution.

Cells are made of numerous internal parts including the nucleus, DNA, vacuoles, ribosomes, golgi, lysosome and cytoplasm, to name just a few. New science from 1994 Nobel Prize winners Paul Boyer and John Walker has revealed that just one of these organelles, the mitochondria, contains ATP synthase, which is a super-powerful electric motor rotating at over one hundred revolutions per second. These ATP synthase motors are two hundred times smaller than a pinhead, but there are hundreds in every cell of your body. This powerful evidence of an incredibly complex cell design necessitates a designer, and disproves evolution.

The nucleus of every cell in your body holds 3 million protein letters. No computer produced today has a hard drive large enough to store this data. In fact, a pinhead of DNA can hold 100 million times more data than the hard drive sitting on your desktop! Yet, these incredibly complex, super drive, double-helix strands of DNA reproduce themselves with less than one mistake in 10 billion duplications! In fact, far from being simple, the cells in your wrist are exceedingly more complex than the digital watch resting on top of it.

New advances in science also reveal that DNA is an error-correcting digital code. Or to put it another way, DNA is evidence of highly complex programming. It is a super high-tech information system. If you’ve ever copied audio or videotapes, you know that their quality degrades with each successive copy. However, a digital copy of a digital file is nearly always perfectly reproduced. Without the digital DNA code for inheritance, it would not be possible to copy enough information with the accuracy required to construct a life form. For example, from the one fertilised human egg cell formed at conception, eventually 100,000 billion cells are made, and each one of those cells contains an identical copy of the original DNA. This DNA information far excels the detailed programming found in computer code. Yet, no one would suggest that computer code has evolved.

Irreducible Complexity

Our understanding of science has been enhanced by systems analysis. This is an acknowledgement of the interrelated dependency of life processes. For example, an eye is composed of many integrated systems. There is an optical nerve, a lens, a retina, etc. The eye will not function unless all of the components are assembled together. What good is a retina without the optical nerve? Or to put it another way, what good is your car without the gearbox? A basic car is made from subsystems including an engine, transmission, gearbox, drive shafts and wheels. Without any one of these, the car will not work. Biological systems are far more complex, and yet , for some reason , evolutionists insist that these systems have slowly evolved over eons of time. Evolution has to be able to explain the molecular structure of life. However, our expanding knowledge of science at the biochemical level proves evolution to be false.

The systems approach has been simplified into the principle of irreducible complexity. This acknowledges that many parts are needed to make the system work. To get your car to work, it needs the wheels, petrol, transmission and engine all together at the same time. If anything is missing, then the whole system stops working. In the natural world, examples of irreducibly complex systems include: photosynthesis, blood clotting and the antibody defence against disease.

Anti-creationists have no evidence to explain how evolution could produce these complex biochemical systems. Just as no one would question that a car was the outcome of intelligent design, so too these biochemical examples cry out the message that they are clearly the workmanship of an  intelligent designer.

Perhaps the best example of this principle was presented by its founder, American Professor of Biochemistry Michael Behe, as a mousetrap (Darwin’s Black Box). The mousetrap is made of items including: a base plate, a bait platform, a spring hammer, and a release catch. It is not possible to make a mouse trap with less parts because without any one of these components the trap will not work. The problem for evolutionists is to show how complex biological systems such as DNA and the human eye can evolve slowly. If the system will not work because one part or another has not yet evolved, then the entire system fails and will not work. The only logical conclusion is that all components need to be present in their final form from the beginning. After all, you wouldn’t buy a car without an engine, would you?

Irreducible complexity can also be found in other parts of nature. For example, the Bombardier beetle  has three chambers in its abdomen. Two chambers contain harmless liquids. But when these liquids are mixed together in the third chamber with a catalyst, an extremely powerful mixture is produced which explodes when being squirted out of the chamber. The beetle uses this as a defence mechanism to scare away predators. This creature could not have evolved, since all the parts would need to be present from the beginning.

Never before has the evolutionist movement been in such danger of being exposed as a lie. New scientific discoveries in biological and geological science, far from confirming the theory, add greater weight to the downward spiral of its credibility, and truly renders it a theory in crisis.

Scientists Agree

In light of these discoveries, many scientists in recent years have acknowledged that the theory of evolution, accepted as fact, is a fairy tale that does not fit the scientific evidence.

For example, the late Dr Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, said:

One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view was last year I had a sudden realisation, for over 20 years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it.

That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, “I do know one thing— it ought not to be taught in high school”.

(Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 05.11.81)

There is an increasing chorus of other scientists who are prepared to voice their concerns that the physical evidence does not fit the theory and that evolution is not a respectable answer to describe the origins of life on earth. These include Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box; and J Ankerberg and J Weldon’s Darwin’s Leap of Faith. The book In Six Days, edited by J F Ashton, carries explanations from fifty top scientists on why they choose to believe in creation.

Typically, such people are classified as non-evolutionists, antievolutionists or creationists, and are attacked with insults rather than facts. They are called pseudo-scientists or it is implied that their degrees are from second-class universities, or in obscure subjects. Evolutionists’ message is that creation scientists are incapable of understanding ‘true’ science.

However, the reality is that the priests of evolution are in trouble, and they are keeping a big secret from the public for fear of being humiliated and exposed as nothing more than snake-oil salesmen.

2

a religion,
not a science

The theory of evolution requires lower life forms to gradually change over many generations, through mutations, into higher life forms. In this way, slow-moving sea creatures change into fish, which grow legs and change into amphibians, which turn into reptiles that grow wings and feathers to change into birds, which change eventually into mammals, apes and man.

It is this slow, gradual change that evolution is supposed to prove. However, it means something very different today than it did to Darwin 150 years ago. For example, horticultural staff talk about how new plantings in the ornamental gardens ‘evolved’. The reality is they were not evolving at all. They weren’t left to grow as they pleased, to mutate slowly over millions of years. In fact, the staff intervened by weeding, watering, clearing old plants away, designing and planting new plants and trees. This process of human intervention is not evolution, but rather development in response to design. It was Darwin’s view that should the natural world show signs of such intervention, then his theory would be wrong.

What Does It Mean to Be Scientific?

Science’s goal is to discover the laws of nature. We find these laws by collecting facts and assembling new theories to explain them. Science deals only with empirical knowledge. This is knowledge acquired by examining the evidence through observation, aided, if necessary, by the use of an apparatus such as a microscope. Facts gained from empirical observations have changed the world. Examples include: astronomer and physicist Galileo, who proved the earth orbits the sun; chemist Robert Boyle, founder of Boyle’s Law; Isaac Newton, founder of the laws of gravity, motion and calculus; and Lord Kelvin, founder of the laws of thermodynamics.

Good science is both observable and testable (repeatable). This gives other scientists the opportunity to scrutinise results and try to duplicate them, or to reveal the theory’s inconsistencies (peer review). If the hypothesis survives enough repeated tests, it becomes a scientific fact or law.

For example, we can observe what happens to apples removed from a fruit bowl and dropped on the floor. My hypothesis would be that the apples would bruise when dropped on the floor. After repeated observations of 1,000 apples, I could draw data tables that record results and which seem to confirm my theory. My results are then written up and published so that other scientists can have the opportunity to test my theory (peer review). They could recreate the conditions of the experiment, collect their own data and confirm my findings. At this point, my theory becomes a fact.

However, if other scientists cannot confirm my findings by repeated experiments, then the theory is refuted and considered false. For example, a theory that all swans are white is disproved the first time we see a black one.

In summary, good science is first based upon empirical evidence (observation); second, peer review; and third, openness to refutation (testable/repeatable by other scientists).

The theory of evolution, however, is neither based upon observed nor testable data. We do not see life forms around us slowly changing and acquiring more genetic information to become higher life forms. Neither is the theory open to being disproved through further experimental testing. Consequently, we are asked to believe something without proof. Iron pyrite is known as fool’s gold because it looks and feels like real gold—until you look very closely. Likewise, evolution looks like true science, but it is not able to be observed or tested; it is a fairy tale dressed up as fact. Worse still, the theory is riddled with poor science, fakes and frauds.

Occasionally, new theories spawned from the school of evolution are testable and have been disproved. For example, the big bang theory. This proposes that following an explosion 15 billion years ago, new planets and solar systems formed, ultimately resulting in life on earth—a cosmic evolution. In other words, order arose from the chaos of the explosion. This is testable. When we blow things up, they should improve. Blow up a house, you should get a palace—order from chaos. Clearly, this is absurd. Why then do evolutionists continue to hold on to their disproved hypothesis? Because they are following a religion based upon poor science.

What Is Religion?

R eligion is a system of beliefs requiring obedience and devout service . Religion It involves believing in things without proven evidence. This is the basis of faith ; hoping and believing in things unseen . Hebrews 11.1 puts it this way “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. ”   (definition? Laurie, perhaps you might want to reword the previous sentence) . For Christians their faith often begins with believing t h e eye witness accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead , combined with the unfolding of Bible prophecy as the hall marks of a creator God on His creation. The more a Christian walks with the Lord, exploring the evidence of a designer in the natural world and experiencing first hand the peace of a personal relationship with God, the more we realise how little faith is required to trust and believe in God.

However, e E volutionists are religious people of greater faith. They have unquestioning confidence in the doctrine of evolution and loyaly serve its cause . Even , even though they know that their theory contradicts known scientific laws , . they Evolutionists dogmatically believe in these myths with no  proven facts , and ritualisticaly promote its ordanances .

But there is more to it than this. There is a religious conspiracy underway to sucker people into accepting their views as fact. The conspirators call themselves ‘evolutionists’, but a more honest title would be ‘anti-creationists’, since this is their true cause.

Charles Darwin realised that his father and grandfather were not born-again believers and would therefore be spending eternity in hell, not heaven. He loved them very much and found this reality impossible to accept. Consequently, he referred to the gospel as a “damnable doctrine” and went on a crusade to undermine creationism. He shared Voltaire’s view that, “Direct attacks on Christianity ... produce little permanent effect; real good seems to follow only the slow and silent side attacks”. (Letter dated 21 Oct 1873 “The Darwin correspondence online database” http://darwin.lib.cam.ac.uk) These are hardly the calm, collected thoughts of a dispassionate scientist.

Stealth has been the weapon of anti-creationists since Darwin’s time. These religious fanatics have polluted the minds of generations into accepting as fact that which is actually fiction. They do this through books, the media and especially TV programmes. But they are all signed-up members to this new religion worshipping the god of ‘humanism’.

These people prefer to call themselves ‘humanists’, because it masks their true nature and mission of subversion. The correct terms for them are atheists and agnostics. But to use these terms would immediately identify them as anti-God, and anti-Creator. The humanist religion worships ‘self’ as the god able to solve problems and to enable individuals to live full and happy lives. They believe moral judgements are based upon human nature and experience alone. Scientists who follow this religion always interpret their data with this perspective in mind.

The British Humanist Association openly declares its mission to see an end of Christianity. They want to promote the pagan doctrine that people are able to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.

Many evolutionists have either now, or in the past, declared as a matter of public record, their allegiance to humanism. These include Linda Smith, Claire Rayner, Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough, Carl Sagen, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Gould, Arthur C Clarke, Ludovic Kennedy and many politicians. Television in particular has been swamped by programmes made by such humanists. But there is never a health warning that they are anti-creationists with a hidden agenda to promote their cause. This is like having a neverending stream of party political broadcasts flooding your living room with their cunning teachings day after day.

This religion’s long tentacles reach into the political world. It interacts with our lawmakers and infects policy decisions. The British Qualifications and Curriculum Authority’s (QCA) draft curriculum for religious education includes the study of humanism alongside other world religions. The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has embraced several of the British Humanist Association publications.

Humanists aggressively campaign to close faith schools. Richard Dawkins, the Oxford University (England) professor of the Public Understanding of Science, led a failed attempt calling for Emmanuel College in Gateshead to be re-inspected by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) because professors taught both creation and evolution side by side. They also dared to rent out their hall to international speaker Ken Ham for a creation seminar. Naughty boys indeed! In America, evolution remains the overwhelming view of the American National Academy of Sciences, the National Centre for Science Education and the National Association of Biology Teachers.

Humanists actively campaign against Christianity, and ordain their own officials to conduct weddings, funerals and child naming. It is deceitful of them not to acknowledge this fact as an introduction to their books and media programmes.

Evolutionists will fiercely defend their fantasy scientific religion. Invariably criticism is met, not by addressing the issues, but by personal attacks on your education. This includes attempting to discredit your degree or the university you attended. Their defence is to retreat into a private club of informed special knowledge (creationists simply can’t be relied upon to know the truth). Such revealed knowledge, given to just these few is called gnosticism, and is a characteristic of cults and covens, not open scientific enquiry.

Far from being independent, unbiased scientists able to give an objective opinion on the evidence, they are actually very biased, propagating a hidden agenda to discredit creationism and impose their own religion on the public. We should therefore recognise that evolution is a religion, not a science.

3

against the
geological evidence

The earth is covered by a thick blanket of sedimentary rock made from sandstone, limestone and shale. Evolutionists believe that this thick stratum tells the story of life on earth. They believe this geological record spans 600 million years, from the Precambrian up through Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous and onto the Holocene at just few hundred thousand years old. They tell us that mammals appear in the Jurassic period and man in the Pleistocene/ Holocene. This blanket of strata can be traced across entire continents, removed only by erosion or volcanic activity. In some places, these rocks are several kilometres deep.

However, the geological record, as published in many school textbooks, is over-simplified. It is an idea that exists only on paper. The observable scientific evidence is not of a logical sequence with the oldest strata at the bottom and the youngest strata at the top. Many strata of different ages are mixed together. Often the younger rocks are found under old rock, mixed to a degree that cannot be explained by plate tectonics or volcanic activity.

This means that our understanding of the geological column is fundamentally flawed. The observable evidence does not fit the theory. This is especially important when we look in the next chapter at fossils, because it implies that there is not, in fact, a gradual staircase of higher life forms present in the younger rocks.

In addition, there are multiple examples of fossilised trees found standing vertically through different strata. These are called polystrate tree fossils. On average, a tree might live 150 years. Yews and Redwoods might live nearer a thousand years. But how can you explain a tree fossilised in different rock strata, where the strata is supposed to have taken millions of years to form by the slow depositing of sediments? After all, even a Yew tree doesn’t live a million years.

These puzzles lead us to question our understanding of how rock strata are formed. The present theory is one of geological gradualism. That the sedimentary rocks formed under water slowly, by the gradual deposition of minerals and dead sea life over millions of years. Clearly, this does not fit the observable scientific evidence.

Catastrophe Theory

Many scientists now believe in the ‘catastrophe theory’ to explain the observable evidence. They believe an event occurred which was so terrible that it caused the sudden destruction and deposition of sediment. Evolutionists believe the most likely event to explain this catastrophe was a meteor striking the earth.

However, the evidence is also consistent with the biblical account of a global flood, causing millions of animals and vegetation to be washed away by floods, and to be deposited in ocean basins around the world. The formation of coal seams in Britain also witnesses to such catastrophe. Coal is compressed vegetation, mostly peat. A twenty-foot coal seam requires 200 feet of uncompressed vegetation. Extraordinarily, a 400-foot coal seam requires 4,000 feet of uncompressed vegetation. We do not see this volume of vegetation in the natural world today. There are very few peat bogs or marshes anywhere on the planet that even reach 100 feet thick. Only the conditions of a global flood would deposit vegetation deep enough to produce this devastating effect.

Mount St. Helens Explosion

Geological gradualism was disproved when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980. This was a very important eruption. First, seismologists expected the eruption, and numerous photographs were taken before and after the event. This means the event was observable and was the most thoroughly documented volcanic eruption in history.

Second, the result was the formation of new landscape constructed in months, not millions of years. For example, the ash came down in a series of layers resulting from the fall-out of sequential eruptions and steam clouds. It settled in layers forming new strata several hundred feet thick. Some of this stratum was then eroded by lava and the flooding from melted snow and steam showers. Prior to 1980, geologists looking at a rock formation several hundred feet thick, composed of multiple layers, would assume that it had formed slowly over millions of years and that the layers represented various climate changes. However, the observable scientific evidence is of rapid formation over just a few months. Controlled laboratory tests also confirm that layering is a feature of ash deposition and these layers form within minutes of the tests starting.

Thus evolutionists have ascribed to millions of years what science can prove took just a few months! Interestingly, this eruption also solved the mystery of the polystrate trees. The mountain forest trees were stripped off the hillside, washed down stream and deposited in lakes. Underwater diving excavations revealed that some trees lay horizontally and others lay vertically while floating in the lake. Others had already sunk vertically embedding themselves in the lake sediment. Follow-up studies showed that suspended sediment in the lake fell to the bottom in sequence (Boyle’s Law) and further buried the vertically embedded trees. This observable evidence explains how fossilised trees can be found appearing to grow through different-aged rock layers. This confirms supports the catastrophe theory as a credible explanation of landscape formation and disproves the slow geological gradualism model that became the foundation for biological gradualism , which in turn ultimately led to the theory of evolution .

Incorrect Dating Methods

Volcanic rock formations are dated by using radiometric techniques to study the decay rates of the rock’s atoms. The most used type of dating techniques are the Uranium-Lead and Potassium-Argon methods. Radioactive dating techniques assume that radioactive decay rate of atoms is constant and that volcanic rocks hardens, and then seals in only one parent radioactive atom, preventing further parent or daughter atoms from being added to or removed from the rock. Consequently, by measuring the present ratio of atoms against their known half-lives, an age can be determined.

The observable scientific evidence is that these techniques are unsatisfactory. For example, the New Zealand Mountain, Ngauruhoe, has erupted about seventy times since being settled in the 1830s. Rocks from several observed and recorded lava flows were sent for analysis. The dating technique applied was the Potassium-Argon method. The results dated the rocks from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old. However, the observed scientific evidence was that these rocks were formed from lava flows between 1949 and 1975. In other words, the rocks are less than one hundred years old!

The carbon-14 method is no better. This technique looks at the ratio of carbon-14 isotope to the carbon-12 isotope. The method, designed by American Professor Willard Libby, won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1960, and is used to date plant and animal remains. When used to test the shell of a living snail, a result of 27,000 years was achieved!

The observable scientific evidence supports a young earth. The earth’s magnetic field has been measured since 1829 and has shown a steady decrease in strength. The half-life has now been calculated at 1,400 years. If it gets too weak, harmful cosmic radiation will destroy life. But if the earth were really 4.5 billion years old, the magnetic field would already have collapsed by now. Creation science geologists Andrew Snelling and John Baumgardner have published work showing that field reversals could have taken place rapidly during the flood. The age of the earth must therefore be much younger than evolutionists want us to believe.

If we cannot trust these methods to correctly date rocks, plants and animals whose age we do know, then we cannot trust them to date material of unknown age. However, an additional problem for the evolutionists is that dating of rocks is used as indicative of the age of the fossils found in them!

4

against the
fossil evidence

The crust of the earth is littered with billions of fossils of both plants and animals. Anti-creationists believe that as life forms evolved, their fossils became deposited in the rocks, and that there is a progression of higher life forms as you move up through the staircase of the geological column.

In addition, for evolution to be true, there must be evidence of intermediary transitional fossils found in the geological record. These are the halfway missing-links between life forms. If what evolutionists say is true, then animals halfway between life forms should be observed. Unfortunately for them, no such proven missing links exist, not between mammals and man, or birds and dinosaurs or fish and amphibian. It is true that there are a handful of dubious claims made for having identified transitional forms. However, there is no agreement in the scientific community, and there are no undisputed, transitional fossil forms. The observable scientific evidence is of perfectly formed, complete life forms with no fossil ancestors.

Evolutionists excuse this failing by claiming that not all the fossils have been found yet. This, despite having over 150 years in which to document their beliefs. Second, they claim to have found the transitional forms, but don’t document the species-to-species transition because its thought to be an unnecessary detail! I am surprised that the opportunity to authenticate evolution by observable scientific evidence is ‘unnecessary’. The facts are that after more than a century of digging, and collecting over 100 million fossils, no undisputed, missing-link, transitional species have ever been found.

Mystery of the Missing Millions

The Precambrian rocks account for about 90 percent of geological time from the presumed dawn of the planet 4.5 billion years ago to the start of the Cambrian period a mere 570 million years ago. Obviously these figures are just guess work since the observable scientific evidence favouring rapid formation following catastrophe and faulty dating techniques (discussed in the previous chapters, and all of which favour a young earth), have not been corrected in the arguments of the anti-creationists.

Nevertheless, it is rather puzzling why just a few fossils, such as algae filament, worms, bacteria and creatures resembling jellyfish are found in Precambrian rocks? By contrast, the younger Cambrian rocks, accounting for just 10 percent of geological time, contain billions of fossils. How is it that a rock strata covering 90 percent of earth time contains almost nothing, and a rock strata covering just 10 percent of earth time contains almost 100 percent of the fossil evidence? Why was there an outburst of life in the Cambrian era? Where is the evidence of the billions of plants and animals that existed in the previous 90 percent of our history? It is an embarrassment for the evolutionists that they are missing millions and billions of fossil specimens that would prove their theory.

The Cambrian rocks are abundantly rich in fossil specimens. A graveyard of unimaginable death. Could it be that the catastrophe of Noah’s flood is the explanation for this extraordinary occurrence? Darwin believed that as more Precambrian rocks were investigated, earlier fossils would be found. But after 150 years of further study, there is no new evidence. Or, perhaps the lack of evidence is, in fact, evidence that their theory is wrong? One must conclude that life was created perfectly, in its final form, from the beginning of time just as the Bible says it was.

There are further problems for the theory. Why is it that the staircase of progressive life forms are not found in the fossil record? Why do we find evolutionary ancestors present together with their assumed evolved offspring? In fact, the oldest rocks contain just as complex fossilized life forms as much younger rocks. Every major group  of life forms has been found in the Cambrian layer. They all appear as distinct species with nothing leading up to them. All the different designs of plants and animals appear to have suddenly and miraculously sprung into life. How do they explain the mass extinctions in the Cambrian rocks? Clearly, there were many more species alive in the past than there are today. Their silent witness from the crust of the earth is to confirm the catastrophe of the Genesis flood.

Living Fossils

Many creatures found in the fossil record are now extinct. These animals and plants are used as proof by anti-creationists that evolution is true. Their fossils are presented as biological ancestors of today’s plants and animal species.

Their reasons for believing this include: differences in fossil size or shape and an unswerving loyalty to a belief in slow, gradual change over millions of years. Consequently, anti-creationists misinterpret the data and assume that it proves evolution. For example, fossils of the Okapi were used as proof of horse evolution until identical animals were found alive in Zaire. Far from being extinct primitive ancestors, they had not evolved at all. They are dark brown animals, resembling donkeys with striped legs and appear more like giraffes than horses.

Many fossil life forms have descendants alive today that are identical to their fossil ancestors. They have not evolved or changed. These are called ‘living-fossils’, dinosaur plants and animals, that cause evolution to stumble. Examples include archaebacteria, Ginkgo biloba tree, the Australian Wollemi Pine, Dawn Redwood, maple, walnut, fig, willow, seaweed, grapes, monkey puzzle tree, horsetails, maidenhair fern, cycads, club moss, nautilus, lobsters, crayfish, sturgeon, horseshoe crabs, alligators, crocodiles, lice, army ants, salamanders, cockroaches, hummingbirds, dragonflies and bats. They prove ‘stasis’ and that evolutionary gradualism is a lie.

The amazing Coelacanth ‘prehistoric’ fish was found alive and well, swimming off the coast of South Africa; yet, it was believed to have been extinct 70 million years ago. Because this fish has lobed fins, it was presented as an ancestor to amphibians and therefore also mammals and man. How can these life forms be evolutionary ancestors if their offspring are still alive today? The observable evidence is that these are fish perfectly suited to life in the sea. Not only this, but this fish also has a huge head, which we were told was a primitive feature of our ancestors. However, science now reveals that this fish is amazingly complex, and the head generates an electric field that helps with navigation. This prehistoric fish defies evolution.

There is a conspiracy of silence concealing the fact that evolutionists have blindly misinterpreted the evidence. When we compare the thousands of modern plants and animals to their fossil records, we find that they are identical. Any differences are not significant. Despite evolutionists’ claims for millions of years of slow, gradual change, the observable scientific evidence is of no change. Life forms have stayed the same and have not evolved. The fact that some species are now extinct does not prove that they evolved into something else. The observable, scientific evidence supports the creation view that things did not evolve and that the vast age of the earth is wrong.

The enigma for evolutionists is to explain why after millions of years with ample opportunity for mutations to occur through copying errors in the genes, these organisms, which are still alive today, have never mutated or evolved into higher life forms. To some degree the evolutionist are catching up with the Bible. In this case, they are increasingly referring to stasis which means ‘staying the same’. This sounds like the opposite of evolution. Perhaps they are closet creationists after all!

Evidence from the fossil record is consistent with the catastrophe of a global flood and its aftermath. Combined with evidence from living fossils, the observable science powerfully contradicts evolution so effectively that many evolutionists now claim they do not need fossil evidence to prove their theory. In other words, they are prepared to take the absence of proof as proof itself of their beliefs! Perhaps this is a good time to remind you that evolution is a religion, held by faith and not by science.

5

desperate for a
missing link

Evolutionists’ claims of transitional, halfway fossils linking different life forms have never withstood scientific scrutiny, and there are only a handful of disputed fossils that could even be presented as missing links. Evolutionists believe evolution occurred through a gradual, slow change with an organism taking on minute changes over thousands of generations. Despite billions of fossils in the rocks and over 100 million collected specimens, there are no undisputed transitional missing links. It is not just the ape-to-man link that is missing, but the links are missing in each stage of the evolutionary staircase from an amoeba right up to a man.

Archaeopteryx—the Flying Dinosaur

An example of such an unproved missing link is the belief that birds evolved from reptiles. In fact, evolutionists are not even sure about that. They cannot decide between dinosaurs, crocodiles or mammals because the ancestral evidence is so weak.

To support this claim they offer the fossil Archaeopteryx, said to be the first known bird. This is a Jurassic bird from the Solnhofen lithographic limestone first found in Germany in 1861 and is said to date back 150 million years. Originally, it was classified as a reptile—until feathers were noticed. They considered this to be a link between dinosaurs and birds, a ‘flying dinosaur’.

Archaeopteryx was about the size of a dove with a 35 cm wingspan, a bird-like skeleton and magnificent feathers. Evolutionists believe it to be a transitional missing link because it has a hook or a claw part way along the wing, as well as a beak containing small teeth. (Is this beginning to sound like the Coelacanth mistake described in chapter four?)

These features are really not significant. Many fossil birds have teeth. All other vertebrates have teeth (fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals). Three true birds living today, the South American hoatzin, African soft-billed Touraco, and the ostrich, have claws on their wings, either in their juvenile or adult stages. If one follows this logic through, then the ostrich with three claws on its wing is more reptile like than Archaeopteryx! Also present is a bird’s pelvis and a wishbone (shoulder girdle) that is unique to birds and enables flight.

Archaeopteryx has perfectly normal flight feathers. The primary feathers are like bird’s feathers today with an asymmetric design. Under magnification, we can see a minute network of barbs. These barbules lock together like Velcro to form an airproof membrane, that makes a perfect aerodynamic wing which enables flight. This indicates that the bird was agile when airborne. There is no observable scientific evidence to prove that feathers evolved from reptile scales.

Finally, Archaeopteryx has feet with curved claws and a reversed toe. In other words, the anatomy of Archaeopteryx describes that of a perching, tree-dwelling bird. It is not a halfway form between feathers and reptile scales. Modern bird fossils have also been found in rocks where Archaeopteryx was found making it a contemporary of modern birds, not an ancestor.

Continuing to seek evidence in support of their beliefs, anti-creationists now point to new fossils found in China called Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx. These are feathered and have a dinosaur-like skeleton. The short arms of Protarchaeopteryx would not permit flight, so anti-creationists believe these creatures to be small ground-dwellers covered with feathers. They claim this as a step down the evolutionary ladder, more strongly connecting birds with dinosaurs. This is important to them since it supports their myth of how birds began to fly.

Flight or Fantasy?

There are two theories for flight: the arboreal theory and cursorial theory. The ‘arboreal theory’, says birds were climbers jumping from tree to tree. Eventually, gliding developed to return them to the ground. The ‘cursorial theory’ says birds were runners, flapping their wings to speed up. The presence of ground-dwelling birds can be offered as evidence to support their theory. However, both theories present more questions than they answer. For one thing, when did dinosaurs start climbing trees?

The observable scientific evidence is that some birds, like the ostrich and kiwi, do not fly. But this doesn’t make them any less a bird or more a dinosaur. However, the major weakness with the China bird fossils is that they were found in younger rocks than Archaeopteryx. Or to put it another way, how can your children have led to the birth of your grandmother?

Not content to acknowledge the lack of missing links in the fossil evidence, the latest thinking naively suggests a lack of fossils because birds were eaten by predators! Or, in other words, make the evidence fit the crime.

Birds are warm-blooded. Reptiles are cold-blooded. There is no real evidence about how the change occurred from a dinosaur-like relative, to a flying, feathered bird. No undisputed missing links exist in either the fossil record or modern world.

Evidence of Design

Surely there can be no doubt that birds are adorned with beautiful plumage. Species as varied as the penguin, hummingbird and birds of paradise testify to this. Even the colouring of a standard mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) shows design. How else can a rather dull greyish-brown body be capped off with pearlescent green head? As with most birds, the markings are just as if someone sat down and painted them on with great precision and care. Look also at the magnificent albatross (Diomedea chyrsostoma), with its twelve-foot wingspan, that flies over the vast oceans from the south Atlantic. Wouldn’t an animal like this, that scavenges the oceans for food, have evolved a feeding method and adapted a home closer to the shallow feeding waters from which it evolved? This being the case, it would never have had a need to grow large wings and fly thousands of miles each year.

Evidence of design can also be seen in specialisation of beaks: the dip-net beak of the pelican; the hooked, meat-tearing beak of the eagle; and the nut-cracking beak of the parrot.

Other birds that evidence design include the extraordinary, long curved beak of the fruit-eating toucan. Not only are these beaks brightly coloured, but they account for up to half the body length. Similarly, the peacock’s feathers contain a recurring eye pattern that Darwin himself admitted could not be explained by evolution.

Migration is also another feature inadequately explained by evolution. The factors controlling migration are well understood, such as altering day length, hormone changes and temperature changes. But why would a bird fly hundreds or thousands of miles to new feeding and breeding grounds? Under evolutionary principles, they would move to the next closest available and suitable location, not hundreds and thousands of miles. After all, if you were hungry, why would you want to jump in the car and go hundreds of miles to a restaurant? Wouldn’t you just drive to one round the corner?

Similarly, why do birds migrate en mass in an orderly fashion? Look at the migration of geese flying in a V-shape over the countryside, or starlings circling overhead ready to roost for the night. This is surely not the product of random chance or chaos, but organised, programmed design.

The hummingbird presents further evidence of design. They feed on insects and nectar obtained by plunging a long, slender, often curved beak deep inside flowers while hovering like a helicopter. Then they use a tubular tongue to extract the nectar at thirteen slurps per second! Beak shapes are often closely related to particular flowers. The problem for evolution is that if these beaks were any shorter, the bird could not feed. In evolutionary theory, these birds’ beaks would have been short and grown progressively longer over many millions of generations to finally get to the right size. If this were true, then the ancestral birds would not have been able to feed on the flowers and would have derived no benefit from the increase in beak length. Consequently, the adaptation would not have been accepted into the inherited genetic code.

Wing speeds of 50–80 beats per second and hovering ability also suggests design. Surely there would have been easier ways for an ancestral bird to feed? Anti-creationists often try to explain away this problem by stating that the birds and flowers evolved together slowly (co-evolution), to each other’s mutual benefit, until they appeared in their final form as they do today. However, this does not fit the observable scientific evidence which proves hummingbirds are living fossils. The fossil birds have essentially the same appearance as modern birds. There is no evidence for evolution.

Other creatures that are conundrums for evolution, but which show the hallmarks of design by a creator, include dragonflies that are more agile than helicopters; koalas that only eat Eucalyptus leaves and spend eighteen hours a day sleeping; peacocks with their intricate and recurring eye pattern on the fan-like tail; the dam building beavers, engineers of the animal world; prairie dogs that are able to build underground megalopolis settlements that spread up to a hundred miles; the jet-propelled underwater nautilus; jet-propelled squids that can grow up to 19 metres and swim backwards at 65 kph; and the extraordinary pinecone like pangolin mammal that is covered in reptile-like hard scales.

Perhaps the best example affirming life by design rather than evolution, is the duck-billed platypus. In 1799, Captain John Hunter sent the first specimen from Australia to the British Natural History Museum. Early European scientists thought this extraordinary life form was a fake. They believed that Chinese sailors, famous for their hybrid animal creations, had skilfully stitched it together from parts of different animals. They thought no such animal could have existed. Yet, it does in Australia. It has the bill of a duck, soft and sensitive and able to detect the electrical currents of worms moving in mud, both webbed and clawed feet, splayed legs, and fur. It lays eggs like a duck, and suckles its young, yet has no nipples. It has pockets in its jaws to store food, a poisonous spur like a snake’s fang on its rear legs, and a beaver-like tail. Created or evolved? If evolved, what were its ancestors and where is the fossil evidence?

6

a hopeful
monster theory

Anti-creationists can no longer ignore the lack of proved missing-link transitional fossils, and exposed to ridicule, they continue the desperate search to find an authentic transitional form, halfway between different species. The observable scientific evidence from the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of species in the Cambrian layers and an absence of significant change within the species.

This creates a major problem for evolutionists. How can they believe in change when the fossils prove life forms have not changed? Uncomfortably for them, the evidence fits the Genesis creation account and the impact of the global flood.

Punctuated Equilibrium

However, rather than abandon their faith evolutionists now suggest that instead of evolving slowly over millions of years, evolution must have occurred quickly, in giant leaps. Previously they believed more fossils would be found that would prove their theory. Now they believe that long periods of unchanged stasis is punctured with bursts of rapid evolution. This theory is called punctuated equilibrium. This is an old theory given a new coat of paint and resurrected with a flashy name. The evidence for punctuated equilibrium is ... wait for it ... a lack of fossil evidence for missing link transitional forms ... i.e. make their preconceived ideas fit the data. This theory claims that evolution happened in quick bursts of multiple mutations and leaves no fossil record. Incidentally, Darwin discounted such propositions as being evidence of the miraculous, an act of God!

In presenting this theory, anti-creationists are acknowledging that the fossil record fails to show the progressive changes of one organism into a new, higher organism, and, that biological gradualism over extended time periods is disproved. They accept that all life appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by ancestor evidence.

This is of fundamental importance. Rather than using existing evidence from the fossil record and drawing logical conclusions that can be defended by the observable data, anti-creationists start from the premise that evolution must be true, and then they take whatever steps are necessary to bridge the gap between the observable scientific evidence and their theory. This is unscientific. The data should inform your theory; you must never use a theory to invent data that isn’t present. Such a make-believe approach would clearly be biased. Nevertheless, they have invented this ‘special explanation’ of how evolution could occur without leaving behind any fossil evidence. This is rather like saying the very evidence of you committing a crime, was that you were never present at the crime scene!

Hopeful Monsters

The great misunderstanding over this, is the failure to grasp the significance of rapid change from one organism into another. At some point, for example, a fish laid an egg, and a frog hatched out; a beaver hatched from a lizard egg and a crocodile laid an egg from which a bird hatched! Perhaps they believe if you kiss a frog it will turn into a prince?

Not surprisingly, this fairy tale science has been labelled the “hopeful monster theory”. It is nothing more than a smoke screen to hide the cracks in the crumbling sandcastle of evolution. This was the original name for punctuated equilibrium. The theory is pure speculation without any scientific evidence to support it. But then again, neither is there evidence for biological gradualism. Even if a snake did lay an egg that hatched into a chicken, what would be the chances of finding another chicken over the hill to start a family with?

Monsters and Miracles

The monster myth is easily disproved. The observable scientific evidence is that only single mutations occur. These mutations could not have produced evolution. Multiple mutations have never been observed in the natural world. Trying to cause multiple mutations in roses by blasting them with radiation, also proves that multiple mutations do not occur, even under laboratory conditions.

Second, chance multiple mutations would not have produced both male and females in this same place. Anti-creationists tell us that these hopeful monsters were evolved once every 50,000 years. Consequently, the mathematical probability of producing two such rare monsters at the same time, so that they can breed, is absurd.

Third, even if the theory was miraculously true, there is still not enough time available to produce the diversity of life seen on the earth today. Even when we do see birth abnormalities in the natural world, the creatures are weak and quickly die out. They are better decried as hopeless, rather than hopeful, monsters.

The hopeful monster theory demands supernatural intervention—miracles, not mutations. Once again, we see evolutionists catching up with what the Bible teaches, while remaining violently opposed to accepting the consequences. Yet, despite its improbability, evolution is still taught in schools as proven scientific fact.

Some anti-creationists claim the hopeful monster theory is proved and observed in evolving bacteria populations. This is not true. The bacteria remain bacteria and there are no information-increasing mutations that would turn the bacteria into a higher life form such as an amoeba.

Evolutionists are now split into two camps. Some believe evolution occurred gradually (Darwinian) others suddenly (punctuated equilibrium). To overcome these differences, evolutionists propose that both theories are true and that punctuated equilibrium is in addition to the concept of gradualism. This is a classic political fudge.

Their approach is confusing. After all, wasn’t punctuated equilibrium resurrected as an alibi for the lack of authentic missing-link transitional fossils that would have clearly documented gradualism?

These two theories now combined together actually make evolution more mythical and less testable than before. For over one hundred years evolutionists stayed with the sinking ship and pretended that authentic transitional fossils would be found, only to abandon ship and embrace the miraculous myths of punctuated equilibrium and now to worship at the altar of both.

If an authentic series of missing-link transitional fossils can be found, then it is evidence for evolution by gradualism. If they cannot be found, then it’s evidence for evolution by punctuated equilibrium! This is circular logic—a win-win situation for anti-creationists. This is not evolution from scientific discovery and knowledge, but evolution from religion—flawed science sustaining a fallible faith.

7

survival of the
fittest fakes

Challenged by the lack of observable scientific evidence, anti-creationists have been over-eager to embrace poorly documented and often faked specimens that might help support their theory. Worse still, several evolutionists have repeatedly falsified their studies. Too many of the pillars of evolution have been exposed as fraudulent to take any of the remaining claims seriously. In this chapter, we are taking a light-hearted look at some examples of the crumbliest, flakiest, faked, fudged frauds found in the fiddle town fantasy factories of evolution.

Dinobird—Archaeoraptor

This fossil was presented as the missing link in bird evolution in 1999. Archaeoraptor was eventually exposed as an elaborate fraud, a mix-and-match fossil: the tail of a dinosaur glued to a bird’s body! I guess this leaves their theory of bird evolution up in the air! This fossil was from China where farmers knew they would receive a high price if they could find the allusive missing link.

Theory of Embryo Recapitulation
in the Womb

The German pseudo-scientist Ernst Haeckel committed fraud upon fraud to promote evolution. Some of his frauds include the imaginary Monera organism and the speechless ape-man presented as the missing link between man and apes. Although there was never any evidence for either of these life forms, he was never one to let the facts interfere with his thoughts.

His greatest fraud earned him the name ‘apostle of deceit’. His theory of recapitulation states that the human embryo in the womb, goes through all the stages of evolution from single cell to fish, amphibian, to man. His evidence for this was to compare the embryos of different animals with the human embryo. However, Haeckel fiddled his drawings so that the embryos all looked the same on paper. Although exposed in 1874, Haeckel did not admit the fraud until thirty-five years later in 1909. However, his books continued to be published as late as the 1920s and the theory still appears in some school textbooks today. Indeed my niece recently told me that they had been studying it for course work at the local grammar school. When I shared this with a colleague, he told me that the local hospital had explained this theory during the anti-natal visits he made with his wife. Some people even try to justify abortion on the back of the theory that they are simply terminating a fish embryo. In fact, the embryos of different species are very different.

Peppered Moths

This theory was presented as an example of evolution in the present. Faked studies in the 1950s showed that the peppered moth changed colour from light to dark following the British industrial revolution. The theory to promote natural selection was that both white and dark moths existed, but against increased pollution levels the white moths were less camouflaged and therefore more easily attacked by predators. To test this theory, moths were released into polluted and unpolluted woodland and then observed to see which moths the birds ate. In the polluted woodland, the birds ate more of the lighter moths, in the unpolluted wood they ate more of the darker moths. The results were broadcast round the world as a triumph for their evolutionary theory and become the classic example of natural selection in action.

However, it was not until the 1980s that this was exposed as very poor science. These moths don’t rest on tree trunks during the day. They hide underneath upper branches and fly at night. The test moths had been released and observed during the day, creating a false set of circumstances, ones that do not exist in nature. To help document the fraud, moths were glued to tree trunks so that photographs could be taken. Despite the fact that these results are invalid, the peppered moth is still used in school textbooks today and is defended by evolutionists in their seminars.

Wadjak Man

Wadjak man was found by Dutch fossil hunter Eugene Dubois in 1888 but was concealed until 1920. Poor records were kept, and so there is much disagreement on exactly where Wadjak man was found. Was it a cave or was it limestone rock? Dubois, who was previously a student of fraudster Haeckel, was on a mission to find the missing link, and concealed that he had found human skulls in the same gravel deposits! Although this fiddled science jeopardised Dubois’ career, the evolutionist community excused it. In reality, Wadjak man is not a missing link, but a Homo sapiens—a modern man.

Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)

Java Man was found in 1891 and Peking Man in 1927. Fossil hunter Dubois presented them as missing links. The Java skullcap was found 50 feet away from the thighbone. There is no proof that they belonged to the same animal. This was the same fossil hunter that fiddled Wadjak Man. Java Man and Peking Man are now classified as Homo erectus. This is a species indistinguishable from modern man and many are now calling for this group to be renamed as Homo sapiens.

Ramapithecus

An extinct type of orang-utan presented as the missing link.

Neanderthal Man

Now exposed as poor science. First discovered in Germany in 1856, further bones were found in France in 1908. Archaeological remains prove that they were skilled hunters and musicians with a belief in the afterlife. This was modern man suffering from arthritis and rickets disease. This was caused by poor diet and a damp climate resulting in the curved thighbones and eyebrow ridges. Artists’ drawings show them with ape’s feet, hairy bodies, stooped shoulders and other ape features. These were walking, talking humans.

The Piltdown Man

This specimen, now referred to as the greatest hoax of the twentieth century, was found in 1912 in the gravel pits near Piltdown, England. Once again, this fraud was perpetrated out of a deep desire to find the missing link between ape and man. This faked transitional fossil was exposed in 1953 as a human skull and orang-utan jawbone. The teeth were filed down to make them look human. The entire skull was then chemically treated to make it appear very old. This fabulous forgery had been presented to the world as the earliest example of an Englishman and was on display in the British Museum for over forty years.

Taung African Man

A skull found in South Africa in 1924 was proclaimed as the missing link. Later proved to be the skull of a young ape.

Nebraska Man

Based on a single tooth found in 1922, but crowned through imagination to fill an entire link between monkey and man. This one tooth was extrapolated to include husband, wife and tools! Later a similar tooth was found , but this time it was still rooted to the jawbone. The tooth actually belonged to an unusual pig!

Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis)

This 1970 famous fossil find was personalised with a ‘girl next door’ name, and was presented as a human ancestor. Just a few bones were found. Modern science shows that this is nothing more than a pigmy chimpanzee.

Orce Man

Found in Spain in 1982 and presented as the oldest European, Orce Man was determined by evolutionists to  have been the remains of a seventeen-year-old male who had lived 1.6 million years ago. Detailed drawings and artist reconstructions followed, only to be discredited a year later as the skull fragments of a four-month-old donkey.

Toumai Man (Sahelanthropus tchadensis)

In 2002, a skull was found in the Chad Sahara and presented as the oldest pre-human ever found, linking humans and chimpanzees. Very shortly afterwards, this finding was exposed as a female gorilla.

Brontosaurus

Evolutionists uncovered a skeleton, and then determined it was that of a dinosaur . However, it was found missing the head. No problem, just add a head found four miles away and that will do! Except it’s the head of Apatosaurus and the skeleton of a Diplodocus. The fossil was found in 1874 and exposed as poor science in 1903. However, the name was not removed from dinosaur records until as late as 1974! The US post office was accused of encouraging poor science because it issued a Brontosaurus stamp in 1989.

Sadly, many of these hoaxes are retained in college textbooks, and no serious attempt has been made to expunge their impact on the belief in evolution. The theory remains a discredited fantasy science characterised by the survival of the fittest fake.

8

not proved by
speciation

Climbing the mountain of their improbable myths, against the avalanche of scientific evidence and with unsatisfactory explanations for the lack of authentic missing-link fossils, I have always been surprised by evolutionists’ answer to a key question: What is the one thing that most convinces you that evolution is true?

The commonest answer is ‘speciation’. This is the development of a new species from its ancestors. A species is a life form that is able to breed with its own kind, but not with members of another species.

Created Kinds

However, speciation is not proof of evolution, but it is compatible with the creationist’s model of dispersal and repopulation following a global flood. It allows for one species to branch off into several different species. The Bible teaches that God created different ‘kinds’ of animals. For example a dog kind, a cat kind and a bear kind. Entering a new world with a different environment after the flood, new variety developed. This was through adaptation to the new environment. For example, there is only one bear kind, but we now have polar bears, pandas, grizzlies and others, each adapted to its own environment. This is not evolution, although they vary in appearance, they remain dog, cat and bear kinds as God created them.

As another example, look at an apple. In the skin are different flecks of colour such as green, red, yellow and brown. Because all the genetic information is present in the apple, we could breed them to produce entirely red, yellow, green or brown apples. However, each remains just an apple and is in no way evidence for evolution although they would all be descended from the original flecked ancestor.

Similarly, there are many types of cats, but all the cat species have come from just a few kinds of created cats. Lions and tigers are the same kind. They have been bred together to produce “ligers”. Science classifies them as different species, but they are clearly offspring from a common ancestor of the same kind.

The horse kind has different species including horses, zebras and donkeys. However, scientists have bred zebras and horses to produce “zorses”. Male asses crossed with horses produce mules. Zebras crossed with donkeys produce “zonkeys”. Each animal is different, but all are descended from the same kind. Zoo whales crossed with dolphins produce “wholphins”, again proving they descend from the same created kind.

Dogs vary from the Great Dane down to a Chihuahua, yet they remain dogs and have not evolved into higher life forms. Although they may have had a common ancestor, the effect of dispersal and relative isolation around the world led to recombinations of their genes to produce the variety seen today. During this process, genetic information has been lost and a Chihuahua is less fit generally to survive than a wolf. This characteristic of lost genetic information is common in the development of new species. Once this information is lost, there is no biochemical method to enable it to be recaptured or to acquire other new more complex characteristics to advance up the staircase of evolution.

Mutations

There are two reasons for this. First, the dispersal and relative isolation means that there is always a narrower selection of breeding partners so the balance between dominant and recessive genes changes and overall there is a loss of characteristics to recombine in the offspring. Second, mutations that may give rise to new species always reflect a loss of genetic information.

There is still not even one proven documented example of an information-increasing mutation. Despite this, the anti-creationists still believe that the simplest living organisms such as mycoplasma, with 580,000 letters in its 482 gene sequence, gained masses of new information to evolve up through the staircase of higher organisms into a man, with our three-million-letter gene sequence. How likely is this to have actually occurred? As likely as:

“A tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein”. Sir Fred Hoyle, Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University (Nature vol. 294, 12.11.81, p.105)

Far from solving their problem, speciation actually makes evolution even less likely to be true, because it must require the acquisition of beneficial mutations leading to higher life forms. If you want to get from molecules to man you simply must increase the amount of genetic information present in the DNA.

A Snail’s Pace

July 2004 saw the University of Leeds (England) announcing evolution occurring in the periwinkles on the beaches of North Yorkshire. In this case, the seaside sea snails (Littorina saxatilis) are said to be splitting into thick and thin shelled species found near the low and high water marks respectively. The thicker shelled periwinkles have greater resistance to attacks by crabs. Once again, speciation has become confused with evolution. The groups of Periwinkles have remained periwinkles and although they may be varying their diverse appearance within their communities, they are not evolving into a higher life form.

York Groundsel

In 2003, a new weed species called York Groundsel (Senecio eboracensis) was discovered growing in the Railway station car park in York, England. Because it is unable to breed with its parent species, evolutionists present this as proof that evolution is true.

However, the weed Common Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) breeding with the poisonous plant Oxford Ragwort (Senecio squalidus) to produce York Groundsel, demonstrates only a process of speciation through hybridisation. Hybridisation involves the recombination of existing genetic codes from the parents. It is exploited in horticulture to produce F1 hybrids of flowers and vegetables. When the seeds of these plants are sown, they all produce the same characteristics in terms of height, shape, and colour and look neat, both in the garden or on the vegetable shelf at the local supermarket.

Information-losing mutations can lead to diversity of and within species after a recombination in the offspring. We do not see, either with York Groundsel, periwinkles or Chihuahuas, the addition of new genetic information which would make evolution and progression to higher life forms possible, and we should not be fooled into accepting that it does. Hence despite change, York Groundsel remains, like its parents, just a weed.

Bacteria Resistance

Another common answer is to give a primitive, out-of-date and often disproved example of bacteria ‘evolving’ a resistance to antibiotics. However, this was disproved in the late 1980s. Some bacteria were already resistant before antibiotics were invented, and this is common knowledge in the true scientific community. Studies have shown that bacteria from the intestines of polar explorers buried and subsequently dug up for examination were resistant to several modern antibiotics that were not created until after the explorers died!

Second, the so-called super bugs found in hospitals are the same old bacteria that lived in the past, but they were bred from stock that were already resistant. That’s why super bugs inhabit hospitals. Resistance to antibiotics has also been caused by humans not completing their prescribed course of antibiotic medicine because they began to feel better after a few days and stopped taking the antibiotic. In this case, the bacteria have not been exposed to the full dose of the medicine. Consequently, although the dose will be strong enough to kill off some bacteria, others will be able to tolerate the level of antibiotic attack, for example because they had thicker cell walls. These bacteria then divide to produce cloned offspring that inherit the ability to resist antibiotics. Note that this is an inherited ability not evolution.

Third, species can develop resistance through information-losing mutations. We need to establish where the DNA copying error in the genes occurred. With the bacteria, a degenerative mutation would leave the bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Thus, although termed super bugs, they are actually less fit to survive generally, but more able in the aseptic conditions.

Whenever you use any chemical control on any pest, there will always be a small number of the target that are able to withstand the attack. This may be because they have waxy cell walls or insects with thicker coatings on their feet. For example, most insects reproduce without mating, and produce clones. This includes garden pests such as whitefly, aphids and thrips. Consequently, when they produce their cloned offspring, they too have this inherited ability to resist pesticide attack. But because those that don’t have the resistance have been killed off, and those that do have resistance have dramatically increased in number, it creates the illusion that insects have evolved resistance when they have not. The insect remains an insect and does not change into a bird or other higher life form. These are simply examples of natural selection through survival of the fittest, not evolution.

Mosquitoes

Mosquitoes have been living in the London Underground tunnels for about one hundred years, feeding on rats and humans. They appear to have inbred and lost genetic information, such that they are now very difficult to breed with their above-ground cousins, and evolutionists present this as an example of evolution. In addition, because of the short time that this took to occur, evolutionists feel that this helps document the theory of punctuated equilibrium. However, creationists point out that the mosquito remains just a mosquito. It has not evolved into a higher form, but it has lost an ability. The rapid pace of change actually supports creation models of quick adaptation and change in response to environmental stresses and the development of new species that are unable to back breed with their parents’ kind.

Breeding Programmes

A further illustration sometimes used by evolutionists, is to refer to captive breeding programmes that may create diversity within a species. However, whatever characteristics are bred, for either horses, farm animals or birds, the animal remains essentially the same horse, farm animal or bird as its parent. It does not evolve into a higher life form and does not offer evidence for evolution.

Far from proving evolution, the processes of speciation accepted by creationists as a fact, actually presents evidence for adaptation of species to their environment. This survival of the fittest is compatible with how a creative God repopulated the earth after the Genesis flood. Speciation can arise as a result of mutations which are information-losing copying errors in the DNA. There is no observable scientific evidence of any information increasing mutations that would be needed to prove the theory. Therefore, adaptation and variation of the created kinds allows for suitability in different environments filling the earth following the global flood.

9

disproved by dinosaurs

Dinosaurs are believed by anti-creationists to have lived 235 million years ago and died out at the end of the Cretaceous period 65 million years ago. Although land, sea and flying reptiles are not dinosaurs in the scientific sense, most people group them with dinosaurs as a catch-all expression for ancient prehistoric animals. Examples of these ancient reptiles include sea monsters like Plesiosaurs, the sharp - toothed Mosasaurs—giant snake-like marine reptiles that grew up to 60 feet, Pterosaurs—flying animals varying from the size of a sparrow to an aeroplane, and the twelve-foot lizard with a ribbed sail on its back called Dimetrodon. Examples of true, land-dwelling dinosaurs include: the fifty-foot-tall vegetarian Brachiosaurus; the bony-plated Stegosaurus; the armour-plated, rhinoceros-like Triceratops; and the carnivorous Tyrannosaurus. Evolutionists believe that the dinosaurs evolved into birds, despite the lack of undisputed, missing link, transitional fossils.

The subject of dinosaurs has been thoroughly drummed into children as a vehicle to deceive them into accepting the 4.5 billion-year-old age of the earth. We have previously discussed the mistakes inbuilt to some of the modern dating techniques which seriously discredit this belief. Creationists, however, are able to form a different view based upon the three things: the observable scientific evidence, the biblical account and historical cultural records.

Evidence from Science

Fossil dinosaur fragments and skeletons have been found all over the world. When these fossil bones are found, they give us information about less than 50 percent of the animal. We don’t know what colour it was. Were they cold-blooded or warm-blooded? Male or female? Consequently, there is a lot of guessing going on to reconstruct the remaining 50 percent of the animal, a kind of ‘Iguesseditasaurus’.

In 1961, dinosaur bones were found in Alaska that had not been fossilised. They were originally dismissed as bison bones, but twenty years later, they were identified as belonging to a duck-billed dinosaur. Laser mass spectrometry analysis has dated these dinosaur bones as thousands, rather than millions of years old. When dinosaurs lived, the climate was much warmer, so the extreme cold weather does not explain the lack of fossilisation or the relatively young age of the bones.

Ichthyosaurs (fish lizard) fossils show them perfectly adapted for life in the sea. This is an example of a marine reptile. They have no evolutionary ancestors in the fossil record. They were shaped like fish with both a fish-like tail and a dorsal fin. The challenge for evolutionists is to prove how marine reptiles were able to evolve from land creatures back into the sea.

Evidence from the Bible

The Bible states that all animals were created according to their kind and lived at the same time as man. The creation of the first human and the first animal were not separated by millions of years. Many anti-creationists complain that as dinosaurs are not recorded in the Bible, then the creation account must be wrong. This is not true. Dinosaurs are in fact recorded in the Bible. However, the word dinosaur was not invented until 1841, and we won’t find it in our translations. It means ‘terrible lizard’. Sometimes the Bible may translate what we understand to be dinosaurs as “dragons” (e.g. Mal 1:3; Jer 51:34).

A creature called Behemoth (Job 40:15–19), described as having a tail like a cedar tree and incredible strength and power, fits the huge dinosaur called Brachiosaurus. This was one of  the biggest creature that God made. They grew very tall, up to 50 feet, with a long neck and a long tail.

Genesis (1:21) also reveals the existence of great sea monsters. This includes all the great aquatic animals, not just whales. A fierce beast called leviathan (Job 41; Ps 74:13) fits the description of several giant sea monsters like the flippered, whale-like Liopleurodon which grew up to 50 feet long, and had a 9-foot mouth; and the snake-like, 60-foot-long, swimming Mosasaurus; or the short-necked, strong-jawed, flippered Kronosaurus. The Bible describes the leviathan as breathing fire and smoke. When it swam, it made the sea bubble like a boiling pot. We can compare this with other animals alive today, including the tiny bombardier beetle, than can also produce explosive mixtures.

Modern science shows that flying Pterosaurs had specialised brains and inner-ear structures enabling flight and hunting. Pterodactyls may be being described in the flying serpents documented in Isaiah 30:6. Their specialised brains dedicated 400 percent more space to processing the mass of information gathered by the wing membranes than modern birds dedicate to flight. Far from being primitive ancestors, they could easily outperform both birds and bats. But does this mean there were more complex organisms in the past than are present now? Doesn’t this run against the theory of evolution which says things were more primitive in the past than in the present?

Historical and Cultural Evidence

Noah must have taken dinosaurs into the ark. Most dinosaurs were no larger than dogs, but even the largest ones are small when they first hatch from an egg. After the flood, the climate was different. Dinosaurs needed lots of vegetation for food. About 100 years after the flood  the continents were divided creating isolated animal groups. The climate was harsher and life was very different. Deserts formed, and ice and snow covered large parts of the earth. Dinosaurs were not as able to cope in the new environment and many became extinct. However, there are numerous accounts from around the world that not only offer circumstantial evidence that man and dinosaurs existed together, but that this may have been in the very recent past.

China is steeped in a rich history of dragon legends. Carvings and sculptures resembling dinosaurs have been found in many parts of the world, including the ancient civilisation in Babylon and Europe. The Ishtar Gate into Babylon built around 600 BC, now on display in Berlin Museum, is decorated with pictures of dragons. Not only does England have the St. George and the dragon legend, but Wales has a dragon as its national emblem, giving credence to it being an actual animal.

Stories of dragons are found in many cultures. Historical records from Anglo-Saxon and the Middle Ages record numerous dinosaur-like sightings. Canterbury Cathedral library records an entry for 1449 describing a fight between two giant reptiles near Little Conrad, which was witnessed by the locals. A similar report from 1405 describes a dragon that attacked a flock of sheep killing the shepherd. The report says that this creature had a vast body with a crested head, saw-like teeth and a long tail. This description, written, of course, before the age of fossil hunters or dinosaur textbooks, accurately describes the five-foot-tall, meat-eating, two-legged Dilophosaurus dinosaur that was 20 feet long from head to tail.

In north Australia there are drawings of plesiosaur-like sea monsters made by the Aborigines, which suggest that they must have been around until quite recently. The legend of the Scottish Loch Ness monster might also describe a plesiosaur sea creature.

Some scientists believe dinosaurs still exist in the jungles of Africa. There have been many sightings of an animal looking half-elephant, half-dragon near Lake Tele in the Congo. Eighty percent of this jungle remains unexplored. Footprints with claw marks have been found that are up to 90 cm in diameter and spaced at 2.5 m intervals. These footprints do not belong to any known species. The pygmies call the creature Mokele-Mbembe which means ‘one who stops the flow of water’. Scientists speculate that this could be a sauropod dinosaur, 10 metres long with a 3 m neck enabling it to pluck leaves and fruit from the lakeside plants. These dinosaurs were thought to be extinct 65 million years ago. Similar sightings have been seen in the Congo, Cameroon and Gabon.

Some will dismiss historical records as fables. However, triangulating bearings from more than one source of evidence does enable us to more precisely pinpoint the truth. Are these all make believe stories or do they go back to a root of truth which describes man’s interrelationship with dinosaurs of the past and disproves the myth that dinosaurs lived eons before man?

10

discredited
pseudo-science

Far from being unbiased, independent, rational scientists wedded to honesty and integrity in the search for truth, we have seen that too often evolutionists come to the microscope with a preconceived agenda, determined to interpret the data from an anti-creationist perspective or, worse still, to fudge and fiddle their findings.

Not only is evolution not a proven fact, but it is against the geological and fossil evidence. It is desperate to find an indisputable, missing-link transitional form, and has eagerly embraced poorly documented research and hoaxes. For example, the dinobird called Archaeoraptor, was eventually exposed as the tail of a dinosaur glued to a bird’s body. Likewise, the fossil Lucy’s knee joint was found 1.5 miles from the rest of the fossil in a different rock layer. Collecting scattered bone from different rock strata miles apart, and then claiming they belong to the same specimen, is not serious science. The data sample size on which these views are formulated is too small for any scientific study and would not pass for an undergraduate dissertation. In fact, all the fossils combined that are supposed to document the link between man and ape would not fill one coffin.

Determined to conceal the truth, they attempt to mesmerise the public into accepting the development of new species, quoting pesticide resistance and adaptation of life to new environments, as evidence of evolution when it is nothing more than survival of the fittest. Evolution has never been observed, and therefore is not a theory that other scientists can investigate objectively.

But rather than interpret the data that is both observable and testable, they invent new and imaginative myths such as the hopeful monster and punctuated equilibrium fantasies, that are no more scientific than fairies at the bottom of the garden. These theories do not rely upon real evidence that you can hold in your hand, but are built upon belief and faith in their philosophy to explain life on earth. This is nothing more than speculation passed off as fact. Invariably, they worship at the altar of the religion called ‘humanism’ and are actively seeking to impose this atheistic faith on our children through school teaching, religious education, television and the media.

This consistently poor track record, in wandering very far from the observable scientific and testable evidence, is not serious science. It is fiddled, fantasy science that has rightly earned the name pseudo-science, meaning false science.

Not only is this fantasy science disproved by the evidence, but it actually contradicts known and proven scientific laws. One such example is the Law of Thermodynamics. This is basic schoolboy science taught throughout the world. All processes in the universe obey these laws and there are no exceptions.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy is neither being created nor destroyed, but it can be converted from one form of energy to another. For example, electrical energy can be converted to light energy to illuminate your house. The significance of this Law is that it implies the universe must have had a beginning, a singularity from which time began.

Cambridge University (England) Professor Stephen Hawking’s theory of the big bang, and evolution, contradict this law. Not surprisingly, in July 2004, and after thirty years of holding to a theory that clearly violates this known scientific law, Professor Hawking made a major U-turn, admitting there are holes in his theory. In particular, he guessed that black holes would destroy everything which fell into them. This is unscientific because the First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter can neither be created or destroyed. This problem became known as the ‘information paradox’. Now he tells us black holes leak radiation and eventually open up to reveal the information inside! Rather than being chastised for misleading a generation into false science, he is being praised for this new theory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that over time, all matter decays, moving from a state of order to one of disorder. We see this law in operation every time we return to our houses from a holiday only to have to dust away more dirt. As time goes on there is more decay. The big bang theory is again in contradiction of this known scientific law. It suggests that from the disorder of an explosion, a beautifully ordered cosmos formed. The theory of evolution also violates the second law of thermodynamics because it requires things to improve over time. According to the theory, evolution occurs when lower life forms miraculously gain new genetic information and improve to become higher life forms. This is rather like saying that you can leave your broken car to fix itself!

Now exposed as having unscientific theories, evolutionists try to escape by claiming that these proven, scientific laws don’t apply to them! They defend themselves with classical anti-creationist misinformation, stating that the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to open systems such as the earth. They say extra energy from the sun fuelled evolution and thereby got around the law. Again, this is not what the observable scientific evidence proves. Far from creating a higher life form, exposure to prolonged radiation causes degenerative diseases and information-losing , mutation , copying errors in the cell’s genes. In fact, the second law applies as equally to open systems as it does to closed systems, and yet this error continues to be perpetuated in evolutionists’ dogma.

Fortunately, there is an increasing chorus of true scientists who are prepared to stand up and voice their concerns about the misuse of scientific data, and the authenticity of this unproved theory. Some of these scientists have been described earlier in the book. The following quotes provide examples of what true scientists having been saying:

It has been described as: ‘A fairy tale for grown-ups’. Prof . Louis Bounoure, former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research (The Advocate, 08.03.84, p. 17)

‘Little more than story-telling’. The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History (04.03.82 BBC interview)

It is taught by: ‘Great con-men’. Dr T N Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission, USA (The Fresno Bee, 20.08.59)

Future generations will consider it: ‘One of the great jokes in the history books’. Malcolm Muggeridge, journalist and philosopher (Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada)

After 150 years to gather evidence, and after billions of dollars in research grants, evolution remains unproven. It is a belief that contradicts known scientific laws. Evolution is held by faith; it is maintained despite the lack of any real evidence. On this basis, we have every right to reject it.

Creation science doesn’t contradict any known scientific laws. In fact, the Bible has always been ahead of its time in presenting observations on the natural world that were often substantiated by scientific enquiry centuries later. For example, the Bible taught that the earth was round (Isa 40:22; Job 26:10), at a time when scientists of the day said it was flat and held up on turtles! It anticipated many modern scientific discoveries including; an expanding universe (Ps 104:1–2); an earth suspended in space (Job 26:7); the First Law of Thermodynamics (Gen 2:2–3; Heb 4:3–4; Neh 9:6); the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Ps 103; Isa 51:6; Matt 24:35); astronomy (Jer 33:22); haematology (Lev 17:11); ocean floor mountains (Jonah 2:5–6); and the hydrological cycle (Eccl 1:6–7). The biblical record agrees with the fossil record and the observable scientific evidence.

The evidence of a creator is present in the natural world around us, so that even if we have never read the Bible or gone to church, we should be convinced that God exists because of the complexity and design observed (Rom 1:18). However, God invites us to come and reason with Him (Isa 1:18). God wants you to question Him and share your doubts with Him. Our faith is not blind obedience — it is reasoned faith. Then the time will come when like General Joshua preparing to settle the Hebrews in the Promised Land, you too will have to make a decision and choose whom you will serve — the god of chance or the God of design. I hope that you will respond like Joshua “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Josh 24:15).

bibliography

Websites

www.answersingenesis.org

www.creationsciencemovement.com

www.c-r-t.co.uk

www.humanism.org.uk

www.scienceagainstevolution.org

The biblical answer to racism.

www.biblicalcreation.co.uk

Literature, Audio, and Internet

Abou-Rahme, Farid. 2000. And God Said: Science Confirms the Authority of the Bible. 3d ed. Kilmarnock, UK: John Ritchie.

Ahuja, Anjana. 2004. ‘A Species is Born: Scientists believe that they may be witnessing evolution in action on our northern coastline’. The Times: 14. 22 July p22

Ashton, John F ( ed ed .) 1999. In Six Days: Why 50 Scientist Choose to Believe in Creation. Australia: Ne w w

Holland.

Austin, Dr Stephen A. Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe. Video K35. (Creation Science Foundation).

Batton, Don (ed.)  2000. Answers to the 4 Big Questions! (Answers in Genesis).

Batton, Don (ed.) 2002. The Answers Book: Revised and Expanded. San Diego: Masters books.

Batton, Don. 2000. ‘Ligers and Wholphins, What Next?’ Creation 22 no. 3: 28-33.

Behe, Michael J. 1998. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Blick, Edward F. 1991. A Scientific Analysis of Genesis. Oklahoma City: Hearthstone.

Cambridge University. ‘The Darwin correspondence online database’. http://darwin.lib.cam.ac.uk.

Chapman, Geoff. 2000. ‘Weird and Wonderful’. Creation Resources Trust.

CSM  2002. ‘Pamphlet Collection Volume 1’. Creation Science Movement.

CSM  2002. ‘Pamphlet Collection Volume 2’. Creation Science Movement.

CRT 1992. ‘Did dinosaurs and human coexist?’ Fact sheet 35. Creation Resources Trust.

Denton, Michael. 2002. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Woodbine House.

Gish, Duane T, et al. 1992. Dinosaurs by Design. San Diego: Master Books.

Golovin, Sergei. 1996. ‘Human and Dinosaur Footprints in Turkmenistan’. Creation 18 no. 4: 52.

Ham, Ken. 1997. “Demolishing the Straw Man,” Creation 19 no. 4: 13–15.

Ham, Ken and Carl Weiland and Don Batton. ‘Natural selection and speciation’, chap. 2 in One Blood

(San Diego: Master Books, 1999).

Ham, Ken. 1998. The Lie: Evolution. San Diego: Master Books.

Hunt, Kathleen. 1997. “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils” FAQ [Online] www.talkorigins.org. (Accessed: 11 July 2000.)

Johnson, Philip E. 1993. Darwin on Trial, 2 n d ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

LaLonde, Peter and Paul LaLonde. 1996. 301 Startling Proofs and Prophecies. Niagara Falls, ONT: Prophecy Partners.

Lindsay, William. 1998. American Museum of Natural History: On the Trail of Incredible Dinosaurs. New York: DK Publishing.

Lubenow, Marvin L. 1998. Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils. Cedar Rapids: Baker.

Lucas, S. 2004, ‘Defender of the Faithless’. Times Educational Supplement 5. 9 July p5

Mayr, Gerald. 2004. ‘Old World Fossil Record of Modern-Type Hummingbirds’. Science 304.

Oard, Michael. 2003. ‘Neandertal Man—the changing picture’. Creation 25 no. 4:10-14.

Sarfati, Jonathan. 2004. Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billons of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross. San Diego: Master Books.

Sarfati, Jonathan and Mike Matthews. 2002. Refuting Evolution 2. San Diego: Master Books.

Snelling, Andrew (ed.) 1990. The Revised Quote Book. Australia: Creation Science Foundation.

Stewart, Don. 1993. “The Bible and Science.” AusAmerica.

‘Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?’ 2004. www.answersingenesis.org.  

Van Wyhe, John (ed.) ‘The writings of Charles Darwin on the web’. (http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/) (Accessed 18 Oct 2004).

Wallace, Joseph. 1989. Complete Book of the Dinosaur. New York: Gallery.

Weiland, Carl. 1999. ‘Brisk Biters’. Creation Magazine 21 no. 2: 41.

Wells, Jonathan. 2001. ‘Survival of the Fakest’. The American Spectator.

Whitcomb, John C. 1986. The Early Earth: An Introduction to Biblical Creationism. 2 n d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker.

about the author

Laurie Brown is a professional land based scientist with over twenty years experience gained both in the UK and overseas. His work has taken him to the rainforest, savannah and the deserts of Africa as well as the farms and countryside of England and Europe. He has both lectured and operated as a senior manager at specialist land based colleges throughout Britain.

In addition to authoring the top selling college textbook Applied Principles of Horticultural Science, Laurie has written various books and articles, and has contributed to different radio programmes. Laurie now works as a freelance scientist and education consultant and is the leader of Calvary Chapel Torbay, located on the South Devon coast of England.