top of page

The god of Evolution


God of Evolution


By Les Sherlock March 2021, but originally posted 2015

I first came across a website called '', although it now appears to have been taken down as the link no longer works. A Facebook friend had received a rude response to comments she made on postings by someone using the pseudonym ‘god of evolution’. I decided to make a comment myself, asking for a response to my challenge, since I believe no evolutionist is able to show how evolution could overcome the insurmountable obstacles. So I gave a link to the relevant page on my website because the argument is far too long to post on Facebook.


When I checked back a couple of days later, I discovered that not only had my comment been removed, but I had been blocked from making any further comments on any god of evolution posting. So I then visited the website, to find that it is the work of Tyler Francke, a young man who appears to have a fairly large chip on his shoulder. I say this for a simple reason: the website is campaigning for the Christian Church to accept the theory of evolution; but should any Christian dare to put his/her head over the parapet as a creationist, they are met with heavy criticism, rudeness and derogatory remarks. One would have thought someone wanting to turn people to his own point of view would present a rather more reasoned and polite response rather than a hail of bullets! However, this is a matter for him.

Perhaps his statement that...


“GOE forcefully opposes those religious groups and individuals who teach that accepting evolution or reading Genesis any way other than literally makes you a second-rate, “compromising” Christian”


...explains it. However, I certainly agree with...


“Wherever you stand in the fight, we think its outcome is one of vital importance,”


...which is why I am spending so much time on this.

Bearing this in mind, I then decided to write to the email address on the website and see if I could get a response privately, since he obviously did not want to do it in a public arena. The resulting correspondence can be seen below, and I reproduce it here for three reasons:

1. It demonstrates the inability of evolutionists to address their problem and perhaps also explains why they remain in the delusion. Bear in mind this correspondence is with a person who delights to jump on creationists and what they say, belittling them with scornful disdain. I think you will see this in the emails below. However, my contribution on his Facebook posting did not receive this treatment, but instead was immediately removed. Why was this?


He, quote, “forcefully opposes those religious groups and individuals…,” so why did he not do it to me? Surely, if my challenge is so fundamentally flawed and easily defeated, why did he not take the opportunity to do to me what he delights to do to everyone else? He immediately pounced on what he mistakenly thought was a weakness in my argument when I mentioned Haldane in the Challenge (see later). So it is clear that he would have attacked the problem I gave him had he known how to do it. Does his excuse for not doing so stand up? I leave it to you to decide.

2. I ask my Christian friends, as you read this, to pray for Tyler, that the scales may be removed from his eyes and that he might see the deception under which he has fallen and become like so many other people, including many scientists, who began as evolutionists until they realised that scientific observation destroys the theory and turned away from it.

3. As a final attempt to persuade Tyler to look at the issue, having put this page on the Internet I sent a link to him and promised to include his response, as you will see.

So here it is. Each email is headed with the date and time it was sent. GOE is god of evolution, of course.


31.7.15   8:16 To GOE 

Hello Tyler,

I see that you very rapidly removed my comment from your Facebook posting, and it appears have also blocked me from making any more comments. There can be only one reason for this from someone who has set up a web page with the intention of combating creationism and who is scathing about creationists: you know you cannot answer the challenge! So instead of having the honesty to address the issue you have chosen to try to sweep it under the carpet. Well, you may be able to block me, but you can’t block your own conscience, which will not allow you to pretend that those who accept the Bible as literally God’s word are wrong.


I’m afraid your problem just got a bit bigger, as not only do you have to account for mutational change in nuclear DNA in my Challenge, but that in mitochondrial DNA as well.* (In case you need reminding, you can find it here: However, if what you say is correct, then you’ll have no difficulty in giving me an answer that stands up to scrutiny, will you? Or could it be that the god of evolution is actually the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4), and his first ever deception, “Has God said…?” in relation to Genesis 2:17 has now morphed into “Has God said…?” in relation to Genesis 2:1–2 (and Exodus 20:11), a lie that has been one of the biggest obstacles to people believing the Bible?


(* I had just added the section on mitochondrial DNA to the challenge, so if he’d looked at it when I first put the link on his Facebook posting he wouldn’t have seen it.)

I pray God’s blessing on you as you wrestle with the realisation that you have been deceived, and trust that His Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth, will release you into the fullness of your birth right as one of His children.


Every blessing,



31.7.15   13:05 From GOE

Hey Les,

Yes, I banned you from my page because I am mortally terrified of you and your mighty intellect. It had nothing to do with the fact that you were clearly not interested in engaging in any of the ongoing discussions, just trolling your own site.

Nice Web page though. Haven't seen work that since the GeoCities days of the early 1990s.

Blessings on you as well.



(I could hardly be accused of not engaging in the discussion when the topic was evolution and I was giving evidence countering it; and of course Tyler made very sure I could not engage in the on-going discussion by blocking me from doing so!)

31.7.15   19:36 To GOE


Thanks for the reply. However, your sarcasm hardly does it justice. I am not at all bothered about trolling my website, as you put it: it is a simple way of putting the argument across quickly and easily without cluttering up Facebook with long postings.


So now we've got some of your insults out of the way perhaps you would explain to me the answer to the primary question I put on my page: since observation shows the amount of change required to produce humans and chimps from a common ancestor is orders of magnitude greater than the amount of change possible in the time available, how did it happen?


(The only reason for me sending the emails was to try to get Tyler to address the issue.)

I have presented this question to many evolutionists on the Internet, and am very used to their childish insults and petty name-calling they use as a smoke-screen to disguise the fact that they cannot come up with a response that stands up to scrutiny; but not one has ever given me an answer. Perhaps you could be the first?

(I have found that the quality and quantity of insults are usually directly proportional to the degree of desperation the evolutionist has in trying to counter the argument. For this reason I find them encouraging rather than anything else, and it provides greater incentive to continue the debate.)

I wait with interest...


P.S. Many thanks for the compliment - for someone who left school at 15 with no qualifications at all, it is very encouraging to be told my intellect is 'mighty'! Or was that sarcasm as well? :-)

31.7.15   19:54 From GOE


If you really want to know, go talk to a scientist. I don't have the time or interest necessary to explain something this complicated to someone who is not really interested in an answer


(Tyler tries to pretend this is me asking a question for which I do not have an answer, when it is perfectly obvious I have it in the evidence that refutes the evolutionary theory he promotes, and it is he who does not have the answer!)

31.7.15   20:10 To GOE


I knew you wouldn't be able to answer; but to remove your excuse I have spent very many hours reading evolutionary literature and discussing the matter with scientists; so trying to pretend to yourself that I am not interested in your answer may satisfy you, but it doesn't fool me.

However, you are clearly wedded to your view regardless of scientific observation, so there is little point in continuing these emails. But every time you aim your vitriol at creationists on your web page and Facebook, you will remember there is one out here to whom you were unable to defend your position.

Best wishes,



31.7.15   22:21 From GOE

Hey Les,

You can try and bait me all you wish, but I'm simply not interested. If it gives you some internal boost to your self-esteem to make-believe that you have "stumped" me, then go right ahead, but you really have not. I am not an expert on all things related to evolutionary science,


(Here he blows his cover and admits this topic is outside of his field. Amazing really, since science is primarily about how things happen, and for evolution to take place it has to be in the DNA of a cell; yet evolution is the thing he is promoting and he doesn’t know about it!)

but it does take more than a retooled version of J.B.S. Haldane's long-debunked "dilemma," which was weak, overly simplistic and based on several miscalculations and patently incorrect assumptions when it first came out in the '50s. Only an anti-evolutionist, and a particularly desperate one at that, would dredge it up from the grave and claim it as bulletproof.

(Straw-man arguments (distorting someone’s argument in order easily to defeat it) are a standard ploy of evolutionists. My reply below answers this one.)

I seriously doubt you have ever actually discussed your home-brewed version of the would-be "dilemma" with any legitimate scientist in a relevant field, but if you really did, then you obviously failed to understand or deliberately misunderstood what he or she said.

1.8.15   21:46 To GOE

Hello Tyler,

Your replies astound me! I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised at the insults, rudeness, etc. – after all, this is stock in trade for most evolutionists – but I would expect rather better from someone who claims to be a Christian. I have been unable to reply to you sooner, because I’ve been at work all day; but that is perhaps as well as it means I can give a more considered response than might otherwise have been the case!


Well, you tell God that He is a liar in what He said in Exodus 20:11, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when you do the same to me.  However, to prove you wrong, let me introduce you to Dr Geoff Barnard, Ph.D. (University of London), M.A. (Theol.), M.I. Biol., C. Biol.


(Details about him can be found here. I should point out that since his move to Israel some years ago I have lost touch with him, so as far as I know he has never seen my website. Therefore my reference to him here in no way indicates that he would confirm or deny anything on this site. However, while minor details may vary from what he would say, I believe the keys points are correct and in any case I have quoted from qualified and reliable sources to support them: e.g. the quote in the notes at the end of the Challenge is by Dr Robert W. Carter, who amongst other things has written computer programs to analyse human genetic data. So this is now two scientists I have quoted (and there are more!), specialising in the field, who agree evolution is impossible.)


I first met him around 15 or so years ago (I forget exactly when it was), when he gave a series of lectures on his specialised subject of molecular biology. Look him up on the Internet. No, to save you the bother of searching, here’s a link, if you can bring yourself to look at a creationist website: One of his favourite sayings in relation to the molecular structure of a cell, was


“Evolution is impossible because there is no mechanism for it.”


Indeed, he pointed out that all the systems and structures within a cell related to mutation are there to prevent it, not to enable it to happen. This, of course, is exactly as creation predicts, while it is the opposite of what evolution predicts: how on earth could mutation that produces sufficient advantage for it to be favoured by natural selection and passed on evolve a system that is designed to prevent mutation from occurring and being passed on? However, that is a side issue and I don’t want to be diverted from the main point.

So I have listened to many hours of lectures from him on the molecular structure and systems within a cell, and also discussed it with him on occasions. (In fact it was his comment that the change from some sub-human species to modern man would be orders of magnitude larger than could ever get through the ‘anti-mutation systems’ (my phrase) in the cell, that led me to see if numbers could be put to the problem).  I have also listened to lectures (in the same series) from scientists specialising in other fields, all with the common theme: ‘in my speciality I see proof of creation and the impossibility of evolution’! In addition I have read many books on both sides of the debate. Indeed, it was reading one of Massimo Pigliucci’s books that resulted in my website. Having seen the huge holes in his arguments, and his inconsistencies and dependence on straw-man arguments, I wrote my response to it for the benefit of the person who loaned me the book thinking it would destroy my creationism. Instead it confirmed it, and my response led that person to rethink their own understanding. I then decided to put it on the web, and so it started, evolving into what it is today.

(You can see it here.)

Since molecular biology is not your specialised field, you are no more qualified in the area than I am! So I understand you saying, “I am not an expert on all things related to evolutionary science,” but I do find it extraordinary that a man who has a website designed to destroy the arguments of creationism, has no answer to the most basic and fundamental question of them all. It is quite clear that you do not have the answer, because if you did you would have treated me the same way you treat the other creationists and have my ‘Challenge’ on view and belittle it with your superior knowledge.

Evolution is primarily, if not totally, about a species turning into a higher species, over and over and over again, producing all the life forms on earth from a single cell; but if it doesn’t happen at the molecular level in a cell, it doesn’t happen at all. And yet you can’t explain the simple observation that the mutational change we see does not fit with evolutionary theory. Ok, if you can’t answer it follow your own advice and do what I did: go and ask a scientist – one who is qualified in the field. The question is:

How can evolution be true when the amount of mutation in nuclear DNA required to produce the difference we see between chimps and humans from a common ancestor in 6 million years is orders of magnitude larger than what can be observed to take place and be favoured by natural selection; while the amount and rate of mutation observed in mitochondrial DNA is orders of magnitude smaller than what should be there after c180,000 years of human life?


Of course, if your comprehension is as poor as it appears to have been when reading my challenge, you may not be able to understand such a long sentence (two can play at the insults game :-) ). Certainly, if you misunderstand everything you read the way you misunderstood my mention of Haldane, then it is not surprising you have been taken in by evolution (or are you deliberately putting up a straw-man argument?). I simply quoted him to point out that the problem has been known since he first mentioned it, and then explained a little of what he said – nothing of which has any effect on my argument – the figures I used in my example answers had nothing to do with Haldane. My use of his 300 generations at the end was purely because it is a coincidental multiple of the 30,000 generations of Lenski: but the fact that the greatest mutation preserved by natural selection that Lenski saw was 2, once in a massively higher population than ever could be the case in mammals, after 30,000 generations, blows all evolutionary theory out of the water and makes anything Haldane or anyone else said totally irrelevant. I have yet to see anything from an evolutionist that solves the problem. Rather it has become very much greater as more has become known.


(It doesn’t matter what figure is used at this point: even using just one generation instead of Haldane's 300 results in a period far longer than would fit into any evolutionary timescale: in this case it works out at 2,373,525,000 years to produce the change; about half the evolutionary estimate of the age of the earth!)

Finally this exchange is getting us nowhere; so please do not write to me again unless it is to include a valid answer to the question I have given you. In the meantime, as you suggest, I will certainly quote ‘god of evolution’ as one more example of the inability of evolutionists to defend their theory from this most obvious observation. In fact I may put all of this correspondence on my website as an example of the impotence of evolutionary theory to meet the challenge.

Best wishes,


1.8.15   22:25 From GOE

Hey Les,

Wow, you talked to a proponent of young-earth creationism, whose a priori belief is that evolution is impossible (based on his misunderstanding of scripture), and he agreed with you that evolution is impossible. Well, color me impressed.


(His arrogance is breath taking! He writes off a scientist specialising in the field under discussion, who has qualifications far higher than Tyler’s, because he is a creationist. Well, every evolutionary scientist under the sun has an a priori belief that creation is impossible: so what’s the difference? It is very clear that with Tyler it is a case of, “I’ve made my mind up, don’t confuse me with the facts!”)

Again, you can think whatever you want about me if it gives you the warm fuzzies inside. The fact remains that your question is not that hard, and any legitimate scientist in the relevant fields could explain to you what you are getting wrong. I still don't believe you have the slightest interest in getting the answer, or you would have one. It is that simple.

(By 2005, when this bio was written, Dr Barnard had published over 50 peer-reviewed research papers and written nine chapters for academic science textbooks. He also held five patents at that time, mainly in the field of immunoassay techniques. I think that makes him a legitimate scientist in the relevant field! However, it is clear that regardless of their qualifications, any scientist who supports creation is immediately written off by Tyler as irrelevant. So we have a self-fulfilling prophecy here (or is it a circular argument? I can’t decide which!): “Any scientist who says he believes creation doesn’t count; there are no scientists who believe in creation.” This is why I say Tyler is blinded: he does not take into consideration the work of those who can prove his belief in evolution to be misplaced. It is obvious he has not come across this problem before, since he is implying it has been dreamed up by me! All I am doing is relaying the problem in layman’s terms, however imperfectly, because that is what I am.)

You can do whatever you like with our correspondence (not that you need my permission, of course, as you seem to know). I'm really not too worried about any consequences that could arise from anything being posted to your your, um, interestingly designed echo chamber website.



1.8.15   22:28 To GOE

That's not the answer!

That’s the end of the emails!


I did my best to get him to address the issue but, as can be seen, he refused. There is no doubt in my mind that if he did have an answer that would destroy the challenge I gave him, then he would have used it to mock me the way he mocks everyone else. Instead he resorts to sarcastic insults and bluster. Unfortunately for him they are lost on me for the following reasons:

The snide comment about my ‘mighty intellect’, which obviously means the opposite, is rather amusing. I am well aware that, with an education that ended below GCE level (as it was called when I was at school) I am an intellectual pygmy. I make no claims about my intelligence whatsoever. So insults about this are ‘water off a duck’s back’. The one thing I learned in school was to read and write, both of which I enjoy and do frequently. Having had the opportunity to read a fair amount of literature on both sides of the evolution/creation debate, and having observed the poverty of the evolutionists’ arguments, which frequently depend on straw-man, bait-and-switch, duck-and-dive and various other techniques, I feel I would like to do my bit and share with anyone who cares to read it, what I have discovered.

'Straw-man' is distorting an argument in order to easily defeat it. ‘Bait-and-switch’ is using evidence for one thing that is true to prove another thing that is not true. ‘Duck-and-dive’ is avoiding the issue.

So how can a nobody like me be so sure I am right when so many people far cleverer than I say the opposite? For the same reason I knew I was right some years ago at a time when every evolutionist in the world was saying that 95% of our DNA is junk, something they claimed for 40 years, but I along with many other creationists predicted that this was due to ignorance about how it all worked and when more became known it would be seen that it is not all junk. This was a few years before the ENCODE project began, and when its findings were published in 2012, sure enough, they declared that 95% of our DNA is not junk. In their report, they said:


“It’s not “junk”.... “Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another…”


Evolutionists constantly claim that creation is not science, but in fact it hinders true science. The ENCODE project shows that it is the opposite: it is the theory of evolution that had not been true science, and in fact their claim of ‘junk’ had delayed research into vital areas for a number of years. See below. They are now finding, in that 95%, the root cause of some illnesses, and as a result will be able to treat them in ways impossible previously. If they had listened to creationists, the years this part of our DNA had been ignored would not have been wasted.

Wojciech Makalowski, a Pennsylvania State University biology professor and researcher in computational evolutionary genomics said:


“Although very catchy, the term "junk DNA" repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years. After all, who would like to dig through genomic garbage?”

How could a nobody like me be right when all the world’s evolutionary scientists were wrong? Because I know my Father, who...


He chooses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise!

1 Corinthians 1:27.

I have walked with Him for around 71 years and from personal experience I know His word is true. See here for the account of how He was with me through, probably, the most difficult and dangerous time of my life, just a few months before writing this.

The derogatory remarks about my website are equally ineffective. I am very well aware that it is not the all singing all dancing presentation that many have. I am not interested in this at all; I simply aim at having a platform to enable me to share the things I do, which will be as user-friendly as possible. I know I become very frustrated when visiting some of these ‘clever’ sites, struggling to find something and not knowing where it is. So my aim has been to produce a simple home page that directs visitors to the different sections, where a simple explanation for each page tells them what they will find.

Since writing the above paragraph I was obliged to redesign the website because the software I was using for it stopped working and I went over to Wix, using their website tools. So the present site is very different from how the original one looked, although I tried to retain a similar system of negotiating around the different pages.

In the statement of faith for Christian Theistic Evolutionists on the god of evolution website, and I would heartily agree with most of it, is written:

"Nature, like scripture, is a book written by God, and it cannot lie, just as he cannot."

However, this ignores one important factor. Nature is no longer the way God created it:


Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.

Genesis 1:31

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you..."

Gen 3:17-18

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.

Rom 8:20-22

Since Tyler believes the Bible to be...


“infallible and authoritative on all matters on which it was and is intended to teach,”


...this is something he must therefore accept. Sin had as radical effect on nature as it did on humans, so this must be taken into account when deciding issues like evolution. However, I completely agree that the truth of how God created everything around 6,000 years ago, as the Bible clearly teaches, can be seen in nature, and my challenge looks at the way nature functions to prove that evolution cannot possibly account for all of living things. If Tyler refuses to consider the work of specialists in the field of molecular biology when they discover findings that contradict evolution, then he is obviously not looking at nature carefully enough!

It was not my intention to give a commentary on Tyler’s website here, but after looking at it briefly, I must mention this contradiction in his reasoning. On it he said,

 “…Which means I must accept that pain, suffering and physical death were part of God’s original plans for this universe. And I do.”

Why then does God consider death an enemy, and will destroy it in the future? Or isn’t that part of the Bible “infallible and authoritative on all matters on which it was and is intended to teach?”

The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15:26

And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." 

Revelation 21:4

It is astounding to me that a comparatively uneducated piano tuner like me can present an argument that leaves well-educated people like Tyler blustering and bluffing to hide their inability to counter it. I am the equivalent of the little boy in the crowd shouting,


“The emperor has no clothes!”

It is time for Tyler and his evolutionary colleagues, many of whom base their atheism on the theory, to prove the evolutionary emperor is not naked! (According to Richard Dawkins, evolution’s guru, atheism is the only possible, logical response to evolution.)

3.8.15   16:26 To GOE

Hello Tyler,

I have now put our correspondence on my website (you can find it at, and this is to invite you to make your response to it, which I will include unchanged. It must be of reasonable length and, as it’s my web site, I reserve the right to the last word!

While obviously I will make no changes to our emails, I may tinker with the page and add to or change my comments in the future as things occur to me. However, for anything more than minor bits and bobs (e.g. correction of grammar and typos or further clarification), I will make it clear this had not been seen by you when you responded.

Otherwise I ask that you do not email me again unless it is to address the issue you have been avoiding throughout our exchanges.

Best wishes,


3.8.15   17:46 From GOE

Hey Les,

Like I said before, baiting me won't work, because I'm simply not interested. But I did click the link, so at least you'll have one hit for today.

Also, glad to see you figured out how to add color and italics to the text on your site. Did you take some basic coding class from a local continuing education program? Good for you!

Finally, "please" drop the arrogant and self-deluded mandates for when I may and may not answer your missives, as if you had any right to do so. Just to give you a heads up, I'll decide when and if I respond, but thanks.

If you don't wish to hear from me, you shouldn't have trolled my site and started this email exchange in the first place.

All the best,



3.8.15   18:59 To GOE

Hello Tyler,

Thanks for the reply, which I will add to my site as I promised. There won't be a second opportunity for you to do this, but I think I have given you a fair chance.

You can send further emails to me as and when you like - that's your prerogative; but I shall not reply to anything unless it contains a valid response to the issue.

Best wishes,


3.8.15 19:26 From GOE

Hey Les,


Yeah, courtesy is your middle name. Glad to hear I won't have to read any more of your silly messages, though. Have fun living in your fantasy world, where you're a genius, of whom the scientists of the world tremble in fear.





'Nuff said!


Scripture taken from the New King James Version.

Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

bottom of page