top of page
Meditate at the beach

The Religious Faith
of Evolution




What is faith?


Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid, is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept. (Wikipedia)


Therefore by that definition evolution is a faith, since those who adhere to it have confidence in the concept. Evolutionists, of course, claim their belief is not faith but science. For that to be the case though, there must be observable, incontrovertible, scientific evidence supporting it; but when it comes to matters of the origin of the universe and all different living things, we are considering events have happened in the past and so cannot be observed happening today.* All we can do is to take into consideration the processes and information we can observe in the present, and then decide what is the most likely explanation for the past.


* However, if evolution is true then it must still be happening today; but no-one can give a single living example of anything at a part-way stage of becoming something else. So it cannot be observed and must be believed by faith.


Ever since Darwin popularised the theory of evolution, adherents to his theory, or variations of it, have been pouring scorn on any idea of ‘creation’ claiming it is religious faith that has no scientific foundation. However, in recent years a significant turn-around has taken place that leaves the evolutionists themselves in precisely that position, as we shall see later in their own words, meaning they have faith in processes that not merely have no scientific foundation, but actually conflict with scientific observation.


Note that on this page, the word ‘evolution’ is used in its widest sense: both to refer to living things evolving by naturalistic processes from a single-celled organism (which is mostly what this page is about), and the universe evolving by naturalistic processes from the Big Bang. Since the evolution of living things requires a universe in which to operate, it is obvious that its believers must also believe that it could all have appeared without any form of intelligent intervention.



Scientific Evidence for Evolution


We’ll begin by looking at the evidence that has been presented to the world as absolute proof evolution is undeniable fact.


  1. In Darwin’s famous book, he said there were many unseen transitional fossils showing the evolution of living things, waiting to be found in the geological layers around the earth.

  2. Neanderthal man, a transitional form in the line from the common ancestor of modern man and chimps.

  3. Archaeopteryx, a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.

  4. Haeckel’s diagrams of embryonic recapitulation, showing human embryos duplicating evolutionary stages leading up to humans.

  5. The fossil horse series, with fossils showing the transitional stages leading to modern horses.

  6. Vestigial organs in humans: left-overs from our evolutionary past, with 100 or more having no purpose (claimed in Britannica)

  7. Piltdown Man, a transitional form leading to modern humans.

  8. Nebraska Man, another transitional ancestor of humans.

  9. The Miller/Urey Experiment of 1953, showing how inanimate matter could have changed to a living organism.

  10. Peppered Moths, evolving a change of appearance due to contamination of tree trunks.

  11. Junk DNA, with 95% of human DNA having no purpose, being useless left-overs from our evolutionary past.

  12. 98% similarity between human and chimp DNA, proving our close ancestry.

  13. Tiktaalik, the link between fish and amphibians.

  14. A long list of different species showing evolutionary change through natural selection, like breeds of dogs, for example.

  15. Mutation altering DNA and (for example) causing fish swimming in dark caves to lose their eyes (which could be damaged without light), and beetles on windy islands to lose their wings (which could be blown out to sea in windy conditions).


It’s an impressive list, on which the entire edifice of evolution has been built. There is just one snag: it’s a pack of lies! Every single one of those ‘evidences’ has been shown to be false, either due to deliberate fraud or lack of knowledge.


  1. Since Darwin’s claim, a number of fossils originally thought to be transitional have been found (some mentioned below), but turned out to be something different. All that remains today is a handful of disputed finds that are better classified as mutation causing damage, or misrepresentation. For step-by-step change to evolve different kinds of things there would be far more transitional fossils than ‘complete’ ones, so the fossil record should be awash with them. The fact they are not there is evidence it never happened – reasoning that even Darwin accepted, since he said that if the fossils were not there this would disprove his theory.

  2. DNA analysis proves Neanderthal man is as human as the rest of us.

  3. Archaeopteryx has been proved to be a true bird, and fossils of true birds have been found predating it.

  4. Haeckel’s drawings were a complete fraud as they bear no resemblance to reality.

  5. The fossil horse series remains were found in the wrong geological layers, with earlier fossils higher up than later ones and therefore not an evolutionary series. As has been seen in dinosaurs where many have now been reclassified because what was believed to be different species were actually the remains of juvenile dinosaurs; and juvenile chimps are much more human-like in appearance than adults so their fossils could be mistaken for ‘missing links’; likewise, these horse fossils have been wrongly identified.

  6. So-called vestigial organs have now been shown to be functional – functions essential for life in some cases.

  7. Piltdown Man was a fraud with filed down teeth and made to look old by chemicals.

  8. Nebraska Man was nothing more than the tooth of a pig!

  9. The Miller/Orey experiment, still hailed by some fact-denying evolutionists as evidence for life appearing from non-life (abiogenesis), was certainly not that because the amino acids created could not have formed in the earth’s atmosphere, which even evolutionists accept would have been very different from that used in the experiment; the chirality (molecular handedness) was a 50/50 mix, where all life forms have homochirality (molecular regions that are either right or left-handed, but never both); and what was produced could never change into a living organism. See here for 15 different scientific obstacles that make abiogenesis impossible.

  10. Peppered Moths, even into the 21st century have been claimed in scientific publications as evolutionary evidence, but showed absolutely no change. There were light/dark coloured moths both before and after the period. The only difference was the ratio of one to the other; so absolutely nothing new had appeared.

  11. Junk DNA, although still clung to by fact-denying evolutionists, was proved to have essential purpose by literally hundreds of scientists experimenting over several years, as it includes switches and controls performing a vital function.

  12. Around 98% similarity between chimps and humans is still claimed by truth-denying evolutionists, even though it is known that chimps have 12% more DNA than humans, so that is impossible. Even apart from that, the calculation was made by cherry picking the most similar short sections of DNA from humans/chimps and ignoring the rest. When more honest comparisons are made the similarity drops to 85%. It is impossible, by orders of magnitude, even in 5-6 million years, for the observed rate of mutation to create that difference. See the challenge.

  13. Tiktaalik could not possibly be the first living thing to walk on land, since fossilised footprints have been found on land dated long before Tiktaalik existed (by evolutionary reckoning). See here for more detail on this and previous points.

  14. Natural selection is the opposite process to evolution, since it is the shuffling or loss of pre-existing DNA information; but for new kinds of living things to evolve, new DNA coding must appear and there is no mechanism for this to happen (see next point). Dogs may change into different breeds of dogs but will never change to cats, sheep, pigs or any other different kind of animal.

  15. Mutation is always damage to DNA, as seen in the examples of fish losing their eyes and beetles losing their wings. It may sometimes confer advantage, and sometimes appear to have no effect, but it can never produce new organs, which is essential for new kinds of living things to evolve. Therefore mutation plus natural selection can never produce new kinds of living things. As we shall now see, evolutionists cannot produce any alternative means for them to appear.

For a far more technical explanation, with 40 predictions of evolutionary theory that have proved false, see here.



Evolutionists Admit It!


For decades, creationists have been saying that there is no observable scientific evidence for evolution, and that as in the list above, all evolutionary claims are based not on observation, but on the imaginary processes they think should have taken place. In other words, it is faith, not science. However, now evolutionists are being forced to think again, and while still clinging to their faith, they are admitting they don’t know how it happened. (Since first posting this page I have been coming across more and more pages demonstrating this, which have been included.) So:


University of Bath:

“Study suggests that most of our evolutionary trees could be wrong

(see here emphasis mine)


The above quote comes from an evolutionary source that now realises the imaginary lines of transition previously claimed to be the way living things are related in their evolutionary past, which were based on superficial physical appearance, are proven wrong when looking at their molecular structure. So, unscientifically ignoring the fact that an intelligent designer would almost certainly use similar DNA coding for similar features, they are now trying to create new evolutionary trees based on that, thus contradicting earlier claims of evolutionary relationship that had been used as evidence for the theory.


Internet Archive:

“This book dares to challenge natural selection--not in the name of religion but in the name of good science. Most scientists are so terrified of religious attacks on the theory of evolution that it is never examined critically. There are significant scientific and philosophical problems with the theory of natural selection… In this provocative, enlightening, and very entertaining book, the authors argue that natural selection cannot explain how evolution occurs and then proceed to outline significant scientific and philosophical problems with the theory as well as suggesting new ways of thinking about evolution.”

(see here emphasis mine)


Note that in the above quote describing the book ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’, the bottom line of evolution is faith in atheism, but it is considered (quote) “good science” to challenge the limitations of natural selection, which is what creationists have been doing all along. Science is supposed to be about looking at all relevant theories and selecting the most likely from the visible evidence. Since evolutionists, as a matter of principle based on their faith in atheism, refuse to consider an Intelligent Designer, they are, by definition, not approaching the matter scientifically, as demonstrated by the statement “the theory of evolution… is never examined critically.” So even though it is now known that “natural selection cannot explain how evolution occurs,” evolution must still be true because an Intelligent Designer – God – does not exist. That is faith, not science.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

(See here)


Over 1,000 Ph.D. scientists have signed the above statement, and the list of their names can be accessed from the link. On the same page is the following statement:


"Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."

(Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University)

The Guardian; science:

“Do we need a new theory of evolution? A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul… If a creature with poor eyesight happens to produce offspring with slightly better eyesight, thanks to random mutations, then that tiny bit more vision gives them more chance of survival… This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading… For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. Nor does it adequately explain how such delicate and easily disrupted components meshed together to form a single organ. And it isn’t just eyes that the traditional theory struggles with. “The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. Explaining these is the foundational motivation of evolutionary biology,” says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer. This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”

(see here emphasis mine)


The above article, which is very long, explains the way many evolutionists refuse to look at the facts: facts that creationists have been describing for decades. However, those evolutionists who do look are now struggling to make them align with their faith in evolution. Notice that the examples given above are actually describing irreducible complexity, which is a system that will not function if any one of its parts is absent – like the first eye that is described. Yet ever since Michael Behe popularised the term, evolutionists have been pouring scorn on the concept, claiming irreducible complexity does not exist and all systems we can see in living things could have evolved one tiny step at a time. Now we can see that they are being forced to admit its reality, because (quote) “gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”


Science Direct; Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology:

“Neo-Darwinism must mutate to survive… We conclude that macroevolution via survival of the fittest is not salvageable by arguments for random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms… The central thesis of this perspective is that reasonable scientific challenges to evolutionary theories, like other theories in science, should be explored… Main-stream biology remains opposed to any opposition to the central concepts of evolution… Probability, like any scientific analysis, has limitations. Because evolution is generally accepted as scientifically established, probability assessment has largely been overlooked; it happened, we are here, so the probability is one… Microevolution is probabilistically realistic; macroevolution is not, and this is documented empirically.”

(see here emphasis mine)


Microevolution is what can be observed in natural selection: the shuffling or loss of pre-existing DNA coding, which is seen all around us. Macroevolution is new kinds of living things evolving through new coding appearing in the DNA, which has never been observed. Note that according to the above quote, random genetic drift and other proposed mechanisms cannot – repeat, CANNOT – create macroevolution. So what can? No-one knows, but evolutionists know it was nothing to do with a Creator, so it must have happened. As it states above, “we are here, so the probability is one.” In other words evolution is the only possible explanation. That is the religious faith of atheism.


Indeed, if the author was being honest, it would actually say, “we are here and we don’t believe an Intelligent Designer exists, so the probability is one.” The only way that statement can be genuinely logical is if there is no God: but what if there is? It is actually circular reasoning: God doesn’t exist therefore evolution must be true. Evolution is true, therefore God does not exist. If the belief that God exists is religious faith, then the belief that God does not exist must also be religious faith where there is no observable scientific evidence to prove otherwise: and as we are seeing, all claimed ‘scientific evidence’ has proved to be false.


C14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology:

“If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.”


K-Ar Ages of Biotites from Tuffs…:

“In general, dates in the “correct ball park” are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained.”


Cascadia: The Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest:

“If the laboratory results contradict the field evidence, the geologist assumes that there is something wrong with the machine date. To put it another way, “good” dates are those that agree with the field data [fossils in the strata].”


A common criticism  of creation is that carbon dating, along with other dating methods, proves the earth is billions of years old; but the above three quotes (taken from here) show that far from radiometric dating being considered an infallible means of finding the age of things as evolutionists claim, when it disagrees with their own theories it is ignored. Since the depleting magnetic field around the earth plus debris in the earth’s lower atmosphere for years after the flood from the resulting volcanoes, etc., decreases the amount of sun rays reaching the earth, then this will give a greater appearance of age, as it reduces the amount of C14 produced by those rays. Also, we have no idea what would be the effect of the instant creation of the world. While it is obviously stupid and ridiculous to claim that God would deliberately make things look older than they are, it is obvious that it will be different to what would happen during the natural processes we can now observe. Therefore it is perfectly understandable why radiometric dating will not give accurate readings when using the uniformitarian (everything always changes at the same rate and never alters) viewpoint of evolutionists.

Dr Ron Neller B.A. (Hons), and Ph.D. in fluvial geomorphology:

(Quotes from here)

"He was appointed director of a research institute aligned with over 40 researchers. He set up a field research station on Fraser Island near Brisbane, Australia. It’s the world’s largest sand island, with an area of 1,840 km² (710 sq. miles), and is World Heritage listed. With his wide experience, Ron began to see that the geological evidence collected during his research did not fit the slow-and-gradual thinking that permeates his profession. He tells a story: “I was once researching in the Amazon jungle and my colleagues back home were theorizing how a changing climate formed the landscape over millions of years. But when I looked at the evidence I did not see that. What we saw were very mobile river systems rapidly changing their courses, and creating new landscapes that do not need eons of time. Why do we need to say it took many years? But, of course, I was told in no uncertain terms by some colleagues to think more ‘logically’.”


"Sometime later, Ron, not yet a Christian, was with a research team examining continental shelf sediments off Hong Kong. He says, “After we had analyzed the sediments in the laboratories, I looked at the data and said to university colleagues, ‘I see evidence in these ocean sediments for one flood, one enormous flood.’ Of course, I was again told to be ‘logical’, otherwise I could lose research grants.” A related issue Ron mentioned concerns how most people think that scientists accept the results of radioactive dating without question. “They do not,” Ron said. “Large numbers of dates are rejected as being ‘contaminated’. Why? Because the dates do not match the age they already believe about that particular environment. But they do not report it that way.” He gave one example from his experience when he was a research director at a camp on Fraser Island. Ron explained that there had been at least six dates obtained using carbon dating, but four of them were rejected as being ‘contaminated’. Ron argues, however, that they were rejected because they were too young—they indicated that the island was only thousands of years old.


"Ron indicated that he had no problem with the biblical date of 6,000 years for the earth and universe, and 4,500 years for the date of Noah’s Flood."

It is clear from the above statement that when scientific observation does not fit the evolutionary narrative, it is ignored. It was observations like these that persuaded Ron Nellor, at a time when he was neither a Christian nor a creationist, that evolutionary explanations of the origin of everything are contrary to science.

Premier Christianity:

“Popular science commentator Paul Davis has been researching the serendipitous nature of our universe that has allowed conscious human life to develop within it. Contra the atheist view that life is a cosmic accident, he has been showing why a life principle (a Logos, to use the Greek word) seems to be at work in nature.

There’s also the renowned psychiatrist and neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist, whose influential books such as The Master and His Emissary (Yale University Press) show how our brains are wired to be religious and why a divine mind is required as a foundation for consciousness.

The list goes on. It’s noteworthy that none of the people above are conventionally religious. Their conclusions are wrought from secular research and reflection, not a pre-commitment to Christianity. Yet these are now the voices that intellectual seekers are turning towards to make sense of life.”

(Taken from Is Atheism Dead? by Justin Brierly in the October 2023 issue of Premier Christianity, page 40)


The above follows mention of several other notable people saying similar things. More and more people, who in many cases still refuse to accept the idea of any kind of God or divine being, nevertheless now realise from their own research and observations that atheistic naturalism simply does not equate to reality.

Live Einstein must be wrong: How general relativity fails to explain the universe:

“Dark energy was introduced ad hoc by astronomers to explain the acceleration of the cosmic expansion. Despite fitting cosmological data extremely well until recently, the Λ-Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) is spectacularly incomplete and unsatisfactory from the theoretical point of view…Dark energy was introduced ad hoc by astronomers to explain the acceleration of the cosmic expansion. Despite fitting cosmological data extremely well until recently, the ΛCDM model is spectacularly incomplete and unsatisfactory from the theoretical point of view. In the past five years, it has also faced severe observational tensions…Problem is, this dark energy has no physical justification. Its nature is completely unknown, although a plethora of models has been proposed. The proposed alternative to dark energy is a cosmological constant Λ which, according to quantum-mechanical back-of-the-envelope (but questionable) calculations, should be huge. However, Λ must instead be incredibly fine-tuned to a tiny value to fit the cosmological observations. If dark energy exists, our ignorance of its nature is deeply troubling."

(See here)

In other words, scientific observation does not align with ‘dark energy’ that is an essential rescuing device for the Big Bang theory as an explanation of how the universe appeared.

Science (see here):

"The universe’s puzzlingly fast expansion may defy explanation, cosmologists fret...

Discovered less than a century ago, the expansion of the universe causes galaxies to rush away from Earth, stretching their light to longer, redder wavelengths. That observation spawned the idea of the big bang—and decades of bickering over the rate at which the universe is expanding, the Hubble constant. After a brief rapprochement, cosmologists are arguing again. Working from our cosmic neighborhood outward to more distant galaxies, one group has measured a rate significantly higher than the one derived by colleagues studying the cosmos’ farthest fringe and the afterglow of the big bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB)."


In other words, there is no Big Bang theory that fits scientific observation!

Referring to what is beyond the physics and limits of particle accelerators (until stated otherwise, all the following quotes are from Philip Bell’s article in, and much more detail can be found there):


“Some processes must occur under those conditions to reproduce the Universe we see. Something must have created dark matter. Something must have created more matter than antimatter in our Universe. And something must have happened, at some point, for the Universe to exist at all.”

(Astrophysicist and award-winning science writer Ethan Sigel)


‘“Why we’re here is the big question. It seems that quantum gravity is the only answer… Alas, it is an answer that we are yet to find, despite decades of searching… “We’re still no better off at understanding the beginning of space and time”

(Toby Wiseman, a theorist at Imperial College London in New Scientist, May 2023)


Regarding the findings in July 2022 from the new, more powerful James-Webb Space Telescope, which, contrary to expectations of a ‘dark period’ of 500–1,000 million years after the assumed big bang, 10 times more galaxies than predicted were found, and none that looked irregular or ragged, as expected:


 “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning, wondering if everything I’ve ever done is wrong.”

(University of Kansas astronomer Allison Kirkpatrick)


“No one was expecting anything like this”

(Michael Boyan-Kolchin, University of Texas)


“Galaxies are exploding out of the woodwork”

(Rachel Somerville, Flatiron Institute, U)


“This is way outside the box of what models were predicting”

(Garth Illingworth, University of California, Santa Cruz)

The Third Way:

“The third way of evolution… The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation… We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else.”

(see here emphasis mine)


The above quote is from a website put together by scientists who are struggling to give a rational, scientific explanation for everything around us without a Creator. Note they consider Creationism unscientific and insist any form of Intelligent Design is impossible; but give a completely irrational reason for doing so: “it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process.” Arbitrary means:


“Based on chance rather than being planned or based on reason”

Cambridge Dictionary


Creationism is certainly not based on chance, but on the vast amount of evidence around us for the existence of the Intelligent Designer. Science is about how things work and how they first appeared, and if it took an Intelligent Designer to make it all appear, then genuine science will show this and, as we saw earlier, all alternative explanations will always be falsified sooner or later. Indeed modern science is founded on the work of scientists like Isaac Newton, for example, who were Christians and believed that an unchangeable God would create a universe that functions by unchangeable laws and as such could be investigated, described and relied upon.


Therefore, their claim that Creation is unscientific actually proves how unscientific evolutionists are being because they have already decided before looking at the evidence that evolution is true, and whatever evidence they do observe they will twist it to make it fit their preconceived ideas. This is nothing to do with science and everything to do with their religious faith in atheism. Genuine science looks at all the evidence and then reaches the most obvious explanation for it. The fact that, as we have seen, evolution has been built on fabricated claims that have proved to be false is evidence that they have no genuine scientific observation to support it: otherwise they would not have been forced to rely on fake proofs.


As we will now see, the same scientific observations will confirm or falsify both Intelligent Design and naturalistic processes.



What Does Science Prove?


For a theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable.


Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

(See: here and Wikipedia


On that basis, since the list of ‘evidences’ for evolution at the beginning of this page were presented as scientific proof of evolution, then because they have now been falsified they are evidence for Creation. Scientists can’t have it both ways – if a scientific theory must be falsifiable, then when it is falsified this is evidence the theory was wrong, and the only alternative to evolution is Creation/Intelligent Design.


Of course, evolutionists always say that science is about constructing a theory on the best knowledge we currently have, and then as more facts emerge, modifying the theory: so the history of science is of finding initial assumptions of what was observed needing revision and therefore it is not surprising to have such a list as that described in the ‘Scientific Evidence for Evolution’ section of this page. Well, if it was just one or two matters that need slight adjustment, then one might feel it is a valid point. But when over a period of many decades, so many key arguments on which the proposal was based are found to be just plain wrong, the point must surely be reached where the only possible conclusion is that the theory is not sustainable.


If we take the theory of gravity as an example, there may have been erroneous ideas in the past about how and why it works the way it does; but it is scientific observation and experimentation that has enabled those ideas to be corrected. This is how science works. However, since the effect of gravity is experienced by everyone, there has never been any doubt that gravity exists. This is very different from evolution, which has never been observed by anyone.  Therefore it is not an observed phenomenon like gravity, but a hypothesis unsupported by observation; and even though there have been many claims about observations of it, as can be seen from the list shown above, they have all proved to be either fraud or mistaken identity for something else.


Let me make this clear. If it can be scientifically observed that naturalistic processes could have produced the universe out of nothing for no cause, and could produce a living organism from inanimate matter (called abiogenesis) that could go on to develop into all living things, then evolution is confirmed. If this cannot be shown, then evolution is falsified.


On the other hand, if it can be scientifically observed that naturalistic processes could not have produced the universe out of nothing for no cause, and could not produce a living organism from inanimate matter that could go on to develop into all living things, then Creationism is confirmed. If this cannot be shown (with apologies for the resulting double negative) then Creationism is falsified.


The fact is that every scientific observation ever made proves that you never have an effect without a cause, you never have something appearing from nothing, and an uncontrolled explosion never produces anything but chaos and disorder. Thus Creation is confirmed and the Big Bang with its aftermath, which is the evolution of the universe, is falsified.


Every scientific observation ever made proves inanimate matter never turns into a living organism, and that you never see complex information arising and increasing by random or undirected means; therefore the coding in DNA could never have arisen and increased in its complexity to produce all living things from a single-celled organism by random mutation selected for by natural selection. Thus Creation is confirmed and evolution falsified.


Over the past few decades more generations of E. Coli and Malaria have been observed by orders of magnitude than could ever have existed by evolutionary reckoning in the line of mammals that are supposed to have evolved into humans, but they are still 100% E. Coli and Malaria: not a hint of any change into a different kind of organism. Therefore a much smaller number of generations could never have produced modern chimps and humans from a common ancestor and Creation is confirmed while evolution is falsified.


Even though many highly intelligent, top scientists, committed to proving evolution due to their faith in atheism, have been wriggling and twisting for decades to try to prove their theory correct, they still cannot give a single scientific observation that demonstrates how it could happen. It takes a lot of faith to believe in evolution!



Scientific Evidence for Creation


As I began with a list of 15 so-called evidences for evolution that fail to support it, here is a list of 15 evidences for creation that do stand up to scrutiny.


  1. Recession of the moon is evidence for a ‘young’ universe: its elliptical orbit is presently an average of 238,855 miles away, and at the observed rate that it is moving away from the earth, about 1.5 inches/3.8cm per year with its speed gradually slowing down, the two would have been touching about 1.55 billion years ago – after the process of evolution was supposed to have started, well over three billion years ago, and would have destroyed all living things. However, for the moon to be formed by a large body crashing into the earth as some claim, the moon would initially have had to be moving away from the earth at least at the escape velocity, which is about 25,000 mph (Wikipedia gives 25,020):: less than that and it couldn’t get away from the earth. In that case, as a non-astrophysicist, I fail to understand how it can be claimed to have taken 2.5 billion years to reach its present position.  Even if the impossible happened and the earth’s gravity reduced the recession speed by one half every day, within 31 days it would have slowed to its present speed and be 1,200,000 miles away, which is five times further than its actual distance today. The only way it could be where it is, is by our Intelligent Designer putting it there in a perfect position and speed for it to appear on earth to be the same size as the sun, and orbit the earth on a monthly basis.

  2. Faint sun paradox. If the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago as claimed by evolutionists, then it would be massively brighter and hotter now than it is. Only by it being around 6,000 years old, can the sun be the way it is today.

  3. Depleting magnetic field of the earth: ever since the magnetic field has been measured, it has been shown to be reducing, and the rate of reduction is such that it is impossible for it to have been happening over millions (or more) of years. The evolutionary claim that sometimes it increases is a statement of faith because this has never been observed. See here for details of similar recent observations for the planet Mercury.

  4. Many thousands of square miles of uninterrupted sedimentary rock around the world, 100s of feet deep, could only have formed as a result of a worldwide flood.

  5. Clear folding without cracking of rock layers claimed to have formed over millions or billions of years, proves the layers must all have been laid down and folded while still soft. This is consistent with a worldwide flood around 4,500 years ago.

  6. There are no signs of erosion or vegetation between rock layers claimed by evolutionists to have been laid down millions of years apart. Further evidence of being laid down in a single worldwide event.

  7. The millions of fossilised remains in those layers is evidence that they were buried in the same event and therefore cannot show millions of years of evolutionary change.

  8. The amount of helium observed to be present in the earth’s rock layers is only consistent with around 6,000 years: much longer than this and it would have dispersed and not be there.

  9. Soft tissue, red blood cells and DNA have all been found in dinosaur remains. None of these could exist for more than 10,000s of years at most, and this, along with carbon dating showing death no more than that long ago either, proves dinosaurs did not become extinct millions of years ago (but all four observations consistent with 4,500 years).

  10. The Mount St Helens eruption in May 1980, which caused an immense localised flood, gave a small-scale demonstration of what would have happened during the worldwide flood, with many rock layers forming in days and weeks, and trees, stripped of branches and roots, were buried in an upright position, duplicating what is seen at Yellowstone Park that has been claimed to be many forests growing on top of each other, millions of years apart.

  11. Carbon dating of fossils, coal and diamonds is only consistent with a world around 6,000 years old. 

  12. A stronger magnetic field thousands of years ago, along with the effects of a flood, would have reduced the carbon14 content of the earth’s atmosphere and give a false carbon dating result if uniformitarian assumptions are made.

  13. Irreducible complexity: any system that functions, no matter how simple, by definition is made up of more than one part and will not work unless every essential part is in the correct place. Every living thing is made up of [1] a significant number of different organs that are essential for life. Those organs are made up of [2] many different parts and will not function without them. Those parts are made up of [3] a huge number of molecular elements and will not work unless the right ones are in the right place. All of that takes intelligent intervention because the random movement of parts, be they [3] molecular, [2] organ or [1] body, can never assemble themselves.

  14. Specified complexity: DNA is the most complex ‘computer language’ known to exist, and like all computer languages, can only operate when its individual elements (called base pairs) are in the correct sequence. Even the smallest known living thing has 100,000s of base pairs. The only way complex information can be assembled in this way is by intelligent intervention and no-one has ever observed it taking place without that. Since after a great deal of research scientists still do not know everything about how much of it operates, the intelligence to do it was far greater than that possessed by humans: God’s intellect.

  15. The Bible is the only book in the world with sections describing future events with 100% accuracy that have incontrovertibly been proven to have been written centuries before they happened. Like the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus, for example – most of which were events over which He had no control at all and for which the historical facts are verified by more documentation than any other event of the time. Therefore the Bible could only have come from God and can be relied upon in everything else it says – including the creation of the universe around 6,000 years ago followed by a worldwide flood, evidence for which has been described in earlier points.

    Remember the former things of old, f
    or I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,
    Isaiah 46:9-10


The above proves conclusively that the universe and everything in it could only be here as the result of an Intelligent Designer. But if He had the power to create living things by means of evolution as theistic evolutionists would claim, He also had the power to do it more directly. Since the result of His creation was reasoning human beings, it logically follows that He would communicate the reason for their existence to them. The only possible candidate is the Bible, which is the only book that is consistent with observational science and claims to be such a communication. In that communication He tells us very clearly why He did it, and how He did it, and it wasn’t by means of evolution, which is a theory produced by atheists to try to have a universe without a Creator.



The Religious Faith of Theistic Evolution


Theistic evolution – the notion that God created everything by means of evolutionary processes – only exists because people within the church have thought that evolution has been proven scientifically, so they felt the need to adapt the Bible accordingly and have reinterpreted passages that clearly contradict it in order to remove the contradiction. Having done that, they now support their interpretation with as much vigour as the rest of scripture and therefore feel any alternative view attacks the scriptures themselves.


Things have changed radically since Darwin first popularised the theory though, and whatever has happened in the past it is now the case that scientific observation unquestionably falsifies it, as can be seen earlier on this page. Therefore, I would give the following questions to theistic evolutionists:


As every so-called proof of evolution since Darwin first popularised the notion has proved to be false (Scientific Evidence for Evolution above), even evolutionists are now admitting their theories do not match scientific observation (Evolutionists Admit It above), and there are 50 PhD Scientists in the Book ‘In Six Days’, 7 PhD scientists in 'Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels' , and 40 scientists and academics in ‘On The Seventh Day’,  along with many other scientists, all saying scientific observation confirms a literal understanding of the Bible and falsifies evolution,  how do you justify reinterpreting the Bible to accommodate the theory?


Since all Old Testament scripture is “God-breathed… profitable for doctrine” (2 Timothy 3:16, MKJV), those who wrote the books of the Old Testament “spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21), there are 72 Old Testament verses together showing the Torah was completed by the time Israel entered the promised land and was written by Moses, 45 New Testament verses attributing the Torah to Moses, and God’s word is “a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105), how can it perform that function if it can be reinterpreted to mean something different from what it plainly says when it conflicts with what people want it to say?


Theistic evolution has never been a viable interpretation of the Bible, and today more than ever it is shown to be false teaching. The same applies to the Intelligent Design Movement, which effectively is theistic evolution without explicitly accepting that the Intelligent Designer is God. However, as I point out in my page on the movement, it is totally illogical, since it requires an Intelligent Designer who/that spends billions of years producing a universe and all the life forms within it, yet has no interest in communicating with the reasoning human beings that were a part of that design. Whoever or whatever the Intelligent Designer is, the intelligence and amount of intervention required would have been enormous: was all that for no purpose? The only possible candidate for communication from the Intelligent Designer that also perfectly aligns with today’s observable science is the Bible. So it is time to stop pretending either He lied when He told us how He did it or He didn’t have the ability to preserve the integrity of His communication, and accept it at face value.




It is more evident now than ever before that random change, preserved by natural selection, could never have produced all the different life forms we can see around us, as evolutionists are now being forced to admit. All the so-called evidence that has been presented by evolutionists up to now has proven to be false, and if you want to believe in it, you must do so by faith alone, because there is no unambiguous, scientific evidence demonstrating it.


Atheism and evolution are two sides of the same coin. If atheism is true, then evolution is true because there is no other way everything could have appeared. If everything in the universe evolved without intelligent intervention, then atheism is true because no kind of God has any relevance to our existence. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist, so it is religious faith because it is a belief about God’s non-existence unsupported by scientific observation.


Mostly this page has been looking at the formation of life; but the formation of the universe carries identical problems. Nothing can appear from nothing without a cause. Orderly systems do not arise from disorderly Big Bangs. Claims of a multiverse (ours being one of an infinite number of universes, none of which can be observed other than our own), or an infinite number of primitive universes existing for infinity past in a different dimension to our own (which also cannot be observed in any way), are the desperate excuses of scientists who know they cannot provide observable scientific evidence for the appearance of a universe without an Intelligent Designer.


On the other hand there are literally millions of people past and present, whose evidence would be accepted in any fair court of law, who would declare they have personally experienced the work of God in their lives: including me! And there is an increasing number of scientists who began their professional lives as evolutionists but changed to creation when they saw the evidence from their own research.


There is no logical alternative: the only way we could be here is by the act of God, as the Bible so clearly puts it:


The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display His craftsmanship.

Psalm 19:1 (NLT)


For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools…

Romans 1:20-22


See here for the way to become acquainted with your Creator.



Post Script

The day after posting this page, I came across a posting on Facebook by headed...


"Scientists and philosophers identify nature's missing evolutionary law"


referring to (quote):


“A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describes "a missing law of nature," recognizing for the first time an important norm within the natural world's workings.”


It is a very long paper, but I give a brief quote:


"On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems


"Physical laws—such as the laws of motion, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics—codify the general behavior of varied macroscopic natural systems across space and time. We propose that an additional, hitherto-unarticulated law is required to characterize familiar macroscopic phenomena of our complex, evolving universe.


"A pervasive wonder of the natural world is the evolution of varied systems, including stars, minerals, atmospheres, and life. These evolving systems appear to be conceptually equivalent in that they display three notable attributes: 1) They form from numerous components that have the potential to adopt combinatorially vast numbers of different configurations; 2) processes exist that generate numerous different configurations; and 3) configurations are preferentially selected based on function.



Stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis: Stars begin as gravitationally bound masses of primarily hydrogen and helium in which internal pressures and temperatures are sufficiently high to initiate and sustain nuclear fusion reactions. The first stages of nucleosynthesis in all stars involve “hydrogen burning” to generate helium, but stars as large or larger than the Sun eventually undergo additional fusion processes: “helium burning” to produce carbon, “carbon burning” to form magnesium and other elements, and several successive stages that generate scores of elements and hundreds of isotopes (15–17). In the final, violent stages of stars’ lives, events such as classic novas, supernovas, and neutron star collisions generate the full periodic table of more than 100 elements and their ~2,000 isotopes. Thus, stellar evolution leads to new configurations of countless interacting nuclear particles. Inexorably, the system evolves from a small number of elements and isotopes to the diversity of atomic building blocks we see in the universe today."


I wrote the following on their posting:


This is entirely based on the fantasy that the universe and everything in it created itself. Having read right through the long paper, I did not see a single scientific observation of anything becoming more complex and orderly without intelligent intervention. Instead, the entire proposal is based on the hypothesis that everything evolved on its own in the past with chaos becoming ever more complex and orderly, therefore there must be laws, previously unobserved, to enable it to happen. However, orderly complexity has never ever been observed to arise without intelligence creating it. So it is actually the admission that at the present time there are no known observable laws that could have created everything we see around us. In other words, it is evidence for an Intelligent Designer. It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist!


Scripture taken from the New King James Version.

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

Scripture quotations labelled NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004.

Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Carol Stream,, Illinois 60188.  All rights reserved.

Scripture labelled MKJV taken from the Holy Bible, Modern King James Version Copyright © 1962 - 1998 By Jay P. Green, Sr.

Used by permission of the copyright holder.

bottom of page