The Triple Whammy
The Triple Whammy
By Les Sherlock, posted April 2021, but originally written c2000
This was originally written as a series for a village magazine, then published as a Kindle book. I present it here more or less in its original form, with a few minor tweaks here and there (including some updates made in the early 2000’s), in order to show that apart from minor details, the latest scientific advances have not undermined any of the key arguments. Quite the reverse, the more that is discovered about the incredible inter-related complexity of all living things, the more it is shown that only Intelligent Design could have produced it all.
(Two requirements for evolution)
(Answering the common question)
(Missing evolutionary evidence)
(Three-fold obstacle to evolution)
(Evolution not more scientific than creation)
(What is faith?)
(Calculating the age of the Earth)
(Evidence for a world-wide flood)
(Systems unable to evolve gradually)
(A question for Christians)
(The logic of creationism)
(Further DNA evidence)
(The implications of all this)
(Will you take it?)
1: Evolution or Natural Selection?
The theory of the evolution of species involves many scientific specialities, but when taken to basics, there are really only two elements that must be demonstrated in order for it to be scientifically proven. With them there could be no argument. Without them it is no more than an unscientific, philosophical, belief system.
Bear in mind that scientific evidence is something that can be demonstrated, tested and proved. Pick up a stone in your hand and then let it go. It will fall downwards toward the earth. Every time. Without fail. Therefore the law of gravity has been scientifically proven. It is possible to produce mathematics, calculations based on Einstein’s theories, astro-physics, etc., and present the theory of gravity—how it would work, why it would work, how quickly it would work, etc. But it is not scientifically proven until someone sees a physical object fall to earth when it is released. That is scientific evidence. And that quality of evidence is what is missing from the theory of evolution.
Because the word ‘evolution’ is used in two different ways, let us clarify matters now, although greater detail will be given later. If by ‘evolution’ we mean any kind of change taking place, then there is no argument: creationists and evolutionists alike accept this is the case. If by ‘evolution’ we mean what Darwin meant in the title of his book - evolution of all species on earth from a single-celled organism that sprang up from inanimate matter - then this is a very different matter. For simplicity I use the word ‘evolution’ in this second sense here.
The first thing that must be demonstrated is a living organism emerging from inanimate matter. According to evolutionists, at some time in the past, some spec of matter, from what is often called ‘primordial soup,’ suddenly became a living cell, capable of moving and breeding. However, not only has no-one ever seen this take place spontaneously, but no-one has ever duplicated the miracle in a laboratory. In fact, even worse, with ever-increasing knowledge of the incredible complexity at the molecular level of even the simplest organism capable of independent life, no-one can even begin to give a reasonable explanation how such an event could ever take place. If modern scientific technology has failed to achieve it after a vast amount of time and money has been spent in the attempt, then it certainly could not have happened as a result of an undirected, random accident.
Evolutionists mock the idea of ‘creation,’ saying that since it is based on a one-off event that can never be demonstrated it is not science but faith and therefore should not be taken seriously as a scientific theory. However, since by definition that first cell springing up from ‘primordial soup’ is also a one-off event that has never been seen or demonstrated, this too is not science but faith; but it defies the observable laws of biology and requires the joining together of a large number of elements, some of which cannot coexist outside of the protection of a living cell. Therefore, of the two theories, creation, which claims abiogenesis (life appearing from non-life) cannot take place, is supported by observation, while evolution, which claims it has done, is contradicted.
In 2005 the BBC News Channel reported on the smallest known genome for a free-living organism, a microbe called Pelagibacter. At we are told it has 1,308,759 nucleotides, with 1,354 protein genes and 35 RNA genes. Although there are smaller organisms, these are incapable of independent life: they require higher organisms in order to survive. The smallest is the Carsonella ruddii, with 160 kilobase-pairs of DNA, which translates to 182 protein-coding genes.
So evolution requires the belief that a large number of events, which every human observation proves to be impossible, took place by a random accident, with no outside intelligent input, to bring together such a vast number of elements and create the simplest living organism. Evolutionists would claim that this first living thing was much simpler than the simplest organism we see today; but as scientific proof is about what we can see and test, and they can produce nothing in this category and cannot even theorise as to what it would look like, it must be believed by faith.
In contrast, creation says that a complex, functioning system, like that of the Pelagibacter or even the Carsonella ruddii, could only come into being by intelligent design—a fact that is seen all around us. It seems to me that evolution requires a much greater leap of faith than creation!
The second requirement is to observe ‘simple’ living creatures developing into more complex ones as a result of random, gradual changes. What this actually means is that off-spring must be born with information in its DNA not present in either of its parents. Since the law of genetics is that offspring inherit their entire DNA from their parents, there is no mechanism to enable this event to take place.
Evolutionists claim mutation—a mistake in the copying of DNA—is that mechanism. However, every example of mutation ever seen is damage to DNA code: a reduction of complexity and orderliness rather than an increase. In spite of many challenges from the creationist lobby, no evolutionist has ever been able to produce a single example of mutation that has increased the DNA code with information for physical attributes not previously seen in the species. So this second element necessary to prove evolution must also be believed by faith rather than scientific proof.
I visited the British Natural History Museum in the beginning of the 21st century to see for myself the evidence for evolution in the large area designed for that purpose. There were many exhibits, which showed changes taking place in a variety of animals. In a running video was a presentation of the Galapagos finches, and the commentator said that they were the best evidence we have for evolution. But the truth is that the finches are evidence for natural selection, not evolution.
So if the ‘best’ evidence for evolution is actually natural selection, this demonstrates the flimsiness of the case for evolution! In fact most of the ‘evidence’ for evolution in the museum was natural selection—typical of the confusion of facts by evolutionists, which distorts the difference between ‘evolution’ and ‘natural selection’ and thereby bolsters the evidence for evolution. The ‘evidence’ in the museum that was not merely natural selection was mutation that either had damaged or removed characteristics that had been present previously—the opposite process to evolution, which needs to increase the number of features, not reduce them!
Natural selection is the process whereby DNA information, which produces physical characteristics that enable creatures to survive better than their contemporaries, is passed on to offspring and so survives; while creatures with ‘less good’ DNA code do not survive long enough to have children, so that code dies out and disappears. The result of this is that there can be significant changes to the physical shape of a species over a number of generations. Therefore at the end of the process there will be less variety in the DNA coding of the new branch(es) of the species than previously, since some of it has died out.
This is fairly elementary biology: natural selection can never create new DNA coding; the only change it can make is to remove some of it, or at best shuffle it around. So, for example, Darwin’s finches with rounded beaks will have lost information for pointed beaks, while those with pointed beaks will have lost information for rounded beaks. Or alternatively it will be ‘recessive’ and not affect the physical form.
But for evolution to take place (i.e. for a new kind of life to evolve), additional DNA code has to appear, to enable the new physical feature (for example, the appearance of feathers, where none existed before) to come into existence. There is no example, either living or in fossil form, of this taking place, anywhere in the world.
So, one could say that evolution would be the result of an increase in DNA information, while natural selection usually reduces it. All this proves that while natural selection can make large changes to a species, it can never result in a new species with previously unseen features appearing (e.g. scales changing into feathers), because it always produces a loss of DNA information, not an increase. The change is always ‘downhill.’ So finches will always be finches, no matter how many generations experience change through natural selection, since it is impossible for DNA coding for anything other than finch features to enter the finch species’ gene pool.
A major reason the theory of evolution has been able to survive as long as it has, is because the massive amount of evidence for natural selection has been presented as evidence of evolution, when quite clearly it is not. The next time you watch a natural history programme and are told that you are observing evolution, look again: what you will be seeing will either be natural selection, or mutation that has reduced the viability of a pre-existing feature.
So, a recap by way of some definitions:
Natural Selection: creatures with physical features enabling them to survive best are most able to live long enough to produce children. So the information in the DNA which creates ‘good’ features is passed on by those better able to survive, while those with ‘less good’ physical features are more likely to die out and the ‘poorer’ DNA information disappear. Therefore, the only change natural selection can make is to reduce DNA information or at best shuffle it around: it can never increase it. Most examples of ‘evolution’ are, in reality, natural selection.
Evolution: in order for a new kind of living thing to evolve, new information must appear in the DNA in order to create new physical features. So evolution is the opposite of natural selection, because it requires an increase in DNA information.
Mutation: this is the only mechanism ever observed that can change existing DNA information. It is a mistake made in copying the DNA. For clarity, we will define different types of mutation.
Negative Mutation: because the mistake in copying DNA is always random, the result is that the genetic information is degraded. This then, depending on the bit of information that has been altered, will usually be seen as damage to some physical characteristic. Every example of ‘evolution’ produced thus far that is not natural selection, is negative mutation, i.e. a shuffling or loss of pre-existing DNA information..
Positive Mutation: this would be a mistake in copying DNA resulting in new genetic information, which produces some new kind of physical feature not previously seen in a species. However, it remains in the realm of speculation, since there is no specimen anywhere in the world, either living or dead (i.e. fossilised) that demonstrates it ever occurring!
Neutral Mutation: this is where change appears to have neither beneficial nor damaging effects. However, the latest scientific observations show that the accumulation of such mutations are indeed damaging. However, for the sake of simplicity, we will concentrate on ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ mutations in this discussion and ignore neutral mutation.
Since there is no physical, scientific evidence either for the spontaneous origin of life or for the evolution of new features, evolution is religious faith (the belief that the Creator-God does not exist), not science. So remember that an incredible complexity of design is present in every creature you see; and in order to get design, you must have a Designer!
2: Where did Cain get his wife?
It’s an old chestnut, but arises on a regular basis:
“from where did Cain get his wife?”
On delivering this killer blow, the evolutionist sits back, satisfied that the book of Genesis is thereby shown to be flawed. If there had been a time on earth when only Adam and Eve existed, then obviously there would have been no-one else around to produce a daughter to marry their son, Cain.
What our evolutionist fails to realise, however, is that he has the same problem! Modern DNA research has shown that the entire human race has a single common ancestor. The first fully human woman, we are told, lived somewhere in Africa, and she was the mother of the entire human race: from where did her children get their spouses?
If you read a standard GCSE biology text book, you will see that two creatures are considered to be a different species from each other when they are unable to breed together. The reason for this is plain. When the male and female elements join together in fertilisation, they must be compatible at the molecular level in order for them to combine. This is true for every living thing.
Humans have 46 chromosomes in their DNA: 23 pairs. At conception, 23 chromosomes from the male (one from each pair) have to unite with 23 chromosomes (one from each pair) from the female. But they can only unite with chromosomes from the same pair: male chromosome one links with female chromosome one; number two links with number two, and so on. There is a huge amount of information contained in each chromosome, and even a small difference between any two chromosomes is enough to prevent fertilisation from taking place.
So only like can breed with like: cats cannot breed with dogs; cows cannot breed with pigs; and so on. This mechanism is precisely what would be expected by the creationist in order to preserve the ‘kinds’ that God created, but certainly not what one would expect to have evolved had evolution taken place, since it reduces—actually it destroys—the possibility of enough positive mutations to produce evolutionary advantage from being passed on.
Bearing this in mind, it becomes immediately obvious that the evolutionary ‘Eve’s’ children could not have mated with the sub-human species from which she is supposed by evolutionists to have mutated, since they were a different species and would no longer be compatible with them. Actually this ‘Eve’ herself would have had the same problem, since the mutation that changed her from whatever her parents were, would make her incompatible with her contemporaries. The size of the necessary change will be discussed later.
The only way for her to have had a partner would be by a male mutating in exactly the same way, within the same two or three decades and in the same part of the world, in order for them to meet and produce children. Since positive mutation has never been observed and so at best is extremely rare, the chances of all this happening take this aspect of evolutionary ‘science’ into the realms of science fiction. Of course, evolution requires positive mutation to have occurred billions of times over to produce all the life forms we now see, and every one of them would have had the same problem. You really have to admire the evolutionist’s faith!
Even if there were no DNA evidence, it would still be obvious that all Homo sapiens would have a single woman as their first ancestor. The idea of one couple mutating in exactly the same way is far-fetched enough, but the chances of more than one couple doing so, producing children able to intermarry, are so remote that it is difficult to see how even the most ardent evolutionist could consider it seriously.
The evolutionist would claim that each evolutionary mutation would have been small enough not to have caused this problem; but in that case there simply is not enough time for the millions of transitional species to have lived. See the challenge for details.
But to return to the children: the only partners available for them to marry, both for the evolutionary ‘Eve’ and for the Genesis Eve, would have been their brothers and sisters. Since Genesis 5:4 tells us that Adam and Eve had sons and daughters in addition to Cain, Abel and Seth, the problem of Cain’s wife is solved. He married one of his sisters.
That, however, produces another factor. Brothers and sisters should never marry, since the likelihood is that their offspring would be born with deformity. The reason is that we all have damaged DNA—negative mutations that have taken place in previous generations and which are subsequently passed on to future descendants. In a report it was stated that doctors have now identified over one thousand physical ailments in humans that are the result of negative mutation.
When close relatives marry, because their DNA is so similar, the mutations they carry are also going to be similar and their children are likely to be born with whatever those mutations produce. Marrying outside the immediate family means that the mutations of father and mother will be different and there is a good chance that any mutated genes the children inherit will be recessive (i.e. they will not be active) and they will be born ‘normal.’
For Adam and Eve’s children this was not a problem. God made Adam and Eve perfect. There were no mutated genes in their DNA when they were created. So their children could intermarry and have children with none of the problems this would produce today; but for evolution this is a major problem. According to this theory ‘Eve’ was the product of many mutations along a long line of mutations going right back to the first living cell that emerged from the primordial soup. The incidence of negative mutation is far higher than that of positive—as previously stated, we can see over one thousand negative mutations in humans, while we know of no positive ones. So she and her husband would have had a considerable number of negative mutations to pass on to their children, and intermarriage would mean they would be born with the physical problems those mutations created.
You may wonder why, if negative mutations do not prevent fertilisation, positive ones should do so. There are over 3 billion ‘letters’ in the human DNA code (if all of the DNA in every cell of your body were stretched out in a single line, it would reach to the sun and back!), and just one incorrect letter is enough to cause one of the 1,000 diseases mentioned earlier. It is now known that it may be possible for up to 300 mutations to be passed on to the next generation. But in order for a mutation to produce homo sapiens from some sub-human, for example, the number of ‘letter changes’ required are very much higher than that, making it utterly impossible that any such union could take place. More detail on this later.
This is a down-hill spiral. Evolution is supposed to be species continually improving and becoming ever more complex and sophisticated. Yet the one thousand negative mutations identified in the human species demonstrate that we have deteriorated, not improved! So that which can be observed all around us—scientific evidence in other words—is exactly what is expected by the creationist and the opposite to that required for evolution. Everything began perfect and is now deteriorating.
When God finished His creation, he declared everything to be “very good.” Sadly, that is no longer the case, and the responsibility lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of mankind. But knowing we would mess up, He prepared the solution, and even before the creation week began, Jesus Christ was primed and ready for the ultimate sacrifice that would make the way open for us to return to Him.
The day is approaching when He will call a halt to the sorry mess we have made, and restore this planet to its former glory. For those who choose to accept His claims on their life, He will bring about such a change in their bodies in that day that His continued presence within them will prevent the possibility of mutation ever affecting them again.
He designed our bodies to be inhabited by Him. They were never intended to be independent of Him. So it is not surprising that we presently experience such dire consequences as sickness, disability and death. But in that day, He will, once again, be controlling every cell division in every body and ensuring that mutation can never again produce deterioration. What a wonderful prospect!
3: Cow Pat Logic
It is very difficult to prove a negative: it is much easier to demonstrate that something did happen than to show that it did not. For example, if your next-door neighbour’s window was broken, how could you prove you didn’t throw the stone that did the damage? It could be claimed that you slipped into their garden, picked up the stone while wearing gloves, launched the projectile and returned back in a matter of seconds, with no-one watching. If you had been alone at home at the time, there is no way you could prove it wasn’t you.
On the other hand, it would be much easier to prove who had done the deed: there could be fingerprints or DNA evidence on the stone; someone could have seen the vandal entering or leaving the garden. In any of these cases, such positive proof would demonstrate beyond doubt the person responsible.
In the same way, proving that evolution did not occur is not a simple matter, since, for example, until every fossil in the ground throughout the world has been recovered and examined, it cannot be proved ‘scientifically’ that there is not one fossil demonstrating positive mutation: i.e. showing a mistake in copying DNA that produces a physical change that would lead to a new feature arising in the species. Of course, the evolutionist produces the mass of evidence for natural selection (a reduction in DNA information), calls it ‘evolution’ (an increase in DNA information), adds a mass of speculation, ignores the absence of fossil evidence and considers his case proven. However it seems to me that ‘cow pat logic’ is appropriate here.
A farmer has a large herd of one thousand cows. He has two big fields in which they can graze, half a mile apart. So he keeps all the cows together in one field until the grass is finished, then takes them to the other one, allowing the grass to grow in the first, ready for the cows to be brought back again when it is finished in the second. In order to move the cows from one field to the other, he has to take them along the country lane that joins them.
If you were to drive along that country lane and find it completely clean—no cow pats anywhere to be seen—there had been no rain during the past week and no road cleaners had been around, you would know certainly that the farmer had not moved the herd recently. It is quite possible that he had moved a small number of cows, but for one thousand cows to go along that lane and not one of them answer the call of nature, while theoretically not impossible, it is so unlikely that one could certainly discount the eventuality.
For evolution to have produced all the many millions of life forms we see on the planet, positive mutation must have occurred billions of times over. Bear in mind that according to the theory of evolution there would be many mutations to produce each different physical characteristic, so this requires many more mutations than species. So far there is not one single example of positive mutation anywhere in the world that undisputedly is a transitional specimen—a life form part-way between one species and another.
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, it is difficult to prove scientifically, 100%, that none are present until all are examined; but like the cow pats, with the massive number of examples that should have existed in the past, for none to be found after the many years of searching, one is quite justified in claiming that the event simply did not happen. If it were true we would see many indisputable examples all around us.
Of course, evolution can’t simply stop: it must still be happening today if it happened at all; but where? Richard Dawkins, the ardent evolutionist, is on record as saying that we probably would not be able to recognise examples of evolution when we saw them because every mutation would have to produce a fully-functioning system in order for natural selection to give it the advantage to survive. That claim tells us two things:
There are no examples of positive mutation anywhere in the world. If such a fanatical evolutionist knew of one he would certainly shout it from the housetops, not make excuses for its absence
Since there are no transitional specimens that can be recognised, then the theory of evolution is based on faith rather than scientific proof (which always requires demonstrable physical evidence): religious faith that the Creator God does not exist.
Charles Darwin said if no fossils demonstrating evolution were ever found, this would be a fatal flaw in his theory:
He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species.
(The Evolution of Species by Charles Darwin, emphasis mine.)
It is a pity today’s evolutionists do not believe what their hero wrote! But on the topic of Darwin, although he is hailed as the great scientific thinker of his time, no modern evolutionist believes the original theory he suggested! They know it is impossible that the minor changes in the Galapagos finches, for example, could continue indefinitely in the way he proposed and produce all the life forms that have existed on this planet. As we have already seen, new information has to enter the DNA in order for that to happen: an eventuality supposed by today’s evolutionists to have taken place billions of times over by mutation. But Darwin had no knowledge of the laws of genetics, so all he could do was produce a theory based on the superficial things he could see with his eyes. However, even he was honest enough, and scientific enough, to admit that if no transitional fossils exist, then his theory is thereby disproved.
When discussing the matter with evolutionists, it is likely that at some point they will say,
“Well, it must have happened because we are here: we wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t taken place.”
When they say this, you know they have lost, since taken at face value it is not a logical statement. The fact that we are here simply demonstrates that we had a beginning; it does not prove what form that beginning took. Actually, what they really mean is:
“It must have happened because we are here and I don’t believe in the existence of a Creator-God: we wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t taken place.”
Of course they would not say the extra bit because that blows their cover and shows the argument is based on religious faith rather than science.
At the end of the day, creationism also involves faith. No human being was around when the world began to observe how it happened. As it was a one-off event, it cannot therefore be tested in a laboratory. However, such scientific evidence (as opposed to the opinions of some scientists!) as exists certainly favours creationism rather than evolution. In the previous two chapters we looked briefly at the origin of life (the observable law of abiogenesis—inanimate matter never becomes a living organism) and the impossibility of species changing into different species (the observable laws of reproduction). But there is much more.
The laws of thermodynamics (specifically entropy and the conservation of energy—things wind down, never up).
Irreducible complexity (living systems which must be complete before they will work—no room for gradual evolution here).
The fossil record (evidence for creation, not evolution).
Scientific observation of massive geological change taking place not in millions of years, but days or weeks.
Polonium halos (only possible with very rapid creation of the granite bed-rock of our planet).
…and more. We will be looking at some of these points later.
There is one who claims to have been around when the world began, however—the Almighty. Perhaps, rather than try to fit His description of beginnings into the transitory theories of scientists, which in the past have been radically changed from time to time, one would do well to accept that He might just know how He did it and take His words at their face value! This discussion is intended to demonstrate, in some small way, that in the 21st century, there is still no genuine, provable, scientific evidence that conflicts with the original text of the Bible. So you can take confidence that, like millions of people over thousands of years, you can safely base your life and destiny on the truths it contains—from Genesis 1:1 through to Revelation 22:21.
4: The Triple Whammy
There is much about which creationists and evolutionists agree. The facts of the various geological formations in the earth and the type of fossils found in them are generally agreed by both. The disputes, of course, revolve around the time it all took to form and how it happened. Since the evolutionist believes that all living things evolved from a single living cell, let us use some simple calculations to look in a little more detail at what this actually involves.
On searching the Internet, the evolutionist sites I viewed seemed to accept that the point at which man and ape divided from their common ancestor was something around 4 million years ago and that Homo sapiens first appeared, at most, around 200 thousand years ago. That means it took about 3.8 million years for man to evolve from that common ancestor, although as we shall see, the time period is barely relevant.
We are told that up to 98.7% of human DNA is identical to apes’ DNA (various sites on the Internet report between 98% and 98.7%), making the smallest possible difference between apes and humans 1.3%. Since our bodies are so similar, it would be hardly surprising: but in fact the difference is a minimum of 12% (see later) but for now we’ll go with the smaller amount.
To avoid exaggeration we will assume just 1% difference, which is 23% less than the smallest figure accepted by biologists. It is now known that the human DNA contains 3,164,700,000 (just over 3 billion) base pairs of ‘letters’ according to Human Genome Project website when I checked it while first writing this. There are four different letters: A, C, G & T (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine & Thymine). A always pairs with T, and G always pairs with C. So there are four different possibilities of base pairs: AT, TA, CG & GC.
If we assume that half of the present difference between apes and humans took place in each species (so 0.5%), then 15,823,500 DNA base pairs had to evolve in each species in 3.8 million years.
Reminder: this was written at the beginning of the 21st century, so the latest research is not included. I have left it more or less as originally written, since it shows how, even with figures favouring the evolutionist position, their case is hopeless.
If we take the wildly overoptimistic view that on average all generations appeared every 12 years (i.e. births taking place with the mother 12 years old), and that there was a positive mutation every ten generations, then that requires about 500 (499.6894737 to be accurate) base pairs to mutate in every one of the possible 31,667 (actually, 31,666.66667) mutations. This creates very serious problems for the evolutionist.
When we look at real life—at what we see happening in reproduction in every species today—we see that positive mutation (i.e. mutation that is a clear step towards a new/better physical attribute) is so rare no evolutionist is able to give a single example: in ‘real life,’ whenever we see mutation, it is negative mutation (or at best neutral), which is damage to the DNA code and therefore to the species. So the likelihood of having a series of 31,667 positive mutations is extremely remote.
Now consider the ‘triple whammy’ (a descriptive name of my own making!) that is designed to prevent mutations. Firstly, our DNA is a bit like a rope ladder twisted round and round on itself (see the diagram below).
When a cell divides, the ‘ladder’ splits in half down the middle of the ‘rungs.’ Nucleotides, which are the ‘letters’ of DNA, are individual half-rung sections of the ladder (in this analogy). Individual nucleotide ‘rung halves’ then attach themselves to the ‘broken’ ends of each of the rungs on each half of the ladder, making two new, complete ladders. Because there is only the possibility of one kind of pairing for each nucleotide, the result is bound to be two perfect copies. Of course, in reality it is much more complex than this simple description, but it is adequate for the point being made.
At least, you would expect two perfect copies. However, even in such an accurate means of duplication, occasionally mistakes can occur. So the second part of the ‘triple whammy’ is the protein ‘machines’ in every cell that constantly monitor the process. Their job is to repair any DNA damage when it occurs.
Even then, mistakes still manage to slip through the net. So the third part of the ‘triple whammy’ takes place at conception: the 23 male chromosomes are compared in fine detail with the 23 female chromosomes when they meet in humans, and if any part does not match, fertilisation cannot take place.
In spite of all that, we still see mutations appearing. The latest research indicates that about 100 letters can mutate in a person, up to a maximum of about 300. So how on earth is a mutation of 500 base pairs of letters going to get through the triple whammy even once, let alone 31,667 times? Even if the accurate duplication method failed so spectacularly, such a large error would be spotted by the protein ‘machines’ and even if they missed the mistake the mismatch between sperm and egg would prevent conception from taking place. It is never going to happen!
Natural selection requires enough improvement from the original form to enable the mutant to survive at least as well, if not better, than its predecessor. There could not possibly be as many as 31,667 improvements between the common ancestor and man, so it is clearly not possible to assume more mutations than used in these calculations in order to reduce their size. On the other hand, reducing the number of mutations, in order to produce a viable number of improvements, increases the size of each mutation and enlarges the impossibility of them taking place even further.
Additionally, with such a large number of transitional forms necessary, it is clear that transitional fossils would massively outnumber ‘complete’ ones. The excuse of punctuated equilibrium, for their absence - i.e. transitional forms appear and disappear too quickly for fossils to form - is exposed as ridiculous: that reduces the possible number of mutations by a huge amount, therefore increases their size and impossibility accordingly.
Indeed, with such large numbers of transitional forms required between all species, the chances of getting any period when no transitional forms were alive on earth are extremely remote. Yet no-one can presently identify a single living specimen on earth. What a coincidence that at the time there is someone around to examine them, they do not happen to be present! What a coincidence that during the huge number of times (according to evolutionists) that fossils were formed, there were none around to be included in the fossil record!
The human illness of sickle-cell anaemia is the result of just one single letter change in the DNA. So the chance of having 31,667 mutations of 500 letters without significant damage to the mutants in any of them is zero.
Furthermore, just think about it: mutation is a random mistake in copying the DNA code. What is the likelihood of getting 500 simultaneous, random mistakes in a single mutation, to produce perfect coding for one of the 31,667 steps from sub-human towards Homo sapiens? Imagine 500 Scrabble tiles, made up of the first four letters of the alphabet (representing the four different letter-pairs in the DNA code). Put them in a bag, shake it up, then tip them out. What is the possibility of them coming to rest in the following sequence?
You would have to make an impossible number of attempts to have any chance of getting the correct sequence even once. There are four alternatives with one tile: A, B, C or D. There are 16 alternatives with two tiles: AA, AB, AC, AD, BA, BB, BC, BD, CA, CB, CC, CD, DA, DB, DC, or DD. Therefore every time you add a tile, you have to multiply by 4 for the total number of possible sequences. So for 500 tiles (4 x 4, 500 times), this works out at approximately 10^300 (1 followed by 300 zeros) different combinations.
That being the case, with odds of 10^300 to 1 against producing the right combination of 500 ‘letters’, it is totally impossible for a random mutation to succeed even once, let alone 31,667 times. The fact that there are 31,667 possible viable combinations at the beginning of the process simply reduces the odds down to about 10^295 to 1 and makes no significant difference. The size of this problem is demonstrated by the fact that it has been estimated there are ‘only’ about 10^75 atoms in the entire universe!
Bearing in mind the fact that in these calculations we considerably underestimated the amount of change required, all this demonstrates that even to move the comparatively small amount from the common ancestor to modern ape and man is totally impossible: there is absolutely no way to produce the necessary change of 15,823,500 DNA base pairs in the required time period. I have been issuing My Challenge ever since the early 2000’s and no-one has ever been able to answer it. See the way a group of evolutionists in an Internet forum floundered, and how an evolutionist who specialised in attacking creationists also failed to counter it.
So to progress from a single cell to all the millions of life-forms we see on the earth, even in billions of years, simply does not stand up to logical scrutiny. Evolutionary changes between some species would require a change of up to 20% of the DNA, not merely 1%; and of course we now know that the difference between man and ape is at least 12%, making the problems twelve times larger than we have considered here.
It can be seen that the time period really is irrelevant, though. However long is allowed there are still only two alternatives: either more transitional forms, by orders of magnitude, than natural selection could preserve; or larger mutations, by orders of magnitude, than could possibly appear and survive through natural, random processes. There is no other option.
This is not the end of the problems, however. We have assumed 0.5% of the common ancestor’s DNA needed to mutate in our branch to produce humankind. To make this point easier to explain, let us number the letter pairs in our DNA, with pair number 1 at one end and pair number 3,164,700,000 at the other. Let us assume the 0.5% of DNA that needed to mutate in order to produce Homo sapiens is at the beginning of the DNA thread, although actually it doesn’t matter whether the code needing to change was all together as in this example, or scattered across the DNA; the same principle applies.
This means letter pair numbers 1 to 15,823,500 all had to change, while numbers 15,823,501 to 3,164,700,000 had to remain totally unchanged. Now remember that mutation is a random accident in copying DNA. But every time there was a mutation, even though the entire DNA was equally vulnerable to change, it only ever took place in letter numbers 1 to 15,823,500. The likelihood of that taking place at the first mutation is 199 to 1.
Think of the Scrabble tiles. Take 200 tiles and instead of letters, number them from 1 to 200. Put them in a bag and shake it up. Take one tile out at random. It must be tile number one. Put it back and repeat the process. It still must be number one. Continue doing that for 31,667 times. Every time it must be tile number one you withdraw. That is what is required for random mutation to change the right bit of DNA in order to produce humans from the sub human ancestor! It is like throwing 31,667 darts at a dartboard while blindfolded, and expecting every one to land in the bull’s eye!
But even worse, the ‘target’ letters decrease in number after each mutation. Therefore assuming the impossible did happen, by the time you reach the final mutation, out of the 3,164,700,000 DNA letters, only the final 500 must change. Not only have all the ‘correct’ letters to remain unchanged throughout the whole process, but all the previously mutated letters must also remain unchanged thereafter. The chance of random mutation changing the right 500 at that last mutation is 6,329,400 to 1.
This means that on average, throughout the whole process, every time there is a mutation, the chance of it affecting the right letters is 3,164,800 to 1: so to be accurate, instead of randomly finding tile number 1 from 200 Scrabble tiles 31,667 times consecutively, we need to do it from over 3 million! Statistically, only one in three million mutations will hit the right spot, and when it does there are 10^300 wrong possibilities against just 1 correct one in order to get the right combination of letters. When this takes place, it is just 1 of 31,667 times it needs to do so!
It would be no good evolutionists saying that any part of the DNA could mutate and we are simply observing the 0.5% that did so. In the part of our DNA coding for our physical characteristics, each ‘letter’ of DNA has a specific effect, so the only parts that could have changed are those that are now seen as different. Mutation in any other area would either produce damage, or at best produce no benefit.
Even if at the present time the function of much of our DNA is unknown, this is not evidence it has no function: it simply means we do not yet know what it is! However, the claim that most of it is ‘junk’ in order to bypass the problems described here, is being disproved on a weekly basis, as more and more research reveals its purpose.
NOTE: I wrote this piece some years before my first website was created - somewhere just after the beginning of the 21st century. This was years before the ENCODE project proved beyond doubt that the ‘junk DNA’ was not junk at all but has a vital role. I am not a scientist, but this is an example of a creationist's prediction proving to be true, when evolutionists claim creation is not science because it cannot produce any predictions!
Nor could it be claimed that mutations took place across the entire DNA but only those in the correct area were preserved by natural selection. This would mean on average there would be 3 million mutations in the ‘wrong’ area for every one in the ‘correct’ area. With the massive amount of mutation required there simply would not be time for that in the few million years it is assumed the entire process took. Remember, we are calculating on just 1% difference between man and ape, which is much less than any knowledgeable biologist would now accept to be the case in the light of the ENCODE project: these figures are considerably underestimating the size of the problem!
So for sub-human to evolve into fully human, not only are there massive odds against mutation producing the correct letters many thousands of times over, there are also huge odds against each mutation taking place on the correct part of DNA code. After all that, there is the triple whammy to prevent mutation happening and being passed on, in the first place!
If evolutionists try to claim that there are many possible valid mutations and we are simply observing the ones that happened to occur, then that too is hopeless: even if there were 1 billion possible different, healthy, viable species between common ancestor, ape and man, that would only reduce the number of 10^300 down to 10^291, so the effect of increasing the possibility of evolution by this argument is negligible.
There is one other difficulty: recent research indicates that a positive mutation greater than two ‘letters’ could not be preserved by natural selection (more details later). In that case, at the very least, 5,274,500 such mutations would have to take place in order to produce the amount of change necessary. So taking our original scenario of 12-year generations and a positive mutation in every tenth one, then the minimum time period would be over 630 million years (actually 632,940,000) to complete the process of producing man from the common ancestor—compared to the 3.8 million years evolutionists assume it took. Even if all generations were only five years (i.e. all births at five years old), and there was a positive mutation in every generation (absolutely impossible), then it would still take over 26 million years. At that rate of change, all of the earth’s life forms evolving from a single cell in the primordial soup would take many times longer than the assumed age of the universe!
Stephen Hawking said,
“…you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”
A Brief History of Time, page 11
For decades evolutionists have been accusing creationists of maintaining a position of faith contrary to the evidence of science. Now the boot is on the other foot. Plain and simple scientific observation of genetics demonstrates that the appearance of man from a common ancestor with apes is totally impossible. According to Stephen Hawking that is evidence enough to demolish the entire edifice of evolutionary theory.
5: You Cannot be Serious!
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist, has presented a computer model, which he claims demonstrates how life could evolve. He used the phrase ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’ from Shakespeare, and wrote a simple computer programme to generate letters randomly, saving the correct ones that appeared in the correct place. He found that after something like 40-60 generations, the phrase could be reached. This is an illusion of course, since intelligence had to be put into the programme to select the target in advance, tell it when the letters were right or wrong, then ‘freeze’ them into place preventing them from being changed thereafter, none of which is anything like random mutation in real life.
In his programme it was unimportant how incomprehensible the line was when the process began, or at any mutation: the computer could continue to generate letters randomly until the correct sequence was reached. But in real life the starting code has to produce a viable living creature. Then every mutation not only has to be a step towards improvement, but also has to continue to produce a viable living creature.
In his programme, every incorrect letter was able to change at every mutation. If such a large proportion of DNA code mutated in real life, the result would firstly be that fertilisation would be impossible, so the change could not be passed on to the next generation; and secondly, even if fertilisation did succeed, such an amount of damage from large, random DNA change would result in a creature incapable of life. In his programme, even just one correct letter change per mutation would be ok; but as we have already seen, in real life many letters need to change at every mutation.
The reason his programme froze the correct letters into position when they appeared was supposed to duplicate the effect of natural selection, which would preserve beneficial (positive) mutations. But as we have seen, even 31,667 mutations mean that an impossibly large number (500) of DNA ‘letter pairs’ would have to mutate perfectly every time. It is beyond reason that there could be as many as 31,667 improvements between sub-human and human for natural selection to favour.
If we reduce the number of mutations to a reasonable number of stages that could be preserved by natural selection, then with 15,823,500 letter-pairs needing to mutate, the number of letter changes needed at each mutation would be ridiculously high. So however the figures are juggled, there are always either far more mutations than could be possible or much larger mutations than could ever take place. There is no other alternative.
Let’s look again at the evolutionist’s excuse for the absence of transitional fossils. I am aware of the occasional fossilised bone fragments that are produced as ‘missing links’. In most cases, when thoroughly investigated, even evolutionists reject the original claim, and in every case creationists would maintain there are other explanations for these fossils. But the number of transitional populations required for evolution is so high one would expect to see many millions of them in the fossil record, from a vast number of different species. A mere handful of disputed specimens is a good indication that evolution of species never took place.
They say the reason for their absence is that the transitional forms appeared and died out too quickly for fossils to form: this is called ‘punctuated equilibrium.’ In other words, most of the time only ‘complete’ forms of life existed. But in short spurts, transitional forms evolved, rapidly producing the next ‘complete’ form of life and then equally rapidly died out. So every time fossils formed, there were no transitional forms around to be preserved.
But as we have seen, if punctuated equilibrium were fact, then the problem is massively compounded. The number of possible generations with positive mutations would be reduced enormously, and the number of letter changes required at each mutation would be increased so much that the number of possible combinations would be beyond comprehension. So since punctuated equilibrium requires the jump from sub-human to fully human to take place quickly, it is shown to be absolutely impossible. Indeed, with such large numbers of transitional forms required between all species, the chances of getting any period in time when no transitional forms are alive on earth are extremely remote.
We assumed just 1% difference between ape and man; but as previously mentioned, the difference between some species, where one is assumed to have evolved from the other, the difference is up to 20%, possibly more! So all the problems we have considered become twenty times greater! There had to be a constant stream of transitional forms to produce the amount of change needed; they would vastly outnumber ‘complete’ forms; and they would be seen everywhere in the fossil record and living throughout the world.
In contrast, what we do see (scientific evidence) is perfectly in line with creation:
Living cells never spontaneously emerge from inanimate matter.
The ‘triple whammy’ is designed to prevent mutation, and protect the ‘kinds’ that God created.
When mutation occurs, it is always damage to the system, or at best neutral.
Transitional forms are never found, either in the fossil record or living on the earth.
Of course, by ‘transitional forms’ I mean specimens clearly at a part-way stage between two different kinds of life: not merely specimens showing some kind of minor change due to a loss or shuffling of pre-existing DNA, or negative mutation.
The only answer the evolutionist can give to this is to say…
“It must have happened because we are all here—we wouldn’t be here if it hadn’t,”
…which, as we saw earlier, is not a scientific argument, but one founded on the religious faith that the Creator-God does not exist. Based on that belief, in spite of the total absence of any physical evidence, the evolutionist believes that either an impossible number of mutations took place in a few million years, or an impossibly huge number of letter changes occurred in a few mutations, in order to produce man from sub-human.
Then they say that creation should be kept out of the physics classes because it is ‘faith’ not ‘science!’
You cannot be serious!
6: Fact and Faith
Scientific evidence, by definition, is something that is capable of being disproved. For example, if you lift up a stone from the garden then let it go, the stone will fall back towards the ground. So the theory of gravity is proved. If instead the stone floats in the air at the position you let it go, or floats upwards, then the theory is faulty. So you have performed a test that is capable of not working—of being disproved. That is scientific evidence.
However, when one comes to the theory of evolution, one immediately runs into tests that are incapable of being disproved. For example, according to the theory, there have been millions of transitional forms living on this planet over millions of years. An obvious scientific test is to look for fossils of these creatures. Were we to find a quantity of them, then the theory would be proven. But we can be pretty sure none exist, since after discovering millions of fossils over centuries not one indisputable transitional form has come to light.
As we saw earlier, the explanation some evolutionists now give is that every transitional form appeared and disappeared so rapidly that no fossils had time to form. So the test of producing fossils has been taken out of the realm of science, since it can no longer be disproved: if the fossils are there, then evolution is true; if they are not there, evolution is true! Heads we win, tails you lose!
Of course, the counter they make to all this is to challenge the Christian Faith. By definition Christianity is faith, they say, not science. Therefore the place of creation in schools is in religious education, not physics classes! The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the opposite: in fact Christianity is as scientific as any experiment tested in the laboratory.
“Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good,”
In this simple recommendation is faith and science in perfect unity and it demonstrates the balance that is seen in genuine Christianity. It requires faith to ‘taste,’ but the tasting itself is a ‘scientific experiment’ to see what God is like. You will discover, if you take that step, the result is that you will find God is good. Faith has now fulfilled its purpose: the result is experience. You no longer need to believe that God is good by faith, because you have experienced that He is. You have found that the Bible promise is true, and the evidence of that fact gives you courage to take the next step of faith.
“Every step I take is a step of faith,”
…says a modern Christian song. This is true: the Christian life consists of a succession of ‘leaps in the dark’. But the result of each leap is that the objective looked for by faith becomes reality. Faith is no longer required to believe for that particular objective, because it has come! This is why Christianity has survived for 2000 years and why so many millions of people around the world continue to put their faith in the unsurpassable love of God, their Father, the incredible promises of Jesus Christ, their Saviour, and the close presence of the Holy Spirit, their Companion and Helper. It works! It does what it says on the can!
In fact, when one studies the Bible, one finds over and over again heroes of faith: men and women prepared to believe that what God said was true in spite of what everything around them said to the contrary. But in every case, faith became resolved into reality.
It took faith for Moses to hold his staff over the Red Sea, but when the sea parted, the truth of God’s promise was demonstrated in the real world. It took faith for Joshua to lead his army around the walls of Jericho, but at their shout the walls fell down: faith resolved into physical evidence. Over and over again, throughout both the Old Testament and the New, we see faith changing people and situations, and evidence in the physical world that when one “tastes,” one finds that “God is good.”
Perhaps the most common example of this is the Christian’s first step into his or her new life. Jesus said,
“Come to me all you who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
The act of asking God’s forgiveness for ignoring Him for so long and going one’s own way, and asking Him to take charge of one’s life, is for many a huge leap in the dark: but there are few, if any, who would not say that the result has been a sense of peace in the depths of their being that had not been experienced before. Sometimes that takes place immediately; sometimes it is later: but it is hardly surprising that the experience is so common. When one comes to Jesus laden with a load of sin (the technical term for doing one’s own thing and ignoring what God wants), the removal of that burden from the depths of one’s being is bound to have an effect.
This is science! Take a specific step, and see what happens. If nothing happens, then either the experiment was not conducted correctly or the premise on which it was based was faulty. If something does happen—many times over—then the premise is proved. There are millions of people around the world whose lives are a constant demonstration that the claims of Christianity are correct.
It has been said that God cannot be demonstrated scientifically: He cannot be put in a test tube. In one sense this is true: but in another it is not. As an example, take magnetism. You cannot see it, feel it, taste it, hear it, or smell it. So how do you know it exists? By observing its effect! I remember well, as a schoolboy, my wonder, when dropping metal filings on a paper held over a magnet, as I saw those tiny particles jump into whirls around the poles at each end. That was a scientific experiment.
Likewise, we can demonstrate God by seeing the effect He has on the world around us: the change in people, circumstances and things when his people pray. So Christianity is not just ‘faith’ and nothing more: it is demonstration that God is real and active in our world today.
In contrast, the evolutionist has no physical evidence to show life emerging from inanimate material; no physical evidence to show transitional forms appearing as a result of positive mutation. Instead, they have speculation, based on the faith that these impossible things must have taken place because they believe a Creator does not exist. On this foundation of faith, the fossil record, the geological structures, the age of the earth, the origin of the universe, etc. are all interpreted to support it; the whole edifice of evolutionary thinking becomes embedded in mainstream thinking; and all factors pointing another way are either reinterpreted or repressed.
Had I put wood chippings over the magnet, nothing would have happened and I could have assumed magnetism does not exist. Likewise, if we look for God in the wrong place or way, we should not be surprised if the result is negative. If He is God, then we are obliged to come to Him on His terms, not He jump in obedience to ours!
The New Testament writer, James, said…
faith without works is dead.
This is true: if our actions do not support our beliefs, then our belief is not faith at all. However, on the basis of what we are considering here, James could equally have said…
“Faith without fulfilment is merely wishful thinking!”
Valid faith produces results.
To qualify that point, many, if not most, Christians will experience some matters for which they trust God without seeing fulfilment for months, years, or even ever in their lives. However, those same Christians will have their story to tell: how God intervened in their lives and things changed; how they prayed and the answer quite clearly came—they call it their testimony. This is scientific evidence. They took actions, which they had been told would result in particular reactions, and they found they did.
At the end of the day I do not believe in creation by faith alone! I believe it on the evidence of what I have experienced: that what God has told me in His word really works. If what I can test is proved to be true, then I can trust Him for what I cannot test personally.
Additionally I believe in creation because after reading many volumes of studies written by creationists and evolutionists, I find the provable, scientific evidence supportive of that position and contrary to evolution. Indeed, it is the writings of evolutionists that for me was the greatest evidence, since they are unable to counter the arguments of creationists. See my comments on books by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking and Massimo Pigliucci, for example. Hence this website!
The evolutionist would counter all this by saying that the Christian experience is subjective rather than objective, and as such is unscientific. Let me ask this: if a patient goes to his doctor with severe depression or anxiety and the doctor prescribes medication that subsequently removes those symptoms, is that subjective faith or objective fact? Most would agree it is fact.
If that same person were to come to God, give their life to Him and go away with ‘peace that passes understanding’—all symptoms gone—what is that? The same person; the same result: it must therefore also be the same description—objective fact! Actually, it is not the same result, since the pill-taker must continue to take pills (at least for a time) to prevent the symptoms returning; God’s ‘cure’ is permanent, and without any negative side-effects!
I would strongly urge readers, if they have not yet done so, to take a scientific test for themselves: to taste, so they may see that the Lord is good. They will not be disappointed.
7: Billions of—years or seconds?
So far we have concentrated on the aspect of evolution that involves living things. The reason, of course, is that is the foundation for everything else. Because evolution is considered fact, then the age of the earth must stretch to billions of years in order for there to be time for it all to happen. The different layers of the earth are therefore labelled accordingly: since the ‘simplest’ forms of life must have appeared many millions of years ago, the rock layers in which they are found must also be many millions of years old.
So we end up with circular reasoning, which is an argument relying on itself for its proof of validity:
layer x must be so many millions of years old because fossil y is found there
fossil y must be so many millions of years old because it is in layer x
What about carbon dating? This is the usual question. In fact carbon dating is irrelevant to millions of years, as it can only be used to date material for a few thousand years at the most.
Dating methods look at substances which are unstable, and therefore radioactive. Inside every atom of every element is a nucleus, within which are protons and neutrons (apart from hydrogen, which has no neutrons). Around the nucleus are orbiting electrons. Over a period of time, α-particles, made up of two neutrons and two protons leave the atoms of unstable substances. They combine with the two electrons now released from their orbit and the result is helium. The atom from which the α-particles came now becomes something different, since it has lost some of its particles.
For example, atoms in carbon-14 change into nitrogen-14. The half-life of carbon-14 is about 5,730 years. In other words, after this period of time, half of the number of carbon atoms have changed to nitrogen. After another 5,730 years, half of what was left has changed—a quarter of the original in other words. Each further half-life period sees half of what was left changing. After about seven half-lives, there is insufficient material left to be measurable. Theoretically, anything over 50,000 years of age will have no detectable carbon-14 left. So other methods need to be used for longer periods, such as potassium-argon (potassium-40 decays to argon-40); uranium-lead (uranium-235 decays to lead-207); rubidium-strontium (rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87).
This brings us to one of the mainstays of the evolutionist: uniformitarianism. The assumption is that all the changes that took place on the planet since its formation, did so at the same rate as we see change taking place today. As change to the landscape is very slow today, millions of years would be required to produce such huge geological features as the Grand Canyon, for example. So in order to use the dating methods, the following assumptions are made:
The starting conditions are known
Decay rates have always been consistent
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
The creationist would point out that we do not know what the starting conditions were. God created everything in a mature state. For example Adam and Eve were adults when they were made, not babies. The fruit trees were mature enough to be bearing fruit. They had the appearance of a much greater age than was the case. In the same way it is not possible to know precisely the conditions of any of the geological formations at the end of the creation week, mostly because we do not know what effect their rapid creation would have had on them.
On the other hand the ludicrous idea that God would somehow artificially ‘age’ the earth to give it the appearance of being older than it is must be rejected: God is not into deception. That, of course, is why so many creationists accept six, literal days of creation—God said He did it in six days in Exodus - the only passage in the Bible literally written by God Himself. If, when He said “six days,” He meant “billions of years,” He would be deceiving us.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it… It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.' " And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God… Now the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God engraved on the tablets.
Exodus 20:11; 31:17-18; 32:16
The eminent geologist, Dr Andrew Snelling has pointed out that the processes the earth would have undergone; and some of the information in this section comes from ‘Radioactive Dating: Research confirming the Biblical record’ by Andrew Snelling, being paper 8 in an occasional series, available from The Genesis Agendum. There is a list of his publications available from the hyperlink. He said…
“…when the earth was created and its internal structure established by differentiation into its core and mantle divisions, leading to the formation of the crust and the uplift of dry land early on day 3…”
This would have massively accelerated the radioactivity taking place. This would therefore produce the appearance of age, not because of God’s deliberate deception, but as the natural result of the processes that took place.
Additionally, most creationists agree that conditions on the earth before Noah’s flood would have been radically different from what they are today. Would those conditions have affected the half-lives of the substances mentioned earlier? Almost certainly, but we can only guess at what those conditions were or the effect they would have had. However, the world-wide flood in which Noah and his family gained fame would have had an immense effect.
Dr Snelling points out that that the result of such a large body of water swirling around the earth for the best part of a year would have had a major effect on the isotopes now found in rocks, compared to the pace of change we see today.
He reports that in the last 20 years, use of the highly sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry technique on samples of coal, etc., found in beds regarded as being up to 320 million years old, has given carbon-14 ages of between 44,000 – 60,000 years. Clearly there is something very wrong with the methods that produce such long ages for these rock formations. Were they to be correct all carbon radioactivity would have ceased many millions of years ago. We can understand why they are wrong when we consider the creationist’s viewpoint of the three assumptions made by evolutionists:
We don’t know what the starting conditions were
A world-wide flood (plus succeeding geographical catastrophes) means decay rates have not been consistent
The systems were not always closed or isolated, due to flood waters (for example).
Earlier we saw that helium is the result of radioactive decay. Dr Snelling says measurements have shown there is not the millions of years’ worth of helium in the atmosphere that would be the case if the earth was as old as claimed. Furthermore, in the late 1970s, research staff drilled a borehole several kilometres down into a hot, dry, granite rock near Los Alamos. Zircon grains were extracted from the granite and analysed. The amounts of U, Th and Pb isotopes implied that 1.5 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay had taken place, at today’s rates. From that it was possible to calculate how much helium would have been produced, and they then measured to see how much helium was present in the sample. It was found that up to 58% had not diffused out of the zircons.
From all this information, two tables were produced: one showing the rate of diffusion based on the evolutionist model, and the other based on the creationist model. There was a difference between the two of a factor of 100,000, which is five orders of magnitude.
To test to see which model was closest to reality, a sample of the Jemez granodiorite was taken from the same drill core, and zircon grains were extracted and sent to a specialist lab to test for helium diffusion. The results lined up perfectly with the creation model! So once again, scientific fact pointed away from evolution and towards creation.
Dr Robert Gentry is a scientist of impeccable pedigree, and the world’s leading expert on polonium halos. As explained earlier, the result of radioactivity is that particles leave the core of the atom. The result is a tiny trail in the substance where they are found, showing the course taken by these particles. Since they leave in all directions, when a slice is taken across the centre of the atom, these trails show up rather like the layers of an onion when it is cut in half, and produce the effect of halos.
However, the interesting aspect of polonium radio halos is that polonium has a very short half-life. There are three Po (polonium) isotopes: ^218Po (half-life of 3.1 minutes); ^214Po (half-life of 164 micro-seconds); and ^210Po (half-life of 138 days). The problem for the evolutionist is that these halos are found in the Precambrian granite layers of the earth.
Evolutionists say when the earth was formed it took very many years for this granite to cool and solidify. But since polonium has such a short half-life, any evidence of radioactivity would be finished long before the granite had cooled enough to show the evidence of it. Clearly it would be impossible for the polonium to enter the granite after it had solidified, and there is no evidence that the polonium is itself the result of another element depleting into polonium through radioactivity over a much longer period.
No evolutionist has ever been able to explain this problem. However, Dr Snelling points out that there is no such difficulty for the creationist. An instantaneous creation of the granite mantle by God would certainly account for evidence of polonium activity that would be finished in a matter of minutes. Furthermore, the massive amount of water during the flood would produce rapid hydrothermal fluid circulation, which would rapidly accelerate the cooling of granitic plutons during that period.
Then there is the problem of erosion. Evolutionists believe that the continents were formed at least 2.5 billion years ago. But Dr Tas Walker points out that the rate of erosion, as it is seen at the present time, makes this absolutely impossible. Sedimentologists have researched many of the world’s rivers and calculated how fast the land is disappearing by erosion. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60mm (2.4 inches) per 1000 years, or 24 billion tonnes of sediment per year. At this rate, a height of 150 kilometres (93 miles) would have eroded in 2.5 billion years. So if erosion had been going on for the billions of years that evolutionists claim, no continents would remain on earth!
It is claimed that uplift would replace the sediment removed by erosion. Creationists and evolutionists alike accept that all the mountains of the earth have risen substantially—which is a point to bear in mind when considering Noah’s flood: the highest mountains of today would have been considerably lower at that time! However, if uplift were to be replacing land lost by erosion, then we would not find old sediment in these areas that have been washed away and replaced many times. But sediments of all ages, from young to old (dated by evolutionary methods) are still preserved.
An alternative is that the present rates of erosion are abnormally high. But since previous climates were wetter than today, and erosion as a result of human interference is only increased by 2 to 2.5 times at the most, this also cannot be valid. According to the evolutionist’s own assumptions, the continents should have eroded away within 10 million years. In Tas Walker’s words:
“When the continents were uplifted at the end of the flood, the incredible energy of retreating floodwaters carved the landscape. Not a lot, geologically speaking, has happened in the 4,500 years since then.”
8: Mount St Helens
In order to test any scientific theory, experiments must take place. The only way to prove how, whether, if, etc., is to try it out and see. Evolutionists, with their uniformitarian world view, believe that it took billions of years to produce the geological formations we see in our world today. The creationist believes that most of what we see is the result of Noah’s world-wide flood, followed by decades or centuries of earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. To the evolutionist the fossils are the result of millions of years of gradual change; to the creationist they are mostly the result of mass burial at the time of the flood and in the chaotic conditions that followed.
There are high-ranking geologists on both sides of the argument, believing sincerely that the undisputed facts can be interpreted to prove their case. But both cannot be right. So how can we determine the truth of the matter? There is only one way—by an experiment. Toward the end of the 20th century, ‘mother nature’ provided such an experiment for us, in an event that was closely observed and recorded.
On 18th May 1980, a volcano erupted at Mount St Helens in Washington State, blowing the top third off the mountain. It flattened millions of trees in 240 square miles of forest; melted snowfields and glaciers, and caused heavy rainfall. This resulted in a mudflow that picked up the fallen trees and jammed both forks of the Toutle River. An earthquake (Richter 5.1) caused a landslide that dumped 0.5 cubic kilometre of debris in nearby Spirit Lake. This caused waves 860 feet high, and gathered one million logs into the lake. Most of them lacked branches, bark and an extensive root system, because the force of them rubbing against each other in this violent event had rubbed them off.
As the floating logs soaked up the water, the heavier root ends sank first, and by 1985, 15,000 had sunk to the bottom, mostly in an upright position. Because sediment was continually flowing into the bottom of the lake, those that sank later were buried higher in the sediment than the earlier ones. This duplicated what is seen at Yellowstone National Park, which has been hailed by evolutionists as evidence of many forests growing on top of each other over a period of millions of years. Interestingly, the fossilised trees at Yellowstone are also lacking branches and extensive root systems — only possible if an event similar to Mount St Helens had put them there.
Elsewhere, the thick layers of mud and ash quickly turned to hard rock, and 600 feet of rocks have formed at St Helens since 1980. In one place there is a layer, formed in one day (June 12th, 1980), 25 feet thick, while another place shows many very thin layers formed very quickly on top of each other. Engineer’s Canyon was formed on March 19th, 1980, with a cliff on one side, 100 feet high.
This demonstrates that Noah’s worldwide flood, followed by many years of localised flooding, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc., can easily account for everything we see around us. For example, the idea that the comparatively small river in the Grand Canyon could have removed such a huge amount of material, miles wide, even over millions of years, is clearly ludicrous. Furthermore the land rises as it approaches the coast, so a river of normal depth would have been diverted along a course different to that of the canyon. On the other hand, a world-wide flood would have produced effects many times greater than those seen at Mount St Helens, and could have easily formed the Grand Canyon during the event.
Objectors claim Noah’s ark could not possibly have held pairs of all the animals in the world. But remember that natural selection has produced a much greater variety of animal types than would have existed at that time. This is not evolution, since it is the result of loss of information in the DNA, not an increase. So, for example, wolves, dogs, hyenas, and coyotes will all be descended from the same canine pair on the ark. There are over 200 breeds of dog alone today, but most of them have only appeared through selective breeding over the past two or three centuries.
John Woodmorappe, in his book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, points out that the ark would have had to house around 16,000 animals in order to produce all the varieties of animal that have lived since. Their median size would have been that of a small rat, with only about 11% larger than a sheep. The ark was 459 feet long, 75 feet wide and 44 feet high—1.54 million cubic feet, when the animals would only occupy 42 thousand cubic feet! It could have held 125,280 sheep. Put the children’s picture book portrayal of the ark out of your mind. From the description we have of the vessel, modern ship designers say it was perfectly proportioned for its purpose: optimum stability, structurally strong, no requirement to be steered, and the maximum amount of space available for use—plenty of room for all the animals, people and supplies.
John’s book explores every possible detail, including matters like the temperature inside the ark, the time taken by caring for all the animals, the disposal of animal waste, the amount of food and water required, and so on, comparing the husbandry of a large number of animals at close quarters with the actual experience of zoos and farms around the world. He shows that without any miraculous intervention from God and without assuming hibernation by any of the animals, it was perfectly possible for the Biblical account of Noah’s experience to take place. See here for books by John.
With regard to the fossil record, the creationist believes it simply reveals the order in which creatures were buried, with the smallest, least mobile being caught first and therefore at the bottom of the pile, so to speak. No rock formation has a label on it telling us the year of manufacture, and no-one in living memory was around to observe these rocks forming! Dating methods rely on assumptions, as previously mentioned. Therefore, to validate one’s opinion regarding how the geological layers were formed, one must look at what can be observed and tested here and now.
Furthermore, the discovery of soft tissue, red blood cells and DNA in dinosaur bones, that have been carbon dated as no more than tens of thousands of years old at most, proves these creatures did not become extinct 65 million years ago, as evolution requires.
Since geological events around the world in recent decades have demonstrated how rapidly the landscape can be changed, and the laws of genetics prove that the evolution of one species into another is impossible, thus disproving the evolutionist’s explanation of the fossil record, the creationists’ literal acceptance of the truth of the Bible is justified.
9: Irreducible Complexity
Arguably, in irreducible complexity we see greater evidence for the sheer impossibility of the theory of evolution than anywhere else.
Irreducible: cannot be made smaller or fewer.
Complexity: the number of parts in a system.
Although this aspect of the subject has been fairly obvious, and pointed out by creationists ever since evolution became popular, perhaps Michael Behe, more than anyone else, has brought the subject and the phrase to recent attention through his book ‘Darwin’s Black Box.’ Since then he has written The Edge of Evolution and Darwin Devolves, showing that further research has confirmed his case.
In fine detail, he points out some of the many systems in the human body, which can only work when many elements are in place and fully functional. Since evolution requires a slow progression, gradually building up greater and greater complexity in living forms by adding different parts one at a time, his work demonstrates that it simply could not happen like that.
Thus, irreducible complexity is the minimum number of different parts in a working system in which none can be removed without preventing the system from operating.
The example he gives is of a basic mousetrap. In order for it to be able to function, at the very least it must have
 a base on which the mechanism is built
 a ‘hammer’ — the arm that flicks on to the mouse
 a spring to make the hammer move
 a holding bar to keep the hammer in position until it is sprung by the mouse
 a catch to keep the holding bar in place
 a number of staples to hold the parts of the mechanism in position.
If any one of these six elements were not present, the trap would not work. Until they are all in place, nothing will happen.
There are other parts that would make the trap more efficient: for example it would be more effective if there was bait on it and a part to hold the bait in place; but it will still work without those. Of course, during manufacture in a factory, it does not matter that the trap will not work when only partly built. Through intelligence it is known that once they are all in place, it will do the job. But there is no intelligence driving evolution, so in order for it to work in real life, every single stage of development must be both functional and an improvement on the previous stage. Therefore, in any physical system that is irreducibly complex, every element must appear simultaneously in order for it to survive.
Like the mousetrap, there are many elements in all living things that simply will not function without their basic parts being fully formed and operational. An objection to this aspect of the creation/ evolution debate has been the argument that the human body can live perfectly well without tonsils, teeth, appendix, etc., so it is not irreducibly complex. That is a misunderstanding of irreducible complexity. There are many parts in the human form that make it more efficient, without which it can still operate, albeit with some kind of handicap; but irreducible complexity considers only those parts without which life would immediately cease.
There are at least three different levels of irreducible complexity in the human body. At the highest level, it would be impossible for human life to continue without: a heart, brain, stomach, lungs, kidneys, a skeleton, a nervous system, muscles, blood, skin, etc. All of those (plus many more) have to be present for a human to live. It is difficult to see how they could have evolved gradually. Blood has to have veins in which to flow. Without a heart, the blood would be unable to circulate. Without lungs and a stomach there would be no ‘fuel’ for the blood to transport around the body and it would have no function; and without ‘fuel’ no creature could survive. On the other hand, without blood our lungs, heart, stomach and veins have no purpose. All of those must appear at the same time, fully functional, in order for natural selection to favour them. As we have seen in previous articles, the amount of DNA coding for this, all of which must appear simultaneously as a result of a random mistake, is absolutely enormous. It could never happen.
Behe gives many examples of irreducible complexity, but one we will briefly consider here looks at the next level. Since blood is such an important part of life, unless there is a means to seal a wound, the smallest cut would mean that a person would bleed to death. Therefore blood must have a way of enabling a cut to heal before it can leak away. Within the blood is a protein complex called fibrinogen. It is that which makes the fibres create a blood clot when a cut occurs. In the event of such a wound, another protein, called thrombin, cuts off several small pieces from some parts of the fibrinogen. Those parts are called fibrin, and have sticky patches on them. They match other fibrin molecules, and this allows them to stick together, not randomly, but crossing over each other in a mesh. That mesh traps blood cells and produces a blood clot. Because it is a mesh and not just a lump of fibrin, much less is required to do the job.
Consider the thrombin. If it were to continue to cut all the fibrinogen it met, the entire blood system would become a blood clot and life would cease. So normally thrombin exists in an inactive state, called prothrombin. But then, of course, it needs to be ‘turned on’ when needed; otherwise one would bleed to death when cut. So another protein, called Stuart factor cuts the prothrombin, turning it active. But the Stuart factor must also normally exist in an inactive form; otherwise, once again, it would work continuously, turning the entire blood supply into a clot. However, even when active, Stuart factor alone is unable to cut prothrombin, so it needs two proteins: one to ‘turn it on’ (activated Stuart factor), and another to aid in the cutting process (accelerin). Accelerin exists normally in an inactive form; otherwise it would work continuously, turning the entire blood supply into a clot…
In the interest of keeping this from getting any more complicated, we will stop at that point. But in Darwin’s Black Box, chapter 4, page 74, Behe identifies twenty different proteins, operating in a cascade, every one of which is necessary to enable the blood coming from a cut to congeal sufficiently to stop the flow of blood without continuing too long and blocking the vein.
This is irreducible complexity, without which a blood circulatory system is useless. Twenty different proteins must be present simultaneously, in order for blood to clot effectively, without which no living thing with a blood circulatory system could survive. Even if only one of them were missing, the system would not function. It cannot gradually appear: if evolution were fact, then as soon as blood evolved, the highly complex blood clotting system had to appear immediately; otherwise the mutant would die out before producing any offspring to continue the evolutionary chain.
Every organ in your body, similarly, has a complex system of parts, all of which are necessary to enable them to function. It is absolutely impossible that any one of those organs could come into being, complete and functional, as a result of random mistakes in copying DNA code during cell duplication. Nor could they arise gradually. They must be complete as soon as they appear, or they will be useless.
However, there is a lower level of complexity yet. To return to the blood clotting process, each one of the twenty proteins ‘doing the business’ itself is a highly complicated system, enabling it to come into being and function in the correct manner at the correct time. I have had the privilege of attending mind-blowing lectures given by Dr Geoff Barnard, formerly of Cambridge University but now in Israel, who has explained something of the structure of these proteins. Such was the complexity that it is beyond my ability to attempt any kind of description of his lectures here! However, links for descriptions of the structure of proteins can be found on this website.
Dr Barnard points out that evolutionists simply have no answer to the way in which the life forms we can see around us could have evolved; made up, as they are, of countless numbers of cells, each one containing a myriad of self-replicating ‘machines’ of far greater complexity and sophistication than man has been able to produce in any factory, even in the 21st century. Estimates for humans vary between 30 - 40 trillion cells.
In his words,
“Evolution is impossible, because at the molecular level there is no mechanism to enable it to take place.”
This chapter has barely scratched the surface of the topic, and it is strongly recommended that if you are interested in the subject, read Behe’s book and see for yourself what a very complicated thing is the human body. Truly we are fearfully and wonderfully made: not evolved!
10: What Does it Matter?
This is a fairly common criticism from those committed Christians who do not share the creationist’s enthusiasm for the subject of origins:
“We should leave such controversial topics alone and concentrate on what really matters: bringing the truth of the work of Jesus Christ to rescue people from an unthinkable eternity, enabling them to experience release and deliverance from their own personal problems in this life, and a destiny of unimaginable joy and fulfilment in the next.”
At face value this appears to be a valid point: we have only so many hours in the day; shouldn’t we spend the time we have available on the most important issues? In my view this is one of the most important issues, if not, the most important. Why?
Truth matters. Both science and religion are fundamentally about truth. If at any point either of them is dependent on belief in something that is provably false, then in that area they are as much use as salt with no flavour (to use a Bible quotation), or a chocolate teapot (for a modern equivalent).
For science, the pursuit of truth is presumed to be what drives every researcher; and one of the major ways in which new discoveries are tested for validity is the system of publishing scientific papers in key publications: this enables a scientist’s peers to review and test his theories. It is a vital element, since it is recognised that the tendency in human beings is to become so enthusiastic in their endeavours that data pointing away from their pet theory can very easily be missed, reinterpreted, or even deliberately ignored.
This is what makes the attitude toward creationists by today’s evolution-dominated scientific fraternity, not to mention the general media, so despicable: it is extremely difficult for known creationists to be published, or given genuine opportunity to express their views in the media, regardless of the quality of their work. But how else are the presumptions of scientific theories that touch on the subject of origins to be challenged in the way that scientific publication is intended to operate?
To put it another way, what are they afraid of? Richard Dawkins is frequently to be heard, campaigning to keep creation out of schools, for example. But if evolution were the cut and dried theory he claims, then he should welcome the opportunity to prove his point and strike the killer blow to creationism: teachers could present the evidence disproving creation, and it would wither on the vine. One is forced to conclude that such people are actually not quite so sure of their position as they would have us believe; otherwise they would not be so afraid of confronting an opposing view.
For Christianity, Jesus said He was the Truth, and Hebrews tells us it is impossible for God to lie. God specifically said that He created everything in the universe in six days in Exodus, so if it took billions of years, then He is a liar.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Committed Christians and theologians may be able to undertake the mental gymnastics that enable them to fit billions of years into the first chapters of Genesis and Exodus 20, but the man in the street generally takes a very different point of view to this kind of contradiction. Give him a Bible and if he starts at the beginning the first thing he reads is directly opposed to what he believes to be proven science. So the Bible is considered to be a book of fables: believed by previous, unenlightened generations, but now exposed by scientific fact as little more than religious superstition; the concept of God an optional extra for inadequate people who need a psychological crutch to survive. Dawkins has made it very clear that the logical conclusion to evolution is atheism.
The 20th century saw the UK change from a Christian society (if only nominally) to a largely secular one. Why has that change taken place? Obviously because people no longer believe in the fact of God’s existence! Why? Because evolution has given them an answer to the questions,
“Why are we here?”
“How did we get here?”
Their answer to both is,
“As a result of a series of accidents!”
It has given them the excuse to ignore God’s claims on their lives, because He had nothing to do with them being here, if He exists at all.
You can preach the gospel until your voice is gone, it will have little effect while people believe that what you say is based on fables and outdated religion scientifically proven to be irrelevant. It has been said you cannot argue people into God’s Kingdom: we simply need the work of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to them. While it is true that no-one will come to belief in God without the work of the Holy Spirit, it is equally true that if people believe the lie of evolution they are likely to be deaf to His voice: they cannot hear what He is saying.
On the other hand, once evolution is shown to be false, and we have seen here that it is, then people are immediately exposed to the obvious logic:
“The only alternative is a Creator-God. In this case it is imperative I find out why He put me here and what He wants of me.”
There are other important repercussions from today’s infatuation with evolution. Much of modern genetic manipulation is based on the assumption that everything is the way it is as a result of random accidents. Therefore intelligent man is bound to be able to improve on what is there. This would appear to be valid logic. However, since it is impossible for random accidents to produce the thousands of millions of sets of coding in DNA throughout all the species on the planet, it is immediately obvious that intelligence overwhelmingly beyond anything we could even imagine would be required to design it all.
This being the case, our greatest scientific minds, experimenting with genetic modification, are no more than little children playing with matches in a barn full of dry straw, in comparison. This is not to belittle them. I am very willing to accept that their knowledge and intelligence is way beyond mine. But no matter how clever a person is, if he begins with an invalid assumption, his conclusions are always going to be in error.
Once the genetic makeup of crops, or animals, is altered and released into the world, there is no way of bringing it back. It is most unlikely that our scientists are going to be able to improve on the designs produced by a mind very much greater than theirs; so change is much more likely to make things worse rather than better.
There could be very good reasons for things being the way they are, which are not immediately apparent, although already the results of some of these changes are not proving to be as advantageous as first thought. For example, at the time of originally writing this piece, we were told:
GM sugar beets were introduced in Britain, which resulted in weeds being reduced substantially; but the Skylark population relies on the seeds of this weed in autumn and winter, and it is believed that up to 80% of them now have to find other means of finding food as a result.
Genetic modification of the pea, in order to make it resistant to pea weevils, which decimate up to 30% of the crop, had to be abandoned after ten year’s research by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It was discovered that mice, when fed the GM pea, developed inflammation of the lungs, causing asthma-like symptoms. A gene from beans, which blocks the activity of an enzyme important for the digestion of starch making it indigestible to the weevil larvae, had been added to the pea; but the transfer created subtle changes in the chemical structure and caused the harmful side-effect. So while the gene in beans is harmless, when transferred in that way it becomes hazardous to human health.
The worry, of course, is that adverse long-term effects of genetic modification may not become apparent until many years after it has been passed as safe and ‘let loose in the world.’ For example right up until the middle of the 20th century it was believed that smoking had no adverse effects on health: it was only after observing the devastating effects on many people over decades that the truth became apparent. This is bad enough for smokers, but after that length of time the GM genie would be out of the bottle and irreversible.
On the other hand, this is not to suggest that genetic research should be abandoned. It may be possible, given enough time and understanding, to reverse some of the worst effects of mutation for example, relieving mankind from illnesses that are the result. But since genetics is such a new branch of science, surely we should be progressing very slowly and carefully when travelling such a hazardous one-way street? We are still living in the decade when the human genome was mapped for the first time (at the time of writing), and the function of only a fraction of it is presently understood.
However, while such physical repercussions from the belief in evolution are clearly of great importance, by far the most serious result of the evolutionary lie is the spiritual one. Not only does it affect the eternal destiny of those who turn their back on God in the illusion that evolution has proved He does not exist, but it also affects their lifestyles. It is noticeable that in the UK the moral decline and slide toward anarchy has accompanied the rise of evolutionary dogma and the resulting fall of influence of the Church.
There are many other issues to take into account too, of course. For example, the withdrawal of the death penalty coincided with the rise in violent, weapon-assisted crime; the withdrawal of corporal punishment coincided with the rise in unacceptable behaviour in the classroom. These deterrents are presented in the Bible as two of God’s solutions to society’s problems (another one is a society strongly based on the family, while UK government policy on taxation, etc., has acted against families), but trendy thinkers, believing themselves to know better than God—or rather, believing that God is irrelevant—are considered more reliable than Him. Therefore, far from being an issue of marginal importance, the battle between creation and evolution is primary.
To return to the undermining of the Bible, evolution says that millions of years of sickness, suffering and death preceded man’s appearance on earth; but Romans says that death came into the world as a result of sin: impossible if evolution were true. It also says that because the sin of one man (Adam) brought sin into the world, then the righteousness of one—Jesus—can make the way to overcome the penalty of sin: a line of reasoning destroyed by evolutionary thinking that denies the existence of Adam.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned… For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:12, 19
Evolution says that life evolved through the survival of the fittest and the death of the less fit; but the Bible says that death is an enemy, which God will do away with. How could God call a creation “Very good” if it required millions of years of sickness, suffering and death that He views as an enemy?
The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
1 Corinthians 15:26
It also says that sickness is the work of the devil, but that God said everything He had made was very good.
…how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
During the 19th and 20th centuries, when scientific knowledge was less than it is today, it is understandable that some Christians should have felt obliged to compromise the plain teaching of the Bible in order to accommodate what appeared to be incontrovertible evidence that evolution was true. However, we now know that the ‘incontrovertible evidence,’ far from being true, was only the result of incomplete knowledge. There are doubtless many more scientific revelations yet to come; but the Christian can rest assured that since every ‘proof’ of the validity of evolution thus far has proved to be a false trail, future scientific discovery, when fully researched, will only serve to reinforce the fact. It is of great importance that we do not retreat into a corner, letting the atheistic community pull the wool over everyone’s eyes, but instead seek to promote the work of the many Christian (and other) scientists who have the tools to demonstrate the fact of God’s existence, and the validity of His word, the Bible.
11: Sherlock’s Last Theorem
Describing Fermet’s Last Theorum, Simon Singh points out in his book that mathematical proof is superior to ‘scientific’ proof. On one hand, the scientist makes the most likely proposal on a subject and then by observation and experimentation, tests it to see if it is true. Over a period of time the results prove if the proposal is true or not. Mathematical proof, on the other hand, by a series of logical and provable steps, produces definitive evidence, which shows immediately the validity of the proposal.
The example he gives is the search for the fundamental particles of matter. At the beginning of the 19th century it was believed that atoms were fundamental (i.e. the smallest particles that exist). At the end of the century, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron, proving the atom was not fundamental. During the beginning of the 20th century the picture of a nucleus consisting of protons and neutrons, orbited by electrons, emerged. Then other ‘fundamental’ particles were discovered—pions and muons. In 1932 came anti-matter, with antiprotons, antineutrons, etc. This was followed in 1960 by the quark, being the building block for the proton, neutron and pion. Then ‘strings’ came along as the idea for the fundamental particle, being one billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a metre in length, vibrating in different ways, each way producing a different particle. And so it goes on…
As an example of mathematical proof, he gives a puzzle based on a chess board, on which it is possible to place 32 standard dominos with each domino covering two squares. Two opposite corners are removed, leaving just 62 squares. Is it possible to cover all of these remaining squares with 31 dominos?
The ‘scientific’ method would be to try putting the dominos in different formations on the board. However, there are very many different possible ways, so it would be difficult to know if they had all been attempted. On the other hand, the mathematical method would be as follows:
Every domino has to cover two squares.
Since no two adjacent squares are the same colour, each domino will cover one black and one white square.
Because the two missing corners are both white, there are 32 black and 30 white squares available.
After 30 dominoes are positioned, there will be two black squares left (32-30=2) but no white squares (30-30=0).
Therefore, since each domino must cover both a black and a white square, it is not possible to cover all of the squares with dominoes.
Now let us apply the same kind of reasoning to the theory of evolution. We can unearth fossils to try to find missing links, but even though no conclusive ones have yet been unearthed, we cannot be sure that none exist (although after all the years of searching, by now it surely must be concluded there are none). Surely the following mathematical proof, using slightly different parameters from chapter four, is the most conclusive evidence against evolution available?
It is the ‘coding’ in DNA that produces the physical characteristics of all living things.
There is a minimum of 1% difference between the DNA of apes and humans, although it is now known that the difference is at least 12%, because chimp DNA is this much larger than human DNA! However, the difference may well end up being significantly more than this, once more research has been undertaken, but we’ll go with the 1% for the sake of the argument.
Apes and humans are supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor.
Humans have 3,164,700,000 (over three billion) base pairs in their DNA.
Therefore, assuming half of the 1% difference (31,647,000) changed in the human branch and half in the apes’, then 15,823,500 base pairs had to change in each branch to produce what we see today.
To produce this size of change would, for example, require 31,667 mutations, each of 500 base pairs.
We’ll pause in the calculations to consider how evolution is supposed to take place. The only means of significant change in the DNA of living things is mutation, which is a mistake in the copying of DNA information. If the mistake produces an effect that is beneficial, then it will survive through natural selection and gradually spread throughout the population. Then another mutation can take place and once again spread. Chains of such events are assumed to have produced all living things from a single cell. Because mutation as a significant step toward a new species is a very rare event, so rare evolutionists cannot give a single undisputable example, each one needs to have spread widely throughout the population before another could be expected to appear.
If we assume the number of mutants doubles in each generation, then after ten generations there will be 1,024 of them. After 20 generations, there will be 524,288: still hardly enough, but to be very generous to evolutionists let us assume that on average each mutation takes place at this point. Let us also assume each new generation appears every ten years (i.e. every birth with the mother 10 years old.): again highly optimistic as one would expect parents to be older than that. Back to the calculations:
31,667 mutations, taking place on average every 20 generations, would take 6,333,400 years: this is around the maximum time evolutionists assume the change from the common ancestor to modern apes and man took place, so we cannot significantly increase the number of mutations.
Since there are four different types of base pairs in DNA, this means there is a very large number of different combinations for a change of 500 base pairs: it is approximately 10^300, which is the number ‘1’ followed by 300 ‘0’s.’ Even if there were one billion different possible valid combinations, the chances of a random mistake hitting a ‘correct’ one would still be 1 in 10^295!
Mathematically, the chance of randomly hitting a correct combination of this size, against such impossibly high odds, even once, is so small, regardless of the number of attempts, no mathematician would ever accept it as feasible. To do it 31,667 times is cloud cuckoo land.
No amount of juggling of figures can improve the odds. Increasing the number of mutations, in order to decrease the number of base pairs requiring change, extends the time period such that the earth is not old enough, even by evolutionary estimates, for it all to happen.
There couldn’t possibly be as many as 31,667 beneficial steps for natural selection to act on and preserve. So if anything there would be fewer than this number of mutations rather than more, requiring even more base pairs than 500 to be changed every time.
The ‘triple whammy’ makes this size of mutation impossible.
There is evidence to show that a positive mutation greater than two base pairs cannot be preserved by natural selection. So again a positive mutation of 500 (or even 50) cannot take place.
The difference between some species is 20% (or more), not merely 1%, so the problem there is 20 times greater.
Even with a calculation using such an impossibly large mutation as 500 base pairs, the number of ‘complete’ species populations would be outnumbered by transitional populations by 31,667 to 1. So both in the fossil record and living on earth today, we should see 31,667 times more transitional forms than ‘complete’ ones if evolution took place. The fact that we see none at a part-way stage between two different kinds of life, either fossilised or living, is absolute proof that it never happened.
Evolutionary scientists can search for fossils, propose theories, produce ‘proofs’ and, in the analogy with which we started, juggle with dominoes until the cows come home; it will make no difference. Mathematics and logical thinking prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that dominoes can never cover all of the squares of the cut-away chess board, and evolution of species (producing all living forms from a single cell) can never take place. It is time the media turned away from its infatuation with such a ludicrous idea, and began looking to the God they have ignored and despised for so long, for the answers they crave to the questions of life.
12: There’s More!
Over 30 years ago eminent evolutionary biologist, John Maynard Smith pointed out that evolution can only progress one tiny step at a time. More recently University of Rochester evolutionary biologist, H. Allen Orr agreed:
“Given realistically low mutation rates, double mutants will be so rare that adaptation is essentially constrained to surveying—and substituting—one-mutational step neighbours. Thus if a double-mutant sequence is favourable but all single amino acid mutants are deleterious, adaptation will generally not proceed."
(Quoted in The Edge of Evolution by Michael J. Behe, page 106)
Behe points out on page 110 of The Edge of Evolution that with over three billion nucleotides in the human genome, and apparently about one hundred million of them coding for proteins or necessary control features, the probability of getting a single mutation in exactly the right position is one in one hundred million. The odds of getting a double mutation are a hundred million times a hundred million (10^16: 1 followed by 16 noughts). With a generation time of ten years and a population of a million people, it would take about a hundred billion years for that particular mutation to arise—much more than the longest evolutionary estimate of the age of the universe.
Summarising his research into what actually happens in the real world, Behe states:
“Despite huge population numbers and intense selective pressure, microbes as disparate as malaria and HIV yield similar, minor, evolutionary responses… here we have genetic studies over thousands and thousands of generations, of trillions upon trillions of organisms, and little of biochemical significance to show for it...
(The Edge of Evolution, page 140, emphasis mine)
"The number of malarial parasites produced in a single year is likely a hundred times greater than the number of all the mammals that have ever lived on earth in the past two hundred million years!” and yet all we can see is “…a few point mutations, the occasional gene duplication in malaria; but no new, useful protein-protein interactions, no new molecular machines.”"
(The Edge of Evolution, page 194)
The implication is obvious: if after many more generations of malaria than could have possibly taken place in mammals, malaria remains essentially the same as it started out, then the theory of evolution is just plain wrong—living things do not change into different kinds of living things.
In the early 1990s Professor Richard Lenski at Michigan State University undertook an experiment with E. coli, which has a generation time of about twenty minutes under favourable conditions. After thirty thousand generations, something like ten trillion (10^13: 1 followed by 13 noughts) E. coli had been produced—probably more than the number of primates on the assumed line from chimp to human (the number of observed generations of malaria is a billion times greater!). Once again, nothing fundamentally new was produced. Advantages required for evolution were certainly seen, but always as a result of a loss of function: the opposite of that required by evolution, which must see an increase in function and new molecular machinery developing. (This information from The Edge of Evolution, pages 141-142.)
In a table on page 143, Behe shows that the estimated number of organisms required to generate one protein-binding site through random mutation is 10^20, and to generate two protein-binding sites is 10^40. The number of protein-binding sites in a typical cell is not merely one or two, but 10,000. This demonstrates the enormous barrier that exists to evolutionary processes to create the kind of changes essential in order to produce all living things from a single cell. The earth is not old enough, and the total number of living things is not large enough for the massive amount of necessary change to take place.
In Dr J. C. Sanford’s book, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome he says that in just a few years geneticists have shifted from believing that less than 3% of the total genome is functional, to believing that more than 30% is functional—a figure that is still growing! So much for the ‘junk DNA’ claims evolutionists have been trumpeting to support their cause. However, on pages 21 and 30 he says that:
“...there are probably no truly neutral nucleotide sites in the genome… there is no way to change any given site without some biological effect—no matter how subtle... Population geneticists know that essentially all mutations are deleterious, and that mutations having positive effects on fitness are so rare as to be excluded from… distribution diagrams. This creates major problems for evolutionary theory.”
One of the most recent findings is that the human mutation rate is at least 100 nucleotide substitutions per person per generation. Some believe it is higher than that, up to as many as 300. Even if 97% of the genome were ‘junk’ Sanford says on page 34 it would still mean that there are at least three deleterious mutations occurring per person per generation. This is catastrophic for evolutionary theory: it proves that far from improving over time, the genome deteriorates. While natural selection can reduce the effect by eliminating the worst mutations, since everyone who has ever lived has experienced, and inherited from their parents, deleterious mutations of some kind, it can never stop it altogether.
Dr Sanford states that man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides, representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations. So humans would require at least 20 million mutations,
“yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to be fixed by random drift—creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors—it would surely have killed us!”
It can now be seen quite clearly that with the large amount of deleterious mutation (or ‘negative mutation’ as I have called it) and the scarcity of mutations capable of creating a new molecular ‘machine’ (so scarce it has never been observed!), all the scientific evidence proves that without intelligent intervention (some kind of a Creator in other words), the huge variety of life forms seen on planet Earth would be absolutely impossible.
We now know that at the very least the difference between human and ape is 12%, which makes the amount of necessary change 12 times greater than the calculations shown earlier in this discussion, and produces an impossible obstacle for evolution to overcome. In addition, the research quoted in Sanford’s book shows that while negative (or at best, neutral) mutation can take place in 100 or more nucleotides simultaneously, positive mutation can only, at the very most, take place and be preserved by natural selection in one or two at a time, therefore requiring a massive number of different transitional steps to progress from the common ancestor to chimps and humans, for example.
However there are other aspects not yet mentioned, which increase the evolutionists’ problems even further. For example, chirality: left or right-handedness. Molecules can exist in two different forms, being mirror images. Their side atoms can be either right-handed or left-handed. In inanimate matter, as one would expect, the molecules are found with about half of one and half of the other. In all living things the opposite is the case and they must all be identical, because this affects the way in which they attract each other and therefore the three-dimensional shape they take up. This in turn determines the kind of job they do.
One of the methods used to calculate the time of death is to measure the chirality of molecules, since after death they begin to revert back to both right and left-handedness, ultimately ending up as a 50/50 mix. So it can be seen that only in living things can single handedness be maintained. This demonstrates one more impossible factor against inanimate matter becoming a living cell, as required by evolutionists: totally contrary to nature, molecules of the same hand must have gathered together in inanimate material, in order for a living cell to form.
Another aspect of DNA we have not yet considered is data compression. When the actual size of our DNA became apparent, scientists were surprised that even though it contains over three billion letters, it was not much larger than this. The huge amount of physical parts and functions in the human body were thought to require much more coding. Then the fact of the way data was compressed into the DNA began to emerge. Let us look at a simplified example. Take the following sequence of letters:
Looking at three-letter words, if you begin with the first letter you find CAT and ENO (please pretend eno is a ‘word’). If you start at the second letter you find the words ATE and NOW. Start at the third letter and you have TEN and OWE. Imagine continuing the sequence for three billion letters, always being able to find valid three-letter words in this way. Now reverse the sequence:
It is beyond my ability to produce a sequence that will work in both directions, but beginning at letter one we now have EWO and NET; a second letter start gives WON and ETA; and a third-letter start gives ONE and TAC.
It is now known that DNA can be read in all these ways in order to code for necessary functions in the human cell. But that is not all! Letters are not necessarily taken consecutively, but can be chosen from different parts of the thread to produce the coding. In addition, it is now known that the three dimensional shape taken up by the DNA is also a factor in its function.
When a particular element is required by the cell, the DNA is ‘unzipped’, read at the correct position, a ‘copy’ of this bit of code is taken and applied in a highly complex sequence of events, in order for that element to be manufactured. The sophisticated complexity of the data compression in DNA is not only beyond human ability to duplicate, but may be so far in advance of human brain power to decode that it may never be fully understood.
So, let us sum up this section. In order to accept the theory of evolution and to prove that no creator is required, one must believe, contrary to scientific observation, that:
Molecules through random movement formed into a group with identical chirality.
Just at the vital moment, something happened to fuse the group together to prevent it from drifting back into its natural state of dual handedness.
A large number of protein machines (plus a lot of other things) came into being in that group, in order to create a self-reproducing cell, again as a result of random movement.
Billions of positive mutations took place creating ever-increasing order, functionality and complexity at a rate massively higher than ever observed, and against infinitely massive odds that it could take place as a result of random ‘accidents’.
The result was data compression in DNA of such complexity that it is beyond anything the modern human brain, or computer, has been able to duplicate or decode.
The far greater numbers of negative mutations than positive ones that occur in every living thing, were somehow eliminated.
Although vast numbers of intermediate species must have existed between every living life form on earth, not one has ever been preserved in fossil form.
Evolutionists accuse creationists of maintaining unscientific beliefs in the face of conflicting evidence. However, the more we learn about our living world through modern research, the more apparent it becomes that the evidence actually conflicts with the theory of evolution and confirms the creationists’ position that the life forms on the earth could only be there as a result of intelligent design.
Indeed, there are many evolutionists who have now abandoned all belief in Darwinian evolution because scientific observation makes it completely impossible, and while because of their intransigent faith in atheism they refuse to accept any type of Intelligent Design, they are now scrambling around to try to find an alternative.
Their website states:
"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. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process."
In other words, after sneering at creationists for decades who have been saying precisely what is included in the above paragraph, albeit in the days before scientific observation proved some of these points, they now accept they were right, But they still don't want to believe in a Creator! Never was there more evidence for the truth in the first chapter of Romans:
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship Him as God or even give Him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools.
Romans 1:20-22 (NLT)
13: The Bottom Line
Either God exists or He does not. If evolution is true and the universe created itself, then there is no place for Him: He had nothing to do with our creation and is irrelevant to us. Dawkins and other atheistic evolutionists, who point this out most forcefully, are perfectly correct in their logic in this respect. However, as we have seen, the observable laws of physics and the physical evidence around us both prove evolution is absolutely impossible. So God must exist—there is no other way we could have come into being.
When one looks at creation, the incredible complexity of all living things is phenomenal: right down to the molecular level. Even the simplest of the millions of living things on this planet is incredibly complex, and we have only scratched the surface of it in this discussion. On the other hand the size of the universe is so vast the human mind cannot take in the enormity of it. Billions of galaxies, each containing millions of solar systems, and every single star, planet, etcetera within them, built with structures of amazing complexity, again right down to the molecular level.
Since all this could only have come about by ‘intelligent design’ what kind of a mind could have conceived it? What kind of power could have produced it? The wisdom and power of God is simply too great for our minds even to begin to comprehend: but there is no alternative—only such a God could have done it, because modern physics demonstrates there is no other way it all could have appeared.
Bearing this in mind, it is inconceivable God would have created such a universe without a reason. Since a part of this creation is ourselves—reasoning, intelligent beings—it is equally logical He would want to tell us what this reason is: why else create beings capable of reasoning? For thousands of years important information has been stored in books, so where is the book imparting God’s purpose for the universe? One would expect it to be widespread and accurate—it would be ridiculous to assume such a powerful being was incapable of transmitting His word to His creation.
There are several possibilities, but one can begin to eliminate them quite quickly. For example, Buddhism does not accept the possibility of a Creator-God, so that can be discounted. The Koran is self-contradictory regarding Jesus Christ: it claims He was a messenger from God, yet states His message (He said He was the Son of God) was a lie: it says that God never had a Son.
All things are delivered to Me by My Father. And no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son will reveal Him.
Religions promoting reincarnation are self-evidently wrong: even evolutionists accept there are more people alive on earth today than have ever lived in the history of mankind, so there are not enough former lives for everyone even to have had only one previous existence, let alone the many previous lives its adherents often claim.
Only the Bible stands as a book containing a description of the formation of the universe, which still is not contradictory to observable physics (as opposed to the opinions of many scientists), and can account for the other religions: for example the many gods of both Hinduism and Greek mythology fit perfectly with the “principalities and powers” described in the New Testament.
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world’s rulers, of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Above all the Bible works. Not only has it changed my life, but also its validity is demonstrated by the (literally) thousands of people I have met over the years who to tell how, when they put the Bible into practice, God intervened in their life too.
So after all that, the bottom line is actually quite simple:
Since evolution is impossible, a Creator-God must exist.
It is inconceivable He would create without purpose, or not wish to explain His purpose to His rational-thinking creation.
The only viable revelation of His purpose is the Bible—the most widely read book of all time.
It is inconceivable that such a Creator-God would be incapable of accurately transmitting His will to us in the only logical source of information.
Many people have found, when they put the Bible’s teaching into practice, it works.
Therefore in dark times, when everything seems to be ‘wrong,’ we can still put our faith in it and know eventually the light will come back on.
The light always does come back on! The bottom line means that you can read the Bible, know that it is true, and as you put its teaching into practice you too will have a personal encounter with your Creator.
The first step is so simple, many people miss it. All it takes is to ask Him to forgive you for ignoring Him and to come into your life to show you what you should do, how you should live and give you the power to do it. He hears every word you say: if you have never done this before, then why not do it now? He will hear and respond. Then find a Church or Christian friend where you will receive further advice about the next step. There is much more detail on this here.
Finally: The Challenge
If you have managed to read this far and are still a convinced evolutionist, then by now you will be pretty annoyed with me. But before you dismiss this out of hand, try this challenge.
How many mutations would it have taken to produce apes and modern man from their common ancestor? (See chapter four.) You must have a logical explanation how this number of mutations, through random processes, could have changed the required massive number of DNA letters, how they avoided the triple whammy (a system designed to prevent evolution from taking place), and have a few examples of specimens at a transitional stage (i.e. with some physical feature, previously unknown to the species, at a part-way stage of development) in order to support your theory with observable proof.
If you are unable to produce explanation and physical evidence (e.g. transitional forms), then your faith in a theory that is therefore contrary to logic…
“…you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory”
(Stephen Hawking, as previously quoted)
…has my utmost admiration!
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.