Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.

Heavyweights move to ban creation

Creation Ministries International named as a ‘threat’ to Britain’s school children


Published: 21 September 2011 (GMT+10)
Sir David Attenborough (Credit Wikipedia) Sir David Attenborough

In May of this year, CMI-UK’s Philip Bell addressed some pupils at a Religious Education study day at a Church of England school in Exeter. As a result, the self-styled ‘British Centre for Science Education’ (BCSE) launched its ‘Creationism In Schools Isn’t Science’ (CrISIS) campaign, supported by the National Secular Society. This took the form of a letter to the UK Secretary of State for Education, signed by a number of prominent scientists, demanding that action be taken to prevent creationism being taught in schools as having any kind of scientific validity.

This week, the British Humanist Association (BHA) joined the party, making their bid to silence all who would seek to inform children of the scientific short comings of evolutionary theory and to present them with an alternative view of origins. Supported by a much more impressive group of scientists than those co-opted by the BCSE, the BHA has launched their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism!’ campaign. Backed by over twenty Fellows of the Royal Society, including Sir David Attenborough (pictured above) and Prof Richard Dawkins, they are calling for “enforceable statutory guidance that [creationism and intelligent design] may not be presented as scientific theories in any publically funded school.”1

Desperate to quash dissent

These people are demanding that the belief in ‘molecules-to-man evolution’ be taught as scientifically proven fact, and are determined that pupils should be denied the possibility of hearing any scientific criticism of this view. There’s no doubt that such a regime of indoctrination would ensure that very few would leave school knowing that considerable dissent about evolution exists among scientists, or that many of the top evolutionary scientists admit that they have no idea how inanimate matter could have evolved into living organisms. The co-discoverer of DNA Francis Crick admitted, “The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”2 Similarly, the top evolutionary scientist Professor Stuart Kaufman wrote, “Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows.”3 Committed evolutionist and former director of the human genome project Francis Collins wrote, “No current hypothesis comes close to explaining how … the prebiotic environment that existed on planet earth gave rise to life.”4

In fact, everything we know about science tells us that ordinary chemicals would not self-assemble to form living cells.

In fact, everything we know about science tells us that ordinary chemicals would not self-assemble to form living cells. The laws of chemistry dictate that the biopolymers required for life would break down rather than build themselves up. Moreover basic mathematical analyses make clear that, even if by some miracle they did self-assemble, it is absurd to imagine that undirected processes would cause them to have the correct form.5 Of course, informed evolutionists know all this very well—but still insist that ‘abiogenesis is a fact’.6 Why? Because they are committed to the religion of scientism, the belief that everything we see around us can and should be explained only by natural processes. The fact that we don’t observe natural processes that appear remotely capable of producing life from non-life is irrelevant. To them, such processes must exist, or must have existed in the past, because life exists—and it’s unthinkable that a Creator God is responsible for biological life. Such thinking makes clear that the creation/evolution debate is not about science; it is about one worldview versus another. Ironically, the faith of scientism flies in the face of scientific knowledge.

One of the prominent supporters of the BHA’s campaign is the Oxford University Neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore, who is quoted on the BHA website:

“The evidence for evolution as the basis of life on earth is overwhelming and we see it all around us – from the effects of selective breeding in domestic and farm animals to the continuous changes in ’flu viruses.”
For microbe-to-man evolution, mutations would be required that increase information and function—and on an enormous scale. Such changes are conspicuous by their absence.

Actually, all the observational evidence makes plain that, however much dogs, cows, chickens and horses are selectively bred, dogs remain dogs, cows remain cows, chickens remain chickens and horses remain horses. Moreover, whenever we study the changes which are claimed to demonstrate the evolution of flu viruses, bacteria resistant to antibiotics or insects resistant to pesticides, we are unable to find any evidence of the novelties that are required for microbe-to-man evolution. These ‘examples of evolution’ are invariably found to arise from the use of existing genetic information or the loss of genetic information and associated loss of function. For microbe-to-man evolution, mutations would be required that increase information and function—and on an enormous scale. Such changes are conspicuous by their absence.

Media mendacity

Unfortunately, the media’s general reporting of this latest campaign is as misleading as the statements made by the scientists seeking to support the BHA and its apostles of secularism. According to the Guardian, “Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.”7 In fact, the majority of our speaking engagements are at churches and we visit schools only occasionally. When we do speak at schools, it is by invitation or has been instigated by someone known to the school locally and never solicited by CMI. Moreover, it is extremely rare for us to speak in a science class. It was also reported that “Creation Ministries International was unavailable for comment.” However, since the invitation to comment was received in an e-mail on Saturday at 8.15 pm, along with notification that the article had to be finished by the following Sunday at midday, it is hardly surprising that we were unable to respond before their publication deadline; but with this article we have now done so.

On their website, the BHA proudly quote the journalist Ariane Sherine: “All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe.” Ironically, this is exactly what the BHA and its associates are fighting so hard to prevent.

This latest move by the BHA is likely to be treated much more seriously than the BCSE’s CrISIS campaign. At times like this we particularly value the support and prayers of Christian people.


  1. See evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk and evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/position-statement. Return to text.
  2. Crick, F., Life Itself: Its origin and nature, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 88. Return to text.
  3. Kauffman, S., At home in the universe, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 31. Return to text.
  4. Collins, F., The language of God, Free Press, 2006, p. 90. Return to text.
  5. That is, the necessary sequence of molecules (nucleotides or amino acids) required to give rise to something biologically useful. Return to text.
  6. Abiogenesis is the emergence of living organisms from non-living matter. Return to text.
  7. Butt, R., Scientists demand tougher guidelines on teaching creationism in schools, The Guardian, 19 September 2011; www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schools. Return to text.

Readers’ comments

Justin K.
Slightly of topic or isn’t it? I moved to the UK from a largely God believing African country a few years back. The first thing that struck me was how god-less UK society has become. The kids are immoral and direction less, drugs, sex etc are commonplace. Few ethics remain and the school system is a mess, by earlier standards a lot of UK school kids are illiterate nowadays. Teenage pregnancy is rampant and the counties generous benefits system is sorely abused.

I ask the question, if God is removed from the equation and we believe in evolution and everything is random, or a "mistake" then what is the point of life? Why should I not rape, pillage and plunder? Its immoral you say, why who says so? It is the mindset I see sinking in here amongst the youth, the attitude of who cares is on most peoples faces here.

Evolution not only promotes this behaviour but has done in the past. Hitler, Stalin and all the poor Aborigines being hunted to further advance scientific theories of evolution of evidence of this. Religions are often accused of causing many deaths but evolution was and is an extremely dangerous religion.

Gone are the days when we had the luxury of arguing whose religion was correct. All God believing people need to stand together and fight this modern evil.

I put my trust in God not man … amen.
Christopher G.
Debunking Evolution

As a professional statistician, one would be first concerned with methodology, then the data, and then its possible conclusions to any study undertaken. Unfortunately, when one comes across the word “scientific”, uttering this word alleges to an aura or whim of “certainty” or of “proof”.

Let us fight those with evolutionary theories with method, that is with questioning their own methodology back at them. It may seem that books on evolution may have started in the mid 1800’s, and from then on, other authors simply “pasted and copied” other literature onto their own books without question.

1 Question methodology

Ever questioned why certain dinosaurs where given a time line of 200 million years ago and not 100 million? Why not 80 million years? They have no clue! If you want to confound them, ask them the question why not a few million years less or more? This uncovers their methodology, or rather the lack of it. This question is simple, safe and would potentially make them very embarrassed in front of other people if asked.

2 DNA is stable in its architecture.

DNA was stable 6000 years ago, 2000 years ago and also now. Rather than proving that DNA is stable, let the evolutionists explain the process of DNA altering its nature. After all the onus, or burden of proof should lie with them, because after all they are “promoting” the idea that DNA should change from a molecule to a human, in several “stages” of “development”. We would be very happy, with the explanation of ONLY one stage.

3 Divine Order vs Randomness

If evolution was truly random as some scientists led us to believe then creatures should be very different that what is know today. There is perfect symmetry with all things, and never have 3 eyes, 5 legs or 7 arms. This holds true for any living thing, unless it has a blemish, but this is not "normal".

If nothing is guiding DNA, then why do we find a great order of things? Why would the DNA on its own merits produce a brain, lungs, blood, legs, bladder, etc? This is because there is a God-driven order. What evolutionists subtly try to promote is the concept of “DNA randomness” which gives rise to order, when it is anything to the contrary. This disorder spiritually speaking stems from the loss of spiritual truths within themselves, and think that they can do away with God.

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
14:2 The “I AM” looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God.
14:3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Elegance in creation and art.

When God created living things, the colours were all with a purpose, and in relevance to their nature, ambiance and the like. With a randomness that the scientists propose, we may get a blue polar bear or purple cat, or anything strange, but we do not. Butterfly wings are a touch of Divine genius that no random DNA can ever propose.

Can evolutionists propose how and why do ladybird spots have specific distance between themselves? They are far from random, which proves that randomness is only in the (pseudo) scientists’ mind.

We should not call evolution as such, and neither devolution. The only change within 2 centuries from today on earthly species is by elimination, for example by human intervention (such as the dodo), hence devolution. It is even unwise to speak of devolution, because of the connotation and promotion of the word evolution. Thus the change of this planet species is really either via a negative human intervention, or a Divinely inspired one via nature, but surely God would not want to destroy His own creation!


Under God’s loving hands,

Peter F.
Having grown up in a former communist country it is really “funny” for me to see how some “enlightened” scientist from the homes of modern democracy “persecute” a thought that questions their (scientific) belief. Exactly the same happened some decades ago in Communist Europe where stalinist and post stalinist regimes simply silenced (or more simply just imprisoned or sent to labour camp) those who came up with any thought that was against “scientific marxist materialism”. I see a very similar trait in how creationism or intelligent desing is attacked by some prominent figures of today. If it is a fallacy, then open argument (evidences ligned up pro and contra) is the best way to teach kids about the truth of evolution. But of course, this logic is also true vica versa … Maybe this is what they are so affraid of … So were the communists …
Margaret M.
B.C.S.E. have decided to target children, in my experience children are very discerning. Scriptures have stood the test of time, the same cannot be said for Dawkings and company. We are warned not to put our faith in any man but in God our Creator. I will continue to teach my children what I believe to be the truth from the source of all truth.
Paul H.
Isn’t it plainly obvious that Darwins theorys of evolution are obsolete in comparison to sciences proven evaluations of today, as such it should be left to the students to chose the truth from a theory, both evolution and creation should be taught at schools
Richard S.
Revelations reveals the beast that uses total suppression of the truth. In a subtle way, this is what we are seeing with governmental authorities giving way to evolutionary demands. The beast’s “mouth of a lion”—the UK, it's language and ‘science’?
Chris W.
The sciences are generally considered to only deal with physical data, and thus are ever-changing or else ever-developing in their conclusions, according to what new evidence is discovered. Evolution, too, refers constantly to physical data—unless one gets into ‘metaphysical’—which incorporates that step of faith, after one’s mystical experience, in a cosmic energy/the Force/the universal consciousness, etc., for the making of the most basic components of 3rd dimensional matter.

Evolutionists have two options, of believing or not believing in a God of some kind, while Creationism only allows one option. I think it’s with metaphysical evolution that its antithesis could be ‘creationism’—an eternally existing, separate being—not a force—bringing matter into existance and specifying its forms. But when studied strictly as a physical science, Evolution relies on material disciplines (geology, chemistry, biology and microbiology, archeology, et al) so that its opposite should be rendered Young Earth (or Young Universe) science; the latter confines itself to the same disciplines as evolution science does—minus the biblical account, since young earth scientists DON’T all believe in a Creator God, or the scriptures.

It is better in a public setting or school to teach classes in both evolution science and young earth/young universe science—minus anything metaphysical or spiritual—to allow students to compare and make a well-informed choice between the two as sciences.

Outside of that, God ALONE is the One who reveals the reality of His personal existance to each of us, according to that soul’s cry for conclusive truth, after we examine the wonders of complex living organisms from different angles. Included in the revelation of Himself is the truth found in biblical scripture of His role in the universe. Else, one might be persuaded by ‘higher beings’ from other dimensions, of some alternate beginning if ‘there was one.’

Either way, I would agree with the evolutionists’ present concern of adding that unobservable factor of God/other-dimensional forces to a scientific curriculum. In this temporary, fallen world that God has shielded from His all-consuming, pure presence, the actual detection of Him usually happens through the unseen touch of His other-dimensional Spirit upon each of us (with the exception of visual appearances of Jesus Christ, or angels, to some). Then, enabled to perceive Him beyond our five senses, we choose whether we want to enter into mutual, loving relationship with Him—or not.

So then, with both scientific schools of thought allowed into the public classroom, let the issue of the mostly invisible [to the naked eye] be taught in a separate course on various spiritual beliefs: then the students can do their own combining of science and faith according to their conclusions, as to which entity/energy got started whatever means of developing life.
Fran D.
Why is it never made clear that Darwin himself referred to this position as an evolution THEORY. Maybe it is the fear of exceptance that there is most certainly a Creator and that we are all answerable for our behavior and will one day be accountable for our actions. Much easier to bury your head in the sand and blame a slug. Unfortunatly in the mean time another generation of His children do not get to hear that they are created with purpose and love no matter how weak damaged or broken they are. That there is a Creator who has no intention of naturally selecting them for destruction. That they are worthwhile and that there is plan and purpose to there lives. I will not be silenced!! My God is bigger than any evolutionists OPINION.
Jim K.
I appreciate your forthright effort to present the a non-macro-evolutionary view of the origin of everything, including the big issue of how did life come about. We believe in the supernatural—there had to be Intelligence involved. Random chance, no matter the quantity of eons could accomplish this. And then the calculations of the super mathematics also show the chances for life to spring from non-life to be virtually impossible.
The Genesis Academy: A 12-Part Teaching Series on Genesis 1–11
The Genesis Academy: A 12-part teaching series on Genesis 1–11

This excellent new resource contains 12 DVDs (each 30-40 min. long) that explore the biblical and scientific truths of the Bible’s opening chapters. The series lays a vital foundation for understanding both the world around us, and the Gospel itself.

A FREE downloadable study guide is available from creation.com/tga