Share 0
Share
A- A A+
Free Email News
Refuting Evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati

US $10.00
View Item
Busting Myths
by J Sarfati & G Bates, edited

US $15.00
View Item
The Genesis Account
by Jonathan Sarfati

US $35.00
View Item
The Case for Creation, 3 DVD set


US $30.00
View Item
Discovery of Design
by Donald DeYoung & Derrik Hobbs

US $14.00
View Item
The Christian Roots of Science


US $10.00
View Item
Exploring the World of Biology
by John Hudson Tiner

US $14.00
View Item
World Winding Down
by Carl Wieland

US $10.00
View Item
Arguments Creationists Should NOT Use


US $10.00
View Item

Creation: The better explanation

Why the Bible is the best starting point when conducting origins science

by

Published: 3 September 2015 (GMT+10)
evolution-vs-creation
Illustrated by Caleb Salisbury

CMI is a presuppositional Christian apologetics ministry that avoids a purely ‘evidentialist’ approach when defending Scripture and casting down so-called scientific arguments used against the Bible. We emphasize that facts in the origins debate do not speak for themselves. Rather, brute facts get interpreted as evidence for whatever particular historical paradigm you are trying to support. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the creation/evolution debate.

Historical science

Historical, or origins science, is about trying to figure out how things have come to be the way they are today without being able to directly observe the events that lead to their current state. Both the concepts of creation and evolution fall into this category.

As famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr said:

“Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”1

Because the question of origins has only two options (evolution or creation) it is easy to see someone’s starting bias when they are examining facts related to the debate. For example, one scientist inspecting several different skeletons might point out similarities between each and say these support the idea of common descent, while another could observe the same similarities and say the data actually supports the idea of them having a common designer. Both explanations about the past fit the present day observations but are derived from different starting points.

Presuppositions; is that it?

However, this does not go far enough, it is not just a matter of interpretation, it is which interpretation makes more sense of the facts.

We have often used an example of a courtroom to illustrate how creationists and evolutionists have the same facts but interpret them differently because of their differing starting biases. Similar to a court of law, the prosecution and the defence argue their case using the same facts.

Richard Dawkins, the foremost champion of evolution today, has used a similar analogy:

“Nobody has actually seen evolution take place … . It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen … .”2

But the whole idea of a trial is to set forth the brute facts in front of the (hopefully) unbiased jury so that they can decide which account of history the two lawyers are expressing (the prosecution or the defence) makes more sense of the facts. I.e., There should be a superior level of ‘reasonableness’ to one or the other in most cases.

All scientific hypotheses attempt to explain facts within a tentative framework. Furthermore, they should have predictive ability and if those predictions are not forthcoming then the hypothesis should be abandoned at some point. Those hypotheses whose predictions bear fruit are therefore superior and better supported, hence more ‘reasonable’. But note that logically, verified predictions do not prove a hypothesis, while falsified predictions disprove it.

Evolutionists ‘switching’ because of science

Below are 10 instances where the biblical creation based explanation of the observations were so much more reasonable than the previous evolutionary ones that evolutionists have actually adopted the creationist explanation to a great degree (even though they still hold to evolution). These are all excellent examples of why it is better to trust historical science performed under a biblical worldview (an accurate historical record), than science based on a secular materialistic worldview (an invented history).

1. Catastrophism in geology

At one time any mention of catastrophism pertaining to geologic processes was mocked and ridiculed as religious and unscientific in the mainstream geologic community, which almost unanimously conformed to Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian views. No matter how much catastrophist geologists pointed to what they considered obvious evidence that vast sections of the earth’s rock layers must have formed quickly during catastrophic flood-like conditions, they were basically shunned and banned from secular science journals because of the obvious connection to the Flood account written by Moses in the Bible.

So obvious was this connection in Lyell’s day that he actually admitted his chief goal was to

“…free the science [of geology] from Moses.”3

Today the facts have become so obviously in favour of certain rocks having been formed by rapid deposition vs. Lyell’s gradualism in some areas that evolutionists have admitted to what is called ‘neo-catastrophism’. One of the ‘initial adopters’ was Professor of Geology at University College of Swansea Derek Ager (1923–1993) who said about polystrate fossils:

“… we have allowed ourselves to be brain-washed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes…we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed…”4

It seems many modern earth scientists are rather unkind to Lyell’s ideas. No less than Warren D. Allmon (Director of Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University) said:

“Lyell also sold geology some snake oil. He convinced geologists that…all past processes acted at their current rates (that is, those observed in historic time)… This extreme gradualism has led to numerous unfortunate consequences, including the rejection of sudden or catastrophic events in the face of positive evidence for them, for no reason other than they were not gradual.”5

This is not to say secular geology has embraced the concept of a global flood, but it does show how catastrophism is evident in geology and highlights how the philosophical bias against any association towards the Bible ‘blinded’ science to obvious conclusions for many years.

2. Fossilization happens quickly

Of course an associated topic would be that of fossilization. Fossils are linked to the origins debate in a huge way because they are a record of creatures that lived in the past, and the question of origins is a topic of history.

Because biblical creationists conform to a plain reading of the Bible they’ve always believed fossils must be relatively young, not laid down millions of years (MOY) ago. On the other hand evolutionists are forced into believing in long ages because their worldview demands such an interpretation. Thus there was always an argument over whether fossils formed quickly or not.

Evolutionary Dinosaur expert Dr Phil Currie has some interesting things to say about fossils:

“Fossilization is a process that can take anything from a few hours to millions of years … . The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly.”6

Dr Currie’s comments highlight the difference between operational science (conclusions which you can directly observe) and historical science (conclusions you make educated guesses about guided by presuppositions). Which one of the two processes in his quote can we deduce Dr Currie has directly observed? Obviously fossils formed in a ‘few hours’. So if someone wants to hold onto the idea that fossils can form over MOY then they do it on faith, not observed facts. So evolutionists now accept the creationist position that fossils can form quickly.

3. Tree of life VS orchard of life

Darwin’s ‘tree of life’ image is iconic to say the least. It typifies beliefs about the general theory of evolution, defined by evolutionist Gerald Kerkut as:

“…the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.”7

Contrasting this concept is the ‘creationist orchard’. Rather than starting with a single stem from which all creatures arise through gradual change over time, creationists hold to the idea that God created multiple ‘kinds’ of creatures that reproduce ‘after their kind’ so that there was a plurality of lineages from which creatures originally came.

The long held evolutionary belief that because all living things supposedly have the same genetic code we are all linked back to one original life form has been shattered by recent research however. In the following dialogue between evolutionists during an open forum on the ‘origin of life’, Dr Craig Venter, maker of artificial life, dropped what seemed to be a bombshell among his own colleagues when discussing what his research has shown.

(time code 9:04) Craig Venter (J Craig Venter Institute) – “I’m not so sanguine as some of my colleagues here that there is only one life form on this planet. We have a lot of different types of metabolisms, different organisms. I wouldn’t call you the same life form as the one we have that lives in pH 12 base that would dissolve your skin if we dropped you in it …”

(time code 9:23) Professor Paul Davies (Arizona State University) – “Oh we’ve got the same genetic code, we’ll have a common ancestor… .”

(time code 9:25) CV- “Well you don’t have the same genetic code in fact the mycoplasma use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells so there are a lot of variations… .”

(time code 9:35) PD- “But you’re not saying it belongs to a different tree of life from me are you?”

(time code 9:40) CV- “…I think the ‘Tree of life’ is an artefact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up…the tree, uh.. there may be a ‘bush of life’…”

(time code 10:00) CV- “…there is not a tree of life…”8

Actually, we have noted for a long time that some organisms have different genetic codes. We have also pointed out that evolving from one to the other would be like switching keys on your keyboard: it would result in jumbled messages.

So what this means is that research seems to support separate origins for several different types of life forms on our planet, and that conforms more to the creationist position. However because of their worldview evolutionists would believe it was either because different life forms evolved separately on earth or came from different planets where they had evolved there (panspermia).

4. Rapid speciation

Creationists have long held to the idea of rapid speciation, the ability for kinds of creatures to change, diversify and adapt to various environments because of the variation that each kind has within its natural make-up. This was held to by creationists long before specific details about genetics, DNA etc was discovered, based on the biblical account of the dispersion after the Ark landed following Noah’s Flood.

Creationists have understood that there must be inbuilt mechanisms that could allow creatures to adapt and change in response to their environment over relatively short periods of time (’thousands of years) if the relatively small (approximately 8,000) number of various kinds of creatures that were on board Noah’s Ark could account for the millions of species we see around the world today.

Evolutionists of course have to hold to a Ma timescale, and so rapid speciation was something that was scoffed at by most Darwinists because it was assumed it would take vast periods of time for speciation to occur (the most straightforward modern understanding of a species [though not the only one, and not without certain challenges] is a group of organisms which can interbreed in nature and do not naturally and freely interbreed with another).

However, rapid speciation has recently been observed in different varieties of mosquitoes, mice, daisies, flies, finches, finches, lizards, butterflies and many other creatures. This should really come as no surprise when we just think of the plasticity of the genome in just the dog kind for example. Hundreds of new varieties of dogs have been bred within the last 200 years, some which are unable to interbreed and so may be deemed separate species.

National Geographic, discussing how all present day dog types we have today are descended from wolves (which creationists believe would be much closer to the original dog ‘kind’ that was on Noah’s Ark) said:

“Genetic studies show that dogs evolved from wolves and remain as similar to the creatures from which they came as humans with different physical characteristics are to each other, which is to say not much difference at all.”9

But dogs producing dogs and humans producing humans conform to what the Bible says.

A major scientific conference on speciation10 held in Asilomar, California in May 1996 demonstrated several examples of rapid speciation, and that even sympatric speciation (that a population may split into two species even while living in the same area, with no separation or physical barriers) is actually quite common.

The discovery of epigenetics is also demonstrating just how complex and full of programmed variety creatures really are. Large phenotypic changes occurring because of environmental stimuli causing the activation of inherent genetic information has been observed happening very rapidly.

Recent research in a variety of areas showing rapid change has caused comments like this from evolutionists:

“The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.”11

This comment was referring to experiments done in Trinidad where guppies changed so much in such a short time they would likely be considered a different species from the parent population had they been found independent of the study.

So once again evolutionists have conceded the creationist position. Speciation can and does happen very rapidly.

5. Junk DNA not junk

Illustration ©iStock.com/BlackJack3D DNA

Creationists believe that God created a world in the beginning that was devoid of death and struggle, and that He will one day return it to that state. Because we live in an imperfect and fallen world at present, they would expect that there would be evidence of corruption in the creation over the last (approximately) 6,000 years. But because God is a master designer, creationists would not expect to find evidence of inherent ‘bad design’ or useless genetic information within living things not the result of degeneration etc.

A commonly heard Christian adage to emphasize that people have inherent worth because they are made in the image of God is “God doesn’t make junk”.

Evolutionists on the other hand believe that mankind is the result of MOY of random mutations guided by natural selection and so they expect to find our genetics full of useless by-products from our long evolutionary history. It has been commonly taught that humans are full of ‘junk DNA’.

Evolutionists actually require the idea of ‘junk DNA’ because millions of DNA differences exist between humans and chimps (our supposed closest ancestor). Because evolutionists believe mutation and natural selection couldn’t act fast enough to account for all these differences they assume the ‘extra’ DNA is just an accumulation of no longer needed junk.

Descriptions of our DNA being the “…graveyards of dead genes…”12 and a “…hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error…”13 were common as the Human Genome Project’s scientists began to closely examine DNA.

They discovered DNA isn’t simply a continuous linear code. Information coding for proteins was interspersed between long sequences of letters with unknown function, some which they thought looked like genes that had lost their function (pseudogenes) because they did not produce any proteins. Driven by their evolutionary assumptions scientists determined that because they did not know what the function of most of this DNA was that it was ‘Junk DNA’.

In 2003 the Encyclopedia of DNA elements (ENCODE) project began, its international team of 442 scientists aim was to identify all functional elements in the human genome. The results were shocking to most evolutionists. Discover magazine’s website reported;

“… ENCODE has shown that the rest of the genome–the non-coding majority–is still rife with ‘functional elements’. That is, it’s doing something … According to ENCODE’s analysis, 80 percent of the genome has a ‘biochemical function’…the key point is: It’s not ‘junk’.”14

Dr Ewan Birney (Lead Analysis Coordinator for ENCODE since 2007) explained that after looking at 147 of the few thousand types of cells in the human body:

“It’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent…We don’t really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn’t that useful.”15

So once again the evolutionists have adopted the creationist’s position, insofar that they now concede that the vast majority of the human genome isn’t ‘junk’.

6. ‘Vestigial’ organs have function

The ‘Junk DNA’ concept is really just one of the more recent failed attempts by evolutionists to advance the concept of useless left-overs from our animal ancestors supposedly being present in the human body. At one time evolutionists proposed the idea that the human body contained over one hundred ‘vestigial’ (degenerate or useless) features/organs.

Creationists of course believed that because we were intelligently designed, even if we did not know what the function of an organ or feature was it would likely have a useful function.

Today almost every example of so called vestigial organs (such as the appendix) have been admitted to have a useful function by evolutionists and so cannot be properly termed vestigial any longer. Although some evolutionists still try and cling to a handful of (bad) examples of so called vestigial organs, the creationist explanation has been shown to be better supported by science.

7. All humans belong to the same species

Biblical creationists have always held to the idea that all men were created equal, fully human and created in the image of God.

However at one time evolutionists held to the idea that the various types of humans around the world were actually different species. They imagined that different races must have evolved at different speeds, and this lead to the racist idea of superior and ‘less human’ races of men co-existing.

Ernst Haeckel, (in)famous for his fraudulent embryo drawings (often still used in modern textbooks even though evolutionists have admitted they are false) was nicknamed ‘Darwin’s Doberman’ because of his relentless promotion of evolution in Germany. Haeckel divided humans into twelve different species and in his racist book called The History of Creation he openly attacked the biblical model:

“All these five [speaking of an earlier classification than Haeckel’s own] races of men, according to the Jewish legend of creation, are said to have descended from ‘a single pair’—Adam and Eve, and in accordance with this are said to be varieties of one kind or species. … The excellent paleontologist Quenstedt is right in maintaining that, ‘if Negroes and Caucasians were snails, zoologists would universally agree that they represented two very distinct species, which could never have originated from one pair by gradual divergence’.”16

He also stated:

“… most anthropologists dogmatically and firmly hold to the so-called ‘unity of species’ for all the races of Men, and unite them into one species, as Homo sapiens. However, the unprejudiced and critical enquirer, when carefully comparing them, cannot rid himself of the conviction that the morphological differences between them are much more important than those by which, for instance, the various species of bears, wolves, or cats are distinguished in the zoological system.”17

How different did Haeckel think the different ‘races’ of humans were?

“Thus, for example, a great English traveler, who lived for a considerable time on the west coast of Africa, says: “I consider the Negro to be a lower species of man, and cannot make up my mind to look upon him as ‘a man and a brother’, for the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the family.”18

These ideas became immensely popular (fueling the racist ideas that spawned horrors like the Herero genocide and the Nazi death camps) and influenced not only evolutionary scientists but the general public.

primate-tree

Readers of Time-Life Books from the Life Sciences Library published in 1966 will remember similar ideas in colorful charts depicting a ‘common ancestor’ diverging into separate ‘races’ of man.

And this concept has continued to modern day. In his review of J. Philippe Rushton’s book (Professor of Psychology at the UoW, ON, CA) ‘Race, Evolution and Behaviour’ Barry Mehler (Professor at Ferris State University) said:

“Blacks, according to Rushton, have larger genitals, making them more promiscuous, and smaller brains, making them less intelligent than whites and Asians. Using 60 different measures, Rushton ranks the races along an evolutionary scale with blacks at the bottom and Asians at the top.”19

However, modern evolutionists have once again had to concede to the biblical concept as science has shown we are all of ‘one race’:

“…scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race-the human race.”20

8. Neanderthals fully human

The concept that man was created in the image of God, distinct from the animals and the rest of God’s creation, is in stark contrast to the materialistic view. Evolutionists hold to the idea that man is not special, but simply an animal that has descended from a long line of ape like creatures.

Evolutionists have proposed several supposed primitive ancestors to humans using certain fossils in support of their claims. Creationists have maintained that these fossils are either the remains of apes or humans but not some evolutionary intermediary between the two. One of the most popular and well known supposed primitive ‘sub-human’ was Neanderthal man.

From their earliest depictions, they were shown as only somewhat human and not very intelligent, with many evolutionary scientists believing Neanderthals were “…lacking the language skills, foresight, creativity, and other cognitive abilities of modern humans”21.

This depiction is still popular in museums, text-books, movies and TV commercials to this day, but modern science has revealed the truth. They had speech ability, bigger brains than modern humans, painted exquisite artwork, made musical instruments, buried their dead in religious ceremonies, used sophisticated tools and weapons, made ‘high-tech superglue’, thought in symbolic terms, used portable light sources to navigate in deep caves, had medical knowledge etc.

It has been discovered that Neanderthals made and used makeup, storing it in decorative shells! (How many people today would have the knowledge or enough time to find, study and experiment with the various chemical compounds needed to create them?) So overwhelming is the evidence that Neanderthals lacked nothing that present day humans do that modern depictions of them (even in evolutionary magazines) appear fully human. The variances in body structure fall within the normal range of humans.

And to top it all off DNA studies have shown that Neanderthals bred with modern humans, meaning they themselves must have been fully human. Once again the honest evolutionist must concede that the creationist position was correct all along.

9. One human female ancestor and one male human ancestor (and we are all closely related).

Biblical creationists believe the Genesis account that says all people are descended from an original human couple named Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have said that humans evolved from a large population of ape-like creatures. However, there is abundant evidence now agreed upon by evolutionary scientists that the entire human race on the planet today originated from two people just a few thousand years ago.

Mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, via the egg, and has been checked for variations in the world-wide human population in an attempt to determine the genetic ancestry of human origins. The ‘mitochondrial Eve’ hypothesis is the finding that all modern humans can be traced back to one woman.

It is apparently possible to trace all modern humans back to one father also. The Y chromosome is inherited only through the male, so can be used in the same way to look for an ‘Adam’ as well. Computer modelling done by prominent evolutionist anatomist Professor Charles Oxnard has determined it is possible to trace both maternal and paternal lines to one individual in each case.

Now evolutionists would not agree with the biblical timeline for their existence, or that these supposed ‘Adam and Eve’ figures were the only humans alive at the time they existed. They doubt they were even contemporaneous to one another, however the findings were a surprise to them. Unlike creationists, there was no intrinsic reason for evolutionists to believe that the human race could be traced back to one man and one woman according to their theory. No matter how evolutionists attempt to fit the evidence into an evolutionary framework, it was an unexpected result; unlike the direct prediction, however, from creation.

Creationists of course also embrace the idea that all people groups around the world are closely related because of our common ‘first parents’ as the Bible suggests, no matter how our outward appearances may vary.

And science is again vindicating what we believed. As Dr Harold P. Freeman (chief executive, president and director of surgery at North General Hospital in Manhattan, who has studied the issue of biology and race) said:

“If you ask what percentage of your genes is reflected in your external appearance, the basis by which we talk about race, the answer seems to be in the range of .01 percent.”22

Evolutionists Drs Thorne and Wolpoff agree:

“One of the great advances of 20th century biology has been the demonstration that all living people are extremely closely related. Genetic research has provided what for some is the surprising result that our DNA variability is much less than the worldwide anatomical variations of humanity might suggest.”23

The majority of evolutionists have adopted the biblical creationist position. We are all descendants of one human female ancestor and one male human ancestor, and we are all closely related.

10. A single global dispersion of humanity from a central location.

Biblical creationists have always believed that after Noah’s Flood, humans spread out all over the earth from a central point; the Tower of Babel. It was there that God confused the languages and people split up and moved to all corners of the globe.

Evolutionists used to mock the idea that all the ‘races’ could have come from the dispersal of one small group at a central point. For example, in Darwin’s book The Descent of Man, he attempted to divide people up into different groups/species based on where they lived (similar to Haeckel), believing that’s where they evolved. He used this to attempt to make the case that Europeans were also the most highly evolved.

Both believed the differences in humankind’s various ‘races’ must be because of varying branches from a common ape like ancestor. They did not believe the variation in appearance, (apparent) intelligence etc in these groups could have come from in built variation present in one human population. Today, the majority of evolutionists believe in the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, where people came from a small founding group a short (for them) time ago and dispersed across the planet. So except for the more southern dispersion point, most evolutionists now hold to a much more creationist viewpoint.

The best starting point

So the Creation model (based on the presupposition that the Bible is historically accurate because it is the word of God) turns out to be the best starting point a scientist could have when trying to investigate how the world came to be the way we experience it today. The facts we see can more reasonably be interpreted towards a biblical creationist explanation than an evolutionary one.

Christians that have accepted the materialist explanations (to whatever degree) need to understand they have given up the authority of God’s word without need. There is no reason to fear challenges from the scientific community. Scientists that are honest will confirm the reliability of Scripture whether they believe it or not. For those that confess the author of Scripture as their Lord it should be incumbent upon them to confess and defend God’s word in all areas.

Related Articles

Further Reading

References and notes

  1. Mayr, E., Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, Lecture 1999, ScientificAmerican.com, 2009. Return to text.
  2. The Genius of Charles Darwin (Episode 3): Richard Dawkins, Channel 4 (UK), Monday 18 August 2008. Return to text.
  3. Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart., vol. 1, John Murray, London, p. 268, 1881. Return to text.
  4. Ager, D., The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, Macmillan, London, pp. 46–47, 1987 Return to text.
  5. Allmon, W.D., Director of Paleontological Research Institution in Ithaca, NY, and Adjunct Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University. “Post Gradualism”, Science 262(5130):122, October 1993. Return to text.
  6. Currie, P.J. & Koppelhus, E.B., 101 Questions about Dinosaurs, Dover Publications, 1996, p.11. Return to text.
  7. Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. Return to text.
  8. The Great Debate—What is Life?, youtube.com, 7 Mar 2013, thesciencenetwork.org, Richard Dawkins, J. Craig Venter, Nobel laureates Sidney Altman and Leland Hartwell, Chris McKay, Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss, and The Science Network’s Roger Bingham discuss the origins of life, the possibility of finding life elsewhere, and the latest development in synthetic biology. Return to text.
  9. Karen E. Lange, Wolf to woof, National Geographic, June 2002. Return to text.
  10. Gibbons, A., 1996. On the many origins of species. Science 273(5283):1496–1499, September 1996. Morell, V., Starting species with third parties and sex wars, Science 273(5283):1499–1502, September 1996. Return to text.
  11. Morell, V., Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward, Science 275(5308):1880, March 1997. Return to text.
  12. Wells, J., The myth of junk DNA, Discovery Institute Press, Seattle, p. 26, 2011. Return to text.
  13. Wells, Ref. 12, p. 22. Return to text.
  14. Yong, E., ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome, in the ‘Not Exactly Rocket Science’ blog; blogs.discovermagazine.com, 5 September 2012. Return to text.
  15. Yong, Ref. 14. Return to text.
  16. Haeckel, E. The History of Creation, or the development of the Earth and its inhabitants by the action of natural causes: A popular exposition of the doctrine of evolution in general, and that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in particular, vol II, English edition translated from the 8th German Edition by Prof. Ray Lankester, Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, pp. 412–413, 1909 Return to text.
  17. Haeckel, E. Ref. 16, pp. 433–434 Return to text.
  18. Haeckel, E., Ref. 16, p. 365. Return to text.
  19. Mehler, B., In Genes We Trust; When Science Bows to Racism, Reform Judaism 23:10–14; 77–79, 1994. Return to text.
  20. Angier, N., Do races differ? Not Really, DNA shows, New York Times web, Aug. 22, 2000. Return to text.
  21. Brainard, J., Giving Neandertals their due—similarities with modern humans shift the image of the caveman brute, Science News 154(5):72–74, 1998. Return to text.
  22. Angier, N., Do races differ? Not Really, DNA shows, New York Times web, 22 August 2000. Return to text.
  23. Thorne, A., & Wolpoff, M., Conflict Over Human Origins, Search 22(5):175, July–August 1991. See also by the same authors, The Case Against Eve, New Scientist 1774:33–37, 22 June 1991. Return to text.

You are probably accessing this site because you had questions—just like everyone else. That’s why CMI exists. You can help keep the free answers on this site coming. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Roger G., Australia, 5 September 2015

This article covers a broad range of subjects and as such has great value in building up the confidence of non technical readers in their pre-supposition that one biblical God made all things just a few generations ago.

We look for the day when eventually all, or nearly all, people currently with different pre-suppositions will come round to accept the straightforward words of Genesis, and other parts of the bible as being true as stated. Speed that day!

Terry W., Canada, 4 September 2015

> [Darwin] attempted ... to make the case that Europeans were also the most highly evolved.

So... what does this "most highly evolved" characteristic look like in real life?

> [Dr. Robert Carter is] going to show you the exact same section of DNA in one African tribe from Nigeria: the Yuruba. Europe [a lack of genetic variation among selected genes from 1300 random people across the entire Continent, including the mutation for white skin color driven to fixity by living at high latitudes with little sunshine, is displayed in a graphical gene map.] One tribe in Africa. [The audience audibly gasps at how much more genetic diversity is visible in the new graph.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_nMuq_lH4&t=50m35s

This "most highly evolved" state of the European white man (which includes both myself and Dr. Carter) is the loss of genetic diversity due to inbreeding and the selection pressure of living at high latitude. It is also symptomatic with several heritable diseases resulting from damaged genes including hemophilia, juvenile diabetes, and food allergies. This um, "evolution" doesn't seem particularly good for our health!

Richard L., United Arab Emirates, 4 September 2015

I am anticipating that some feedbackers will protest creationists using "rapid speciation", as in this article. Towards showing that this is legit, I have found it helpful to do further classification nomenclature work, in my own thinking.

Hard-fact (breeding experiment) evidence shows: widespread & fast lifeform change (>200 dog breeds, in a few centuries) BUT, BUT clustered around inter-generational THEMES, combined with fitness-loss (fragility, sterility) if too much change. Let us call each theme an FLU (fundamental lifeform unit).

Evolutionists, assuming a continuity (from Denton) biological-history model, insist that these themes are tendencies, with exceptions. They allow for inter-FLU change and for the arising of new FLUs within natural processes.

Biblically, we have to hold to a discontinuity model, with each biblical "kind" equaling one FLU/baramin. Theme preservation is absolute. Only allowed are intra-FLU changes; no new FLUs.

In Linnaeus's taxonomy, his "species" was originally intended to be = FLU = biblical kind, with "variety" coming from an intra-FLU/"kind" change. CMI's Don Batten points out Linnaeus's failing of publishing an intuited "species" classification prior to experimentation. He wrongly assigned "species" to varieties (involving intra-FLU change) rather than to FLUs/"kinds". And thus the confusion about "species" began.

When old-timers such as Agassiz held to "immutability of the species", they held to the biblical species=FLU, while allowing for intra-FLU variation. Scientifically accurate.

Today, unfortunately, "species" is almost always used in an intra-FLU sense. When creationists use "rapid speciation"--as in this article--they are being both faithful to biblical kinds and scientifically (usage-wise) accurate.

King T., South Africa, 3 September 2015

Thank you for making a wonderful list of things that the creationists asserted long before the evolutionists could even conceive of such.

I have yet to encounter one evolutionist who would concede in so many words "that the creationists were right".

On the contrary they like to hide behind the words such as " that just goes to show scientific progress and peer review - there is built in error-correction in the scientific method unlike the bibliots who believe on faith, no evidence required".

Keep up the good work,

God bless.

Sj B., South Africa, 3 September 2015

“The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record.

BUT, humans cannot, do not and have not? Whow.

anthony B., France, 3 September 2015

I had a gene scan (23andme.com) which revealed that I have 2.8% Neanderthal genes, an average amount for a white European. The average Nigerian has only about 0.3% Neanderthal genes. How do you explain this as according to Creationist thinking we all came from Adam and Eve, and should thus have similar genetic makeup?

Calvin Smith responds

Hi Anthony, this article should help answer your question.

http://creation.com/neandertal-genome-like-ours

Blessings,

Calvin Smith

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Copied to clipboard
10327
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.