Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.
Also Available in:

It’s all bluff


This article first appeared in CMI-UK/Europe’ CMIExtra, March 2018.
Published: 4 December 2018 (GMT+10)
Professor Brian Cox

The media often give the impression that evolution is scientific because scientists can tell us how it happened. In reality, the supposedly ‘factual’ accounts of where the universe came from and how the earth’s plant and animal life evolved are no more than imaginative stories. When pressed for details, the more honest scientists will sometimes admit that they really don’t know.

The big bang

According Professor Brian Cox, “You cannot claim that there wasn’t a big bang because you can see it”.1 Here he is not referring to the big bang itself, but what he believes to be its ‘afterglow’, a background heat that fills the universe, a remnant of the ‘original fireball’. What he doesn’t let on, however, is that this ‘afterglow’ (known as the Cosmic Microwave Background or ‘CMB’) is also a major problem for the theory. Explosions result in chaos; but the CMB is extremely smooth and even across the universe—the very opposite of what we would expect.2

Usually a problem of this magnitude would cause people to doubt the theory and look for an alternative explanation. But not so! Wholly undeterred, some secular cosmologists came up with a solution which they called ‘inflation’ (see Cosmic inflation: Did it really happen?). Their calculations indicated that the problem would go away if the expansion in an early stage was speeded up. (Actually it needed to be speeded up an awful lot—faster even than the speed of light!)

One of the early pioneers of ‘inflation theory’ was Paul Steinhardt, now Albert Einstein Professor in Science at Princeton University. Having worked on this for over twenty years, he admitted that it really has no scientific basis, relying on ‘convenient’ and unprovable assumptions.3 Secular cosmologists have clearly not solved the problem and big bang theory is still just as much a product of storytelling as it always has been.

The origin of life

In the 1950s, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller constructed some apparatus which supposedly reproduced conditions present on the ‘early’ earth, with a primitive atmosphere and water. Using sparks to simulate lightning strikes, they produced amino acids, some of the building blocks needed for life. According to the BBC:

“The Miller-Urey experiment supported the theory of a ‘primordial soup’, the idea that complex chemicals needed for living things to develop could be produced naturally on the early Earth.”4

In reality they produced small amounts of less than half of the 20 different amino acid types needed for life—and none of the other necessary components.5 In addition, the amino acids that were produced were an unsuitable mixture of left-handed and right-handed forms. (Life requires these to be all like-handed.) Hence, to claim, as the BBC does, that the Urey-Miller experiment gives credence to the idea that natural processes can produce life from ordinary chemicals is absurd. It’s like arguing that, since natural processes might produce brick-like slabs, complex buildings with modern kitchens, fridges microwave ovens and air conditioning systems could come into being without an intelligent designer. According to one of the world’s leading organic chemists, Professor James Tour:

“Life requires carbohydrates, nucleic acids, lipids, and proteins. What is the chemistry behind their origin? Biologists seem to think that there are well-understood prebiotic molecular mechanisms for their synthesis. They have been grossly misinformed. … Nobody understands them.”6

Darwinian evolution

Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us, “Charles Darwin argued that organisms come about by evolution, and he provided a scientific explanation … of how evolution occurs”. Yet, according to Oxford University’s Professor Denis Noble, “…. all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis [i.e. the ‘neo-Darwinian theory’ or modern form of Darwin’s theory] have been disproved.”7 Along with a significant number of evolutionists, he is looking for a better theory!8

The neo-Darwinian process of mutation and selection can explain some examples of organisms changing and how this can enable them to survive better (or reproduce more) than others. However, as explained by Professor Scott Gilbert, the theory “looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest”.9 In other words, while mutation and selection may generate minor adaptions, they cannot produce major changes in an organism’s basic design and turn microbes into men.

Refuting evolution is not difficult

The theory of evolution is maintained by bluff. It’s like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. Everyone was telling everyone else that the emperor was finely dressed because (and only because) everyone else was saying so. Similarly, everyone is telling everyone else that evolution is well supported by science because (and only because) everyone else is saying so. Our experience is that this is true not only of the general public but also of many scientists.10

The problems with evolution are not that difficult to understand and it is possible for laypeople to grasp many of the arguments. With a little determination and help, they can see for themselves the scientific bankruptcy of the claim that life can arise without the hand of a Creator. Every edition of Creation magazine is designed to help you and your family to do this. If you don’t already get it, why not subscribe today?

References and notes

  1. The last leg, Series 1, Episode 2, Channel 4; youtube.com/watch?v=fLp0bwDMJ28. Return to text.
  2. This is known as the ‘horizon problem’. See Lisle, J., Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang, Creation 25(4):48–49 September 2003; creation.com/lighttravel. Return to text.
  3. Ijjas, A., Steinhardt, P.J. and Loeb, A., Cosmic inflation theory faces challenges, Scientific American, February 2017. Return to text.
  4. www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/earth/earthsatmosphererev4.shtml. Return to text.
  5. Bergman, J., Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis, Journal of Creation 18(2):28–36, August 2002. Return to text.
  6. Tour, J., Animadversions of a synthetic chemist, 2016; inference-review.com. Return to text.
  7. Noble, D., Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology, Experimental Physiology 98(8):1235–1243, 2013; DOI: 10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134. Return to text.
  8. Mazur, S., The Altenberg 16: An exposé of the evolution industry, North Atlantic Books, CA, 2010. Return to text.
  9. Gilbert, S. et al., Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology, Developmental Biology 173:357–372, 1996. Return to text.
  10. See also Howard, G., Can all those scientists be wrong? Creation 36(1):20–22, January 2014; creation.com/scientists-wrong. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Busting Myths
by J Sarfati & G Bates, edited
US $17.00
Soft Cover
Busting Myths
by J Sarfati & G Bates, edited
US $10.00
eReader (.epub)
Busting Myths
by J Sarfati & G Bates, edited
US $10.00
Kindle (.mobi)

Readers’ comments

John W.
Excellent article, once again. Some years ago I commented on a well known newspaper article to the effect that, not only is the evolution story missing the clothes, its emperor is also fictional. You can imagine the torrent of reasoned and in depth responses it caused. May the Lord continue to bless your wonderful ministry.
Abe M B.
I think it's excellent for CMI to also continue to quote secularists for the layman... I was recently studying articles on biology (information, biodiversity) from a secular source in which a Creationist had an engaging discussion [with] an evolutionist and the evolutionist plainly and clearly states "if we see (alleged) observations in mutations that could be interpreted as producing the required information for evolution in these small time frames, we then 'extrapolate' this is how it was so in the deep evolutionary past...". Although these facts don't reach the public in the 'peer-reviewed' (self-serving) journals, evolutionists know they are stumped to date. In other words it's all as Dominic presents here -- all bluff. Great article, thank you! =).
Antonio A.
I pause to think that in all these discussions, theories and speculation that us humans can conceive about – we just have to believe that there is a GOD Who created everything.
Consider GRAVITY; man did not create gravity. It is already there when He created the Universe.
What about the oceans, mountains, air, wind, etc. - we are all born into them. We did not import sea water to fill the ocean. How about our bodies that are composed of cells and atoms, Big Bang did not have to do with our formation. Our intelligence, conscience, and beings are God-given!
Matthew C.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Articles like this are such a boost and clearly reinforce the fact there is a Creator and we aren’t just a bunch of accidents with no purpose. I am refreshed when I read the well written explanations of what the actual facts are behind evolutionary beliefs and how the “In the beginning God” view makes the most sense and has true science to back it up! I have supported your ministry for a while now and will continue to do so! Thanks again!
Dan M.
Not only is it a bluff, but is has become religious in most scientific circles! Their belief in evolution is deep seated and is a core belief or faith not based on real science but on story-telling, and is not easily refuted by a knowledgeable person since in most cases they won't even listen to reason but become angry and defensive. It is scary to have your beliefs crumbled before your eyes.
I understand their fear because I remember how fearful I was as a new Christian, that my beliefs were based on fairy tales and not fact. Since then, (1992) I have been schooling myself through yours and other creation ministries who believe the word of God AS IT IS WRITTEN and my faith is stronger than ever, able to withstand the fiery darts of wrong thinking and character assassination. Romans 1:18-22 is so clear to me now knowing the scriptures make perfect sense of the fallen world we live in.
Evolution is not science, it is brainwashing, and unbelief in Darwinian evolution will not be tolerated, it will be dealt with through excommunication and bully tactics, (sounds an awful like an inquisition doesn't it)!
Yours and other ministries like you are making a huge difference by educating people like me who instinctively know the bible is historical fact, because God has put it in our hearts Rom 1:19, We know they are not just-so stories for children but real history. Isn't it obvious by what we see and experience!
Chuck R.
I too have told people that evolution is just one very big, elaborate story with no real proof and the two main answers I receive are: "but science has proven it" and "I believe given enough time anything can happen."
The real difference between creation and evolution is spiritual, and evolution proves people will believe anything if it frees them from God.
Edmond C.
I have believed creation for a long time, but the more I read and learn from creation ministries such as this one the more how inadequate evolution is. What's worse is the average person who believes the theory believes it because its 'science'. To them the scientific consensus holds so much weight. I find that the social belief that scientific consensus is infallible and the fear of being perceived to doubt science renders many people inert to making their own conclusions. I have been reading articles like this as well as evolutionary slanted papers and creation books over the past five years, I am confident that I know a lot more about the theory of evolution than the average person who believes it to be true. I also try to read points from the other side to make sure that my understanding is not simply confirmation bias. But, what I find is that even though I can explain exactly what evolution proclaims and evidences against it, I am often unconvincing because I'm not a scientist and therefore, I'm not safe to believe on the subject. I find this extremely frustrating. Our culture has lost its ability to reason out conclusions based on evidence. They feel inadequate to question science, and feel superior to those who are critical of something they themselves know little about. Its backwards, many who consider themselves to have great thinking ability often accept most everything on blind faith. I've accepted the fact that my job is to have these conversations when I can and pray that God will work in the hearts. Even though the evidences against evolution are quite clear, there is a blindness that will not let them see.
Douglas W.
A brilliant article - may it reach the ivory towers!
Joseph B.
As noted by others, the simplicity of the argument in this article is excellent. It should be enough to convince anyone who can think for themselves that evolution is just a bunch of speculation about what is truly impossible. However, the truly sad points are that there are not a lot of independent thinkers anymore, just us lowly sheep being led astray.
What makes it worse is that some of the ‘scientists’ who support evolution actually believe what they preach. Oh that we as Christians had so much faith. Oh, but wait, we do. We believe in a God who has revealed Himself to us, not just through the prophets but also through His Son Jesus Christ. He has told us the end from the beginning. Therefore, it is not our faith that is blind, but the blind faith of the evolutionist that is leading the blind. Let us pray that some of the blind and their blind guides will see the True Light and repent and turn their hearts to the Lord of Creation.
Neil O.
Excellent article, Dominic Statham! And, if I may say, CMI consistently declines to 'play-the-man' and not 'the ball'. It would have been SO tempting to be drawn into such comment on the UK's latest popular science 'media-darling'. Thank you, CMI, for your invaluable contribution to establishing the Kingdom.
Gert P.
Great stuff! Call a spade a spade. No reason why we as Bible believers should beat around the bush. I am a proud Bible believing engineer and I believe in it because it makes rationally sense. Keep up the good work!
Annette S.
I know we were all taught it at school, but we don’t have to believe it - after all it is only an unproven theory, whereas there’s a time-proven worldview [based on Scripture], backed up by science that logically explains everything around us, not just in this life, but also in the next.
Richard G.
Dominic, Brother, You did it again. Wonderful. We need to repeat your lucid brief style. Even Paul said repetition is safe! My guess is that only a few percent of readers read and understand the long articles and especially the complicated ones. Please be encouraged. There are millions of believers around the world who came to believe the Bible to be the Word of God and they are happy. God knows this and grants revelation to them re inspiration etc.. When the opposers reach a certain point of ignoring the truth God sends them a strong delusion (as He says in 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 11). He makes them then believe the Lie! And they probably don't seek truth or read carefully what we write. They spend their time trying to bolster their lie rather than seeking the truth.We are casting our pearls before swine. Do such dishonest people deserve so much of our labour when we could be winning umpteen people who are either honest or who at some stage repent before God. To repeat, the evolution/chance vs God's creation matter is not a matter of knowledge/education but a moral problem. Jesus as usual hit the nail on the head when He said in John 7:17, "If any man is willing to do God's will, he shall know".(what's right and what's wrong.) There must be that willingness to obey God if a person is to find the truth.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.