Also Available in:
This article is from
Creation 46(1):6, January 2024

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

‘Same old’ vs fresh and new



“What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.”—Ecclesiastes 1:9

Ha4ipuri | Envato Elementsfresh-and-new

In almost 30 years of writing for Creation magazine, I’ve found that evolutionary arguments are very repetitive. The examples might differ, but the underlying fallacies remain.

For example, many evolutionists try to prove evolution by proving natural selection—a creationist discovery. Claims about ‘Darwinian medicine’ often make this false equation (p. 10).

One case goes back to long before I was even a creationist or Christian. At a high school friend’s place, a few of us discussed science with his father, a microbiologist (and a very nice man). He claimed he had proven evolution beyond any reasonable doubt in his lab. He increased penicillin yield of Penicillium mould by selecting the highest producers for several generations.

But nothing new was produced. Not even a new chemical, let alone mould beginning the journey towards becoming microbiologists.

This sort of thing is common when breeders are selecting to maximize an existing trait, e.g. obtaining longer hair in dogs. By successively choosing those with the longest hair to breed from, genes for long hair are concentrated in one line. The surprise would be if the increased penicillin production in my friend’s father’s lab didn’t happen. In the unlikely event that a mutation (genetic accident) caused the increase, it is highly likely that something was broken. For example, a control switch that normally regulates penicillin production.

This leads to another evolutionary fallacy: ‘bait-and-switch’ or equivocation. That is, first define ‘evolution’ as ‘change in gene frequency over time’—which no creationist doubts. Then, use ‘evolution’ completely differently: goo to you via the zoo. Finally, make two related and fallacious claims:

  1. The second definition is proved by evidence of the first.
  2. Creationists deny things change.

However, the biblical Creation/Fall/Flood dispersion model predicts that things change. And much more quickly than evolutionists expect—or even welcome! A good example is the quick diversification of the horse-donkey-zebra (equid) kind after the Flood (p. 56). Another tired old argument is, “No true scientist rejects evolution.” This argument could be called the No True Scientist fallacy, after the better-known No True Scotsman fallacy. But in every issue, Creation magazine proves it wrong. We interview someone who is a true scientist by every objective measure. For example, a Ph.D. zoologist and geneticist who made original contributions to the poultry industry (p. 22). The Ecclesiastes verse cited at the top came to mind now, in 2023. Evolutionists claimed their lab had ‘evolved’ scales into feathers. But evolutionists, using a different procedure, had said the same thing 35 years ago. And we refuted it in the same way (p. 39)!

Conversely, God’s creation continues to amaze with fresh discoveries of His ingenuity. Every issue of Creation shows many examples (e.g., spider silk microstructure, p. 20). Often, scientists and engineers are amazed, and even try to copy them (biomimetics). One example is Javan cucumber seeds’ flight characteristics, inspiring aeronautical engineers (p. 12).

The rest of the magazine likewise refutes tired old evolutionary fallacies and showcases God’s creation. This time, in the living world: flying fish above the water (p. 28) and extinct monsters below (p. 16). In astronomy: quasars, relativity, and the biblical timescale (p. 43). In geology: the Heart Mountain slide (p. 52) and rapid layer formation (p. 32) provide insights about the Genesis global Flood.

You can help people see through old fallacies and be amazed by God’s creation. One way is to share this magazine with your friends and family!

Posted on homepage: 6 November 2023