Also Available in:

The truth … and nothing but the truth

by , CMI–UK

Published: 11 June 2015 (GMT+10)

First appeared in a CMI newsletter, December 2013

Flickr/Anthony Majanlahti (CC BY 2.0) 9966-royal-courts
In a court of law one is required not only to tell the truth, but the whole truth.

Recently I watched an episode of David Attenborough’s latest documentary series, Rise of Animals. With great skill and unwavering confidence he again presented the theory of evolution as if it were confirmed scientific fact—indeed no other view was considered worthy even of mention. Despite such programs containing next to no real science, they often seem very convincing and influence many. It is not difficult to see why.

In a court of law, one is required not only to tell the truth, but also the whole truth. This is because, by telling just part of the truth (a half truth), it is very easy to get an innocent person convicted. For example, I could testify that I saw someone at the scene of a crime, and this might cause a jury to conclude that they are the guilty party. However, if I were to tell the whole truth, it might be that I saw the person at the scene of the crime two weeks after the crime had been committed—which, of course would put them in a completely different light.

Telling the story of origins, evolution-wise

Through subtle omission, it would not be difficult to make a case for the earth being millions of years old, rather than the c. 6,000 years that the Bible indicates. We might begin by introducing the dedicated scientists who discovered radioactivity, such as Marie Curie. We would then discuss the extent to which knowledge of radioactivity has benefited mankind, particularly in areas of medical science. Next we would show some footage of technicians in a smart laboratory using expensive, high tech equipment to measure decay rates of radioactive isotopes. All good examples of real ‘operational’ science. But then an interview with a distinguished professor would follow, in which he would explain just how accurate this equipment is and hence how reliable radioactive dating must be. Next there would be graphs showing how test after test ‘proved’ the rocks to be millions of years old.

An interview with a geologist would follow in which current rates of canyon erosion are discussed. Accompanied by stunning aerial footage of the Grand Canyon, simple calculations would be presented demonstrating that millions of years would be required for the Colorado River to cut the canyon down to its current depth of around one mile—even accepting the occasional flash flood (but not Noah’s Flood, of course). Finally, there would be a respectful interview with an uninformed but sincere-looking ‘Christian fundamentalist’ who insists that the radioisotopes were placed in the rocks by Satan in order to test the resolve of the faithful!

The whole truth?

Nothing would be said about the untestable assumptions upon which radioactive ‘dating’ methods rely, or that analyses of different radioactive isotopes yield very different results. Neither would anything be said about the discovery of dinosaur soft tissue in rocks which, according to radioactive dating, must be over 65 million years old.1 Nor would there be any reference to the presence of significant amounts of carbon-14 in dinosaur remains, coal seams and diamonds which, due to its short half-life, would also seem impossible if these were really millions of years old. There would also be no mention of the 100-foot-deep (30m) canyon formed in just one day following the eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980, or the dozens of other scientific observations that fly in the face of the view that the earth is billions of years old.2

Nothing to fear from the hard facts

Many in the church consider belief in an earth that’s just 6,000 years old to be foolish because so many scientists (and many who are professing Christians) are convinced that it is far older. But why do these scientists hold the position they do? For many, it is because they have only been exposed to the evidence that appears to support this view. This is also true of evolution. At school and at university, young people are told again and again that speciation of Darwin’s finches, dog breeding and antibiotic resistance in bacteria have all shown evolution to be true. The fact that the processes driving such changes will never produce the genetic information required to turn microbes into man is never mentioned.

Parents beware—(secular) education is not neutral

The theory of evolution is not maintained by science, but by the selective reporting of data and the intimidation of dissent. There is now so much evidence challenging the Darwinian paradigm that no thinking person, armed with the facts, can continue to regard it as scientific. Much of the problem is that people do not know the facts, including many in the church. Our teenagers go to their secular schools and universities and are told, day after day, that science has disproved the Bible and many end up accepting the lie because no one in their church can present the alternative view.

There are now many resources, however, which enable us to answer the sceptics and to show how the facts of science fit the biblical account of Creation and Earth history far better than they fit the evolution story. For example, on creation.com there are numerous articles dealing with subjects like radiometric ‘dating’dinosaursastronomygeologyfossils and natural selection. The webstore also has many excellent resources equipping Christians to defend the faith. Indeed, never before has there been so much evidence supporting a belief in the Bible.

References and notes

  1. Not dating of the water-lain sedimentary rocks (which lack the required radioisotopes) but of nearby igneous rock or other materials which contain radioactive elements such as volcanic ash layers. Return to text.
  2. See Batten, D., The Age of the Earth: 101 evidences for a young age for the earth and the universe, June 2009; creation.com/age-of-the-earth. Return to text.

Helpful Resources

Readers’ comments

Steve W.
I want to thank all at CMI for your fantastic work. I have learnt so much from the articles on your website. I have been a Christian for many years and have always thought the theory of evolution to be nonsense; but CMI has helped me understand the overwhelming number of reasons why it is. This article is so right, and I constantly hear and observe the evolution spin doctors at work and it saddens me greatly that many Christians have been hoodwinked into believing the secular spin and as a result, believe Genesis to be theological rather than an historical account. It troubles me that they would do that before researching thoroughly for themselves.

Thank you for providing such a fantastic resource base that examines the whole truth, and faces hard question head on. I have come to realise that the real explanation for why it is that the world has embraced the theory of evolution as science and as their answer to our origins, and blatantly glosses over or flat out ignores the mounting number of serious fundamental problems with evolution and the age of the earth, is because man's rebellious heart does not want to acknowledge God. If the secular scientific world confessed tomorrow that evolution was irreconcilable with the facts, and decreed that it be thrown out, they would not replace it with the Bible's account of our origins, but would continue to search for ANY but what God tells us in His word. The stubborn world does not want our Creator God, for this would mean accountability to Him, and not to ourselves, and would have to obey Him, instead of doing as we pleased. Evolution is just the latest means by which man can ignore his Creator, but we must continue to present Gods word as the truth in and through the love of Christ our Lord.

I thank you and God Bless you all.
Phil M.
You mention a court of law. Don't forget, all 'evidence' for Darwinism (molecules to man) would, in a court of law, be classed as circumstantial evidence (no direct evidence). Circumstantial evidence alone 1) of what is supposed to have occurred millions of years ago, 2) which no one observed occurring, and 3) no-one is able to demonstrate can occur, would never hold up in a court of law.
Steve T.
I have been rebuked by old earth proponents, followers of Dr. Ross et. al., that Special Young Earth Creationists do not do their own research but that they piggy back off the labors of secular scientists and that they do not do proper documentation. To which this article brings out an important detail; that any data discovered from the fields of true science, which anyone can refer to, is the same. Rather it is the interpretation of it that differs and matters. In other words, It doesn't matter who digs out the bone, etc. The problem is in the portraying of the facts of the data as facts, not the presupositions of the data as facts. CMI and others just want to bring to light that there are other ways to look at the data. Evolution is not fact, but it is the only thing that the humanist will accept for an explanation of all which they dig up. Even Darwin knew that the data did not support his views, he hoped that future evolutionists would discover all the missing links required for his theory to be true. He is still waiting.
Jared R.
I was just in Chicago in the Field Museum for Natural History and of course evolution was a reoccurring theme. As a matter of fact one display says "Evolution is one of science's best supported theories." It goes on to say "Available evidence, which includes fossils, comparative anatomy, and DNA, supports the theory of evolution as the scientific explanation for the rich diversity of life on earth." They attempt to show how we evolved from single cell organisms all the way to modern humans.

Their evidence is mostly comparative anatomy, so their conclusion is we must have evolved from the previous creature. No mention of any alternative options. At the end of the day it becomes a circular argument. Evolution is how we became man, so man came to be through evolution. Hardly what I would call strong evidence, more like an absence of an open mind. God bless and thank you for the work that you do.

Eileen T.
I've recently been 'debating' with an atheist/evolutionist biology student, and boy, was it hard going! I had decided to give up at one point as we were getting nowhere. All he did was accuse me of getting evolution all wrong and not understanding what the word meant and of lying (even about my personal testimony of turning from my own atheism to Christ). But the Lord strengthened me to answer his questions and I gave him a link to CMI for proof that genuine and accredited scientists (which I am not) knew what they were talking about regarding the evolution/ creation debate.

Well, he did actually visit CMI and said it was all lies of course, and you too didn't understand evolution - he'd read the 'Aardvark' article and because I had not, I told him he owed it to you to address you directly about his objections, since he thinks you are so fraudulent.
I've learnt enough now, from CMI and others, to be able to stand my ground in these very unpleasant exchanges (which I don't go out deliberately looking for - he happened to choose to 'follow' my Christian Blog for some unknown reason).

In the end it was He who backed off, not me ... So I count that a small victory in the Lord as it's usually me who gives up in exasperation!
It seems the Lord brought him across my path so I am praying he will be drawn to your site in the future.

Bless you for all that you do.
Steve S.
Once I learned operational vs. historical science, presuppositionalism & evidentialism, the fact that the facts need to be interpreted through a worldview, then things clicked. I can now read/watch evolutionary propaganda, and discern things while cringing, which I'm glad that evolution upsets me since it deceived me prior and continues to deceive mankind. I'm confident that in the past there was a global flood and recent creation, because God doesn't lie. Those who insist they know what happened in the past contrary to the plain reading of Genesis are liars, plain and simple. God wants us to love him and trust him. Jesus was correct that if you don't fully believe Moses, author of Genesis, you are in trouble, because Moses wrote of Jesus.
David M.
How true! We now have generations of people who have been taught the 'lies' of half-truths. How do we overcome this? The average person cannot afford to give a copy of Creation Magazine to every school/college/university library even though we would like to. Keep up the good work.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.