Can The Theory Of Evolution
Survive
The Attack Of Science?

By
David Holden

The theory of evolution has run into a lot of trouble in recent years as more scientific discoveries are made. This paper reveals some of the discoveries.

Outline

Incredible Accidents. Go.
The laws of the universe. Go.
Super Computer Tracks Protein Builders. Go.
Vital Fuel Source For All Cells. Go.
The Miller Experiment. Go.
The Missing Link. Go.
Human-Ape Hybrid Attempts. Go.
The Population of The World. Go.
The Age of The Earth. Go.
The Father of The Theory of Evolution. Go.
Arguments For Evolution. Go.
Is The Theory Good For Science? Go.
Scientists Who Believe In Creation. Go.
Arguments from Atheists. Go.
The Bible Has The Answer. Go.
Bible Refrences To Creation. Go.
End Notes. Go.
Recommended Reading. Go.
Helpful articles on external web sites and youtube links. Go.

Introduction
I must say something about myself and my interest in this subject. Firstly, I must state that I do not have a degree in any of the science fields. My approach to the subject is that of a reporter gathering facts from all of the relevant areas of science, and from both sides of the theory of evolution argument. My aim is to then present the evidence in an informative and constructive manner. The other thing I must declare is that I believe there is a God, and that he is the designer and creator of all things. I believe I have a clear advantage over the Atheist in the area of science, because for myself and my fellow believers, science can be as complicated as it likes without presenting a threat to what we believe. For the Atheist however, the more complex life is at the microbiological level, the more difficult it is for him to maintain his view that a complex biological structure is just the end result of a long series of random accidents. While gathering facts for this paper, some recent interesting discoveries in the complicated design area came to my attention, and they are presented in this paper.
I have followed the various arguments for the theory of evolution for more than forty years. Even attending debates for and against the theory. Debates between top scientists are very enlightening because you know that the scientist arguing for the theory has collected the latest and best arguments for his case. One thing has become clear to me from the debates and reading the literature; there is no such thing as ‘irrefutable evidence’ for the theory of evolution. Even so, the false claim of ‘irrefutable evidence’ being out there somewhere is occasionally made. The debate is not just for scientists and academics. It can be followed by the average lay person to his great benefit. Ignorance is not bliss when it comes to the matter of our origins, therefore I encourage people to read this paper and enjoy. I will define what I mean by ‘evolution’ because the word can be used rather loosely to describe various ideas and facts, but first I must explain four related words.

Selection
There are many situations where selection may apply. For instance, if a cat is placed on an island where there are mice, flightless birds, sea gulls and pelicans. The cat will select the easy to catch mice and flightless birds for consumption. A breeder may select a dog with desirable traits for breeding. This paper does not argue against ‘selection’. Selection is a fact of science.

Adaption
In the 1960s a pesticide called DDT was sprayed across fields to combat insects which were attacking the crops. When many insects received a light dose of the insecticide, they were able to adapt to the toxic threat and survive. Most creatures have a mechanism built in by which they can cope with small amounts of toxic material. The coping mechanism for a particular toxin may get passed on to the next generation in an enhanced form so that a strong resistance is developed. When a strong resistance to DDT started to develop, it was claimed that ‘evolution’ was at work. However, a close examination of the situation shows that ‘adaption’ rather than ‘evolution’ best describes what was happening. Part of the explanation of the word ‘adaption’ by the Macquarie Dictionary is as follows, it is an “alteration in the structure or function of organisms which enables them to survive and multiply in a changed environment”. End Note (1). The insects did not evolve the ability to survive small doses of toxic material. That mechanism was already present.
We also see adaption in other situations. For instance, in the developed countries, the increase in quality and quantity of food in the last couple of centuries has led to an increase in height in the general population. In recent years, the more sedentary lifestyle of most people has led to an increase in the incidence of obesity. Most people are familiar with the saying, ‘You are what you eat’. That at least partly means, don’t eat too much or you will get fat. Some time back, I read an article titled, ‘You are what your grandmother ate.’ There is evidence now that if you eat a lot and develop a large waistline, an adaptive change may occur and be passed on to the next generation. Starvation can cause changes in the other direction. There are limits as to how far adaption can go in a certain direction, and to what it can do. It can not for instance, start developing a complex new organ. This paper does not argue against selection or the ability of some creatures to adapt quickly to the environment. Both are supported by science.

Plasticity
In the time of Darwin, the overwhelming view on the origin of life was that God created all life. Most held to the view that God created a large variety of animals and that they are immutable (unchangeable) from one generation to the next. A few others held to the view that the large variety of animals are the descendants of a much smaller stock of animals. For instance, the coyote, fox, and dingo and all other dogs are descendants of an original pair of dogs which were probably close in resemblance to the wolf. Darwin, in his final edition (the 6th) of On the Origin of Species says, “Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created. This view has been ably maintained by many authors. Some few naturalists, on the other hand, have believed that species undergo modification, and that the existing forms of life are the descendants by true generation of pre existing forms.” (2). Darwin refers to a Rev. William Herbert (1778-1847) who argues back in 1822 for the ability of species to change. Darwin reports, “The Hon. and Rev. W. Herbert, afterward Dean of Manchester, in the fourth volume of the ‘Horticultural Transactions’, 1822, and in his work on the ‘Amaryllidaceae’ (1837, pages 19, 339), declares that ‘horticultural experiments have established, beyond the possibility of refutation, that botanical species are only a higher and more permanent class of varieties.’ He extends the same view to animals. The dean believes that single species of each genus were created in an originally highly plastic condition, and that these have produced, chiefly by inter-crossing, but likewise by variation, all our existing species.” (3). (Emphasis added). The substance ‘plastic’ comes from a word already in use which refers to something which is pliable.
Many scientists today agree with the Rev. Herbert’s claim, but with the advantage of knowledge of the genetic code, they do not use the word ‘plasticity’, but instead, state that God formed original groups of animals with a very rich genetic code which has allowed a wide variety to come from the original groups in the plant and animal kingdoms. An example of ‘plasticity’ can be seen in the large size difference between the Great Dane and the Chihuahua breed of dogs. The word which best describes what we see in the rich variety of dogs is not ‘evolution’, but rather ‘plasticity’, because the variety is an outworking of the rich source of genetic code in the original pair.

Does not have fur all over its body.
Is omnivorous (can eat meat, grain, fruit and vegetables).
It is an intelligent animal.
Many pig organs can replace human organs.
Pigs live on the ground.
Pigs often socialise in groups.
Has a tail but it is short.

His conclusion from the above evidence was that we should believe we have evolved from pigs. While on this subject, I should point out that the chook, the emu and the penguin are quite at home walking upright on their feet; something that neither the pig or the ape are comfortable with to say the least. Up to this point in time, no one is claiming we are related to the above three creatures, but you never know what the future may hold.

Evolution
The atheistic theory of evolution story places a lot of emphasis on ‘selection’, ‘adaption’, ‘plasticity’ and ‘similarity’ - all of which are solidly supported by science; but to this truth, they add the false idea that life began by a chance beginning of a simple form of life, and then, the step by step slow accidental increase in complexity of the simple life form. By this slow progress, an amoeba becomes an apelike creature, and from this apelike creature we get rocket scientists and professors. Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. He shocked many in 1871 when he took his ideas a step further and published "The Descent of Man". In this book, Darwin asserts that man is not a special creation of God, but rather, he is a descendant of an animal. An animal which resembles today’s apes. Darwin says regarding his book, "The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man." (4).
If Darwin could prove there are significant differences between the races of men, then it would provide strong support for his theory that men and apes have evolved from a common ancestor, and that some races have evolved further than others. His ideas fuelled the belief that the Caucasian (white) race is superior to every other race, particularly the Negroes. Terrible atrocities have been committed by those who throught they were racially/evolutionary superior to their victims. Science, by means of revealing much of the secrets of the human genetic code, has proven beyond all reasonable doubt that all of mankind is closely related. Science has effectively destroyed the notion that there is an evolutionary superior race of any shape or colour.
This paper does not argue against 'selection', 'adaption', 'plasticity' or 'similarity'. All four are facts established by scientific investigation. This paper argues that science does not support the theory of evolution, the view that:

Life began because some bits and pieces bumped into each other.
A microbe over many generations turned into many butterflies, birds, fish, elephants and people.

To put this in another way, it asks the question, "Can the theory of evolution survive the attack of science?"

Incredible accidents
The theory of evolution does not acknowledge the existence of God, not alone his role in creating, therefore all life in all its diversity, is the end result of a long series of incredible accidents. The exception to the above is theistic evolution which claims that God created the first simple forms of life from which complex forms have evolved. However, as this paper shows, even this idea can not escape the massive challenge of science. The focus of this paper is on Atheistic evolution (evolution without God). The theory goes something like this - with a bit of poetic licence.
Many years ago the earth was completely devoid of any life. No dogs, cats, birds, fish, insects. Not even plant life. One day, at the end of a lake, there was an incredible accident, some bits and pieces bumped into each other and a simple life form came into existence. Soon after that accident, there was another remarkable accident at the other end of the lake, some bits and pieces bumped into each other and a plant form of life came into existence. Quite conveniently, at the microbe end of the lake, there was another amazing accident, the microbe reproduced by splitting in half.
Not to be outdone by the remarkable accident at the microbe end of the lake, the plant form of life had an accident, it reproduced by splitting in half. Both forms of life became prolific as they reproduced and they also grew larger is size.
One day there was another amazing accident at the microbe end of the lake. The small animal forms of life split into two groups. One group called 'males', the other group, 'females'. This incredible accident resulted in a very complicated method of reproduction. Back at the plant end of the lake where plants reproduced by splitting in two, there was a phenomenal accident which resulted in many of the plants taking up a very complicated method of reproduction. They now need to be pollinated in order to reproduce, and many need the assistance of a second party such as a bee, ant or bird.
After a series of remarkable accidents, animals obtained some very complicated structures such as eyes, ears and teeth. We have now arrived at the situation where the butterfly lays eggs, the eggs produce caterpillars, the caterpillars later turn into pupas (christella) which finally develop into butterflies. Chooks lay eggs, the eggs turn into chickens which turn into chooks. Theory of evolution dogma would have us believe that the above has come about because of a series of remarkable accidents. There are more astonishing accidents in the theory of evolution story than in the entire account of Grim’s Fairy Tales.

Are the two horses the result of a long series of biological accidents?
The theory of evolution story says - Yes
Science says - No!

The attack of science
Science is hostile to the idea that particles can accidentally arrange themselves into a complicated structure. Even the simplest of organisms contains many thousands of parts put together in a complicated order which is beyond the best informed of microbiology professors to fully comprehend.
Professor Ilya Prigogine has this to say about the complexity of the machinery within all organisms which must work correctly in order to sustain life. "But let us have no illusions. If today we look into the situations where the analogy with the life sciences is the most striking - even if we discovered within biological systems some operations distant from the state of equilibrium - our research would still leave us quite unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms." (Professor and Director of the Physics Department, Universite Libre de Bruxells at the time of his statement). (5).

Ernst Chain (world famous biochemist) says, "I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable ... God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts." (6).

The laws of the universe
Evidence of design is not limited to what we see in biology. We also see evidence of a creator in the laws of the universe. A slightly technical and highly recommended DVD titled ‘The Privileged Planet’ which is available from many Christian Bookshops is very helpful in explaining what scientists have discovered in this area. It informs us that there are at least (at the time of publication) twenty laws of the universe - and the list is growing - which must be very close to their present values, otherwise, intelligent life would not be possible.
Dr. Paul Davies, who is well respected among theory of evolution believing scientists read a paper back in the 1960s which was based on a lecture given in the United States by Australian born cosmologist and theoretical physicist, Brandon Carter. Paul Davies says Carter "... asked himself the following question: ‘Suppose the laws [of the universe] had been a bit different from what they actually are, in this or that respect - what would the consequences be?’ ... Carter’s calculations suggested that if the laws had differed only slightly from what we find them to be, then life would not have been possible and the universe would have gone unobserved. In effect, said Carter, our existence hinges on a certain amount of delicate ‘fine tuning’ of the laws. Like Goldilocks’ porridge, the laws of physics seemed to Carter to be ‘just right’ for life." Paul Davies goes on to report that Carter’s paper has, "... triggered nothing less than a revolution in scientific thinking and sparked a furious controversy that has rent the scientific community ever since." (7).
The furious controversy has erupted because the Atheists do not like the scientific evidence that God has designed the universe. Paul Davies asks the reader in a separate article to imagine being in control of a machine which sets the different parameters for the universe. "One knob controls the strength of gravity, a lever varies the mass of all electrons, yet another dial fixes the number of spatial dimensions, and so on. It turns out that to set the variables for the universe we see today, you need to adjust the position of about 30-something knobs, and everything else follows from them. And here’s the rub. Change just a few of the settings (or ‘parameter values’ to use the jargon) even an infinitesimal amount, and there would be nobody around to witness the result. Unless the settings are unerringly close to their present values, we’d have no universe, no life and certainly no humans." (8). Emphasis added. Paul Davies is a physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist working at Arizona State University. He is also a writer and broadcaster.
A lecturer in this 'youtube' clip further explains the amazing complexity of the universe. Go

In addition to the above, there is evidence of design regarding the Earth. The Earth has a magnetic field which extends out into space from the north and south poles and wraps around the Earth. The magnetic field deflects harmful solar wind safely around the Earth, creating a protective shield called the magnetosphere. The How It Works Book Of Space reports, "Without this protection, life on Earth could not exist." (2010, p. 20).
We will now leave the subject of the complexity of the universe and look at the complexity of life within cells.

The complexity of life
The theory of evolution requires machinery within small and simple forms of life to be simple so that the first form of life can come about through chance random processes. Science however, shows that life is very complex, requiring intelligent design beyond the capacity of any group of scientists. Even with the help of super computers, scientists struggle to understand the complex machinery within living cells. A Creation Research Newsletter dated 22 March 2006 reveals part of the struggle scientists are having.

Super Computer Tracks Protein Builders
According to a report in ‘Science Now’ 27 Oct 2005. Proteins are made of small molecules called amino acids which need to be strung together in the correct order for the protein to function. The process of assembling proteins is carried out by a complex piece of cellular machinery called a ribosome. Individual amino acids are brought to the ribosome by molecules called transfer RNA’s (tRNA’s). Transfer RNA’s must line up precisely with another molecule called messenger RNA (mRNA) which carries the information from DNA. To ensure the correct amino acids are lined up in the correct sequence each tRNA must match three genetic code letters with code letters on the mRNA.
To understand how tRNA move through the ribosome and matches code letters with the mRNA a team of scientists led by structural biologist Kevin Sanbonmatsu has used the sixth fastest supercomputer in the world to calculate all the molecular interactions involved and simulate the movement of the tRNA through the ribosome. They found that the tRNA has a previously unknown extra hinge where it holds the amino acid, and the ribosome has a special loop that the tRNA must fit through. If the tRNA letters do not exactly fit the mRNA letters it will run into this loop rather than fit through it.
The editor of Creation Research comments. "If it takes a team of clever scientists and a supercomputer just to follow the process of putting amino acids in the right place, imaging the creative genius of the One who designed and built the protein building machinery in the first place, without a supercomputer. Ribosomes contain over 50 different proteins and numerous types of RNA which must all work together in a very precise way. It is foolish to imagine that chance random processes invented the kind of precision machinery revealed by this study." (9).
Quite clearly, in spite of what some would like us to believe, the evidence shows that science and the theory of evolution are at enmity with each other. The theory needs atoms to accidentally arrange themselves into complex structures, but the laws of science are hostile to that idea.

Vital fuel source for all cells
All living things need to manufacture Adenosine Triphosphate (ATP) in order to survive. Scientists have discovered this energy-rich compound is manufactured by a complicated microscopic motor. The motor consists of at least twenty-nine different parts which must fit together in the correct order. Every one of our body’s fourteen trillion cells has many thousands of these amazing machines spinning at over 9,000 rpm. As each motor spins, the vital for life ATP molecules are produced. The molecules provide the power for everything that goes on in living cells, including the manufacture of DNA and RNA. "The breaking of the phosphate bonds in ATP releases great amounts of energy that are consumed in driving chemical reactions or contracting muscle fibres." (10). Only God has the super intelligence and power to design and make the complicated machinery within every cell. (See ‘Creation’ magazine, September-November 2009, pages 21-22).

The remarkable DNA
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) "... plays a vital part in heredity. It is the chief material in chromosomes, the cell bodies that control the heredity of an animal or a plant. When a cell divides, the chromosomes in its nucleus must be duplicated exactly in the daughter cells. The DNA in the chromosomes furnishes the daughter cells with a complete set of ‘instructions’ for the cells’ own development and the development of their descendants for generations." (11). The code for life is held within the DNA double helix. This amazing biological piece of machinery is so thin that Watson and Crick who were aiming to identify it’s structure, were not able to directly observe what they were studying, even with the electron microscopes available at the time. It’s structure was worked out (in 1953) on the basis of its chemical composition. (12).
There are around three billion letters in the genetic code which defines us as humans, and determines such things as our height and the colour of our hair. If the very tightly compacted string of DNA code were stretched out in a straight line, it would reach a distance of two metres. If all of the DNA code in our 14 trillion cells were connected end to end, it would reach a distance of twenty-eight billion kilometres (17.4 billion miles). With the sun at a distance of 150 million kilometres (93 million miles), it could stretch to the sun 186 times.
Complexity doesn’t end with the DNA molecule. The DNA molecule must work in relationship with another complex molecule; the RNA molecule. The function of the RNA molecule is to ‘read’ the information contained on the DNA molecule, and then cause the cell to manufacture the different substances called for. Only by this remarkable relationship can molecules derived from food be directed to where they are needed for cell building.
Scientists for many years believed the genetic code was read in a linear fashion from one end to the other, however, recent research has uncovered a further level of complexity to the code. Many sections of the code contain at least two messages. There is a code within the code. The machinery which reads the code may for example jump to a section of code and read 500 letters for the shape of a person’s nose, then go to another section to obtain skin colour, but use a section of code which was previously read. It may even read some of the code backwards to gain the necessary information. I can illustrate this point with the word, ‘bandsaw’. I can get several words from the one word. ‘Band’, ‘and’, ‘saw’, and if I read the last three letters backwards, I get the word ‘was’. That means of course that the code and the code reading machinery is very clever and it points to the genius of the one who designed and constructed the machinery in the first place.
Imagine a scientist changing a section of code to make what he believes to be an improvement. In doing so, he may make a detrimental change in another area which could include bringing on a disease. The code can not randomly make changes. The reason why a mouse continues to look like a mouse every generation is because the DNA code is being transferred from one generation to the next. The mouse can not change into a frog because the DNA code for frog is not present. To maintain the integrity of the code, miniature biological machines continually check the code.

Repair to DNA damage
We must bear in mind that DNA damage is different to mutation. DNA damage is an abnormal chemical structure in DNA caused by such things as UV light, radiation and toxins within the body. Mutation on the other hand is a change in the sequence of standard base pairs. Scientists have known for many years, that every cell in our body has micro biological machinery which checks the integrity of DNA and makes repairs. The checking and repair work is an enormous task given that if the DNA strand is unwound, it would be about two metres long. The strand in humans contains around three billion genetic code letters. If we were to print the three billion letters in a very small size and place them in line one millimetre apart, the line of letters would stretch for three thousand kilometres (1,864 miles). Many scientists known the process of checking and repair is surprisingly quick and efficient given the huge number of letters to be checked; so how is this achieved? Dr Jacqueline Barton, a researcher based at Caltech in America, along with her team, carefully investigated the DNA for answers. The answers were quite surprising. Jacqueline reported her findings in the journal, “PNAS” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America).
Dr Chris Smith from the UK, reported on her work to Radio National (Australia) host, Fran Kelly in September 2009. Dr Chris Smith reports, “We know there are enzymes; proteins which are machines which can crawl along DNA ...” he goes on to report that the ‘machines’ look for mistakes in the DNA message. He further states the DNA checking machinery “... have taken a leaf out of the electricians manual, they use electricity to check the integrity of DNA. What these enzymes do is one of them will sit on a piece of DNA, another one will lock on to a piece of DNA a long way away and it will send some electrons - an electrical signal into the DNA, and if the DNA message is faithful and there is integrity of the DNA, then the message will go from one enzyme to the other and therefore it knows that the piece of DNA separating them is intact and there is no errors in it ... If on the other hand, the signal doesn’t get through, then this tells it there must be damage to the DNA between the two, and in that case, they begin to gently and labouriously and painstakingly crawl toward each other checking each of the genetic letters as they go, and when they find a mistake they correct it ...” (13). The work is important, because the common consequence of the degrading of the DNA message is cancer.
The above is another blow from science to the theory of evolution story. It points to the great genius of God who designed and constructed the DNA machinery, then put in place a very efficient mechanism to repair damaged DNA. From the incredible DNA machinery, we will move out to the cell in which the DNA molecule lives.
Top

The Complex Cell
The so-called ‘simple single cell’ is not simple at all. There are more than 3,000 chemical reactions going on within the cell at any one time, and if one of those reactions should just slow down excessively, the cell dies. A more complex cell is the human cell. It is a chemistry laboratory which handles at least 100,000 operations, yet fits within the head of a pin. (14).
The above is certainly not a full description of what happens within a cell. It is a very complex chemical laboratory which is not fully understood by scientists. But hopefully the above information is sufficient to show that it is not logical to believe that this complex structure could come together by chance. It has been put together by a very intelligent being. That being, called God, is more intelligent than all of the scientists upon the earth. For the sake of the die-hards, we must continue with further evidence of the failure of the theory of evolution.

Left -Handed Amino Acids and Right -Handed Sugars
Sugars are a very important part of the DNA molecule, and what we know about them also effectively destroys the evolution argument “... sugars in living systems rotate polarised light to the right. They are right-handed. Just like amino acids, when left alone to reach chemical equilibrium, 50% will rotate to the right and 50% to the left. If a left-handed sugar appeared in the chain, it would destroy the biological usefulness of that sugar.” (15).
Proteins such as those found in skin, fingernails, muscle, hair, are made from amino acids, in fact all living tissues are made from amino acids. Evolution is found to be impossible when it is realised that all of these amino acid molecules in living organisms must have a stereo configuration which can most easily be described as being left-handed. However, experiments to synthesise these amino acids in a laboratory always produce an equal amount of left and right handed molecules. It only takes one right handed amino acid to destroy an enzyme. A famous crude experiment which produced a few amino acids was conducted by Stanley Miller.

Miller Experiment
In 1953, Stanley Miller passed an electrical spark through an artificial atmosphere and successfully produced some amino acids, the building block of proteins. This experiment was proclaimed as a discovery as to how life may have began. Atheistic belief makes the beginning of life a very simple process. A lightning bolt hits the atmosphere, produces a few amino acids, they bump into each other in the correct order to form protein, and then, low and behold, after a few more pieces bump into each other in the correct order, life is formed.
Science exposes many flaws in the above idea. Firstly, the atmosphere Miller used in his experiment is not accepted by scientists today as being the type of atmosphere that existed on the early earth. There are many other problems:

In an uncontrolled environment such as oceans and lakes, proteins do not concentrate together, they disperse.
Amino acids would be contaminated with other chemicals to prevent them from correctly joining together to form proteins.
Millers experiment produced amino acids which were both right-handed and left-handed. Proteins however, are made up of exclusively left-handed amino acids.
The left-handed amino acids must link up in the correct order, and that can not happen without instructions from the DNA.
Protein can not have a useful function in a cell without folding into a complex three-dimensional shape.
Chance random processes will not produce the correct shape for the protein. The process is very complicated as already revealed in the paragraph on the super computer. (16).

What chance?
Rubiks Cube

Regarding the protein molecule, the English astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) has likened the chance of a correct protein molecule assembly occurring by accident to that of 50^10 (^ = to the power of) blind persons (this number standing shoulder to shoulder would more than fill our entire planetary system) manipulating a scrambled Rubik's cube, and all arriving simultaneously at the solved form. (17).

Life in A Test Tube?
Those who attempt to produce life in a test tube are faced with a big obstacle, oxygen. Scientists know they cannot produce the large organic molecules of which proteins and the nucleic acids are constructed in an atmosphere where oxygen is present, as they are destroyed by oxygen, and there is no evidence that the earth’s atmosphere was ever without oxygen.

The Problem of the Eye
Evolutionists are hard-pressed to explain the step-by-step chance evolution of the eye, which is very complex. They cannot explain why evolution should decide to give a sightless animal an eye. And where would evolution start? Would it start with a hole in the head so as to accommodate the eye when it was fully developed, or would it start with the necessary adjustments to the brain which must receive and interpret the signals from the eye? Not only is it difficult to imagine why an animal would want to start developing a complex new organ, we do not observe any partial developments of complex new organs in nature.
A further difficulty for the evolutionist is the beauty in creation which the eye observes. Why would random chance processes create the beauty which we observe in the butterflies and flowers? Only God has the knowledge and the power to create what we see and experience about us. The Bible tells us that creation is such a powerful testimony of God’s existence, that those who ignore it are without excuse (Romans 1 :20).

Is the beautiful flower the result of a long series of accidents?
The theory of evolution story says Yes
Science says No!

The Missing Link
Many attempts have been made to find an evolutionary link in the fossil record between apes and man. All attempts so far have failed sound critical examination. I will list some of the major discoveries in this area and the subsequent outcome to the discovery.

Heidelberg Man Built up from a jawbone and later found to be that of a human.
Piltdown Man This was a deliberate fraud. “Discovered” in 1912. In 1953-54 it was found to be the artfully combined and altered bones of a modem man and an orangutan. The original fossil has disappeared.
Nebraska Man Built up from one tooth (discovered in 1922) and later found to be the tooth of a peccary, a kind of pig.
Peking Man The original fossil has disappeared.
S.W. Colorado Man Built up from a tooth and later found to be the tooth of a horse.
Neanderthal Man An examination of these skeletons has revealed that they are very much human. Also, they buried their dead with religious ritual. The shape of some of the bones indicates that the people may have suffered from a medical problem such as arthritis or rickets.
Cro-Magnon Man Equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man and evidently accomplished in several arts. The evidence points to the skeleton being human.
Lucy Not all of the bones of this skeleton were found together. Some of the bones found nearby are human. It is not a complete skeleton.
Ardi Ardipithecus ramidus (Ar. ramidus) was revealed to the media with much fanfare in October 2009. Claimed to be a human ancestor which lived 4.4 million years ago.

What many in the general public don't realise with regard to fossil discoveries is that sometimes, one fragmentary set of bones can be some distance from other fragments. The scientist must determine if the bones from the two or more locations belong together. It can be argued that bones were scattered by animals, flood or some other means. Occasionally, not all scientists will agree that the bones come from the one creature. Lucy is a case in point.

Ardi, a female, estimated to have been 120 cm tall with a weight of 50 kg was discovered in Ethiopia north east of Addis Ababa. She is claimed to be the oldest ancestor to man yet discovered. A report in Time magazine makes the claim that humans and chimpanzees took different evolutionary paths just prior to around seven million years ago. The article then quite rightly makes the point that, “The elusive common ancestor’s bones have never been found ..." (18).
The Time article states that Ardi was ‘roughly twice as heavy as Lucy’, which means if professors have evolved from pond scum, then they have gone from less than one gram to as large as Ardi at around 50 kg, then down to the weight of Lucy at around 25 kg, then up to the weight of modern man at around 80 kg.
A problem for scientists examining the skeleton of Ardi is that parts of the skeleton were badly crushed. A picture of the pelvis in the ground confirms the point that it “looked like an Irish stew”. The Time article states, “Indeed, looking at the evidence, different paleoanthropologists may have different interpretations of how Ardi moved or what she reveals about the last common ancestor of humans and chimps.” (19).
The photograph of the badly deteriorated bones accompanying the Time article give testimony to the claim that there will be disagreements over how Ardi moved. That fact however, will not get in the road of a good theory of evolution story. On the very same page we read, “The fact that Ardi walked upright ...” (p. 35). Its amazing how uncertainty can turn into fact!
After the bones of Ardi were shown on TV, an artist’s sketch of what the alleged apeman creature looked like was shown. A considerable amount of poetic licence was exercised in coming up with the likeness from the few fragmentary bones. It is extraordinary what the apeman hunters can get away with. That amount of poetic licence in any other science discipline would be considered an act of fraud. Even the one tooth discovery of Nebraska Man was announced with a highly imaginative drawing of what the apeman looked like. Pigs may not fly, but they can sure walk on two legs if an artist thinks one of their teeth once belonged to an apeman.
Errors regarding apeman evidence is not limited to misguided enthusiasm. Lets consider the Piltdown Man fraud. This interesting piece of theory of evolution history began in 1912 when an amateur fossilologist by the name of Charles Dawson took some bones teeth and primitive implements to Dr Authur Woodward, an eminent paleontologist at the British Museum. The bones were alleged to have been discovered in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex England. The bones were dated at 500,000 years old. In 1953, the find was exposed as a hoax when a new method of dating bones based on fluoride absorption was applied. Further investigation revealed the bones belonged to an ape that had died only fifty years previously. The teeth and bones had been discoloured with bichromate of potash to conceal their true identity. Also, the teeth had been filed down. Someone had obviously gone to a lot of trouble to deceive the public.
For more information on the Piltdown Man fraud, click on link:
Go

From an attempt to create a human-ape out of bones we next look at an attempt to create a living human-ape hybrid
Top

Human-Ape hybrid attempts
Ilya Ivanov (1870-1932) was an eminent biologist who achieved considerable success in the field of artificial insemination of horses and other animals. He became a professor of zoology in 1907. He was so successful with his artificial insemination techniques that he was able to fertilize as many as 500 mares with the semen of a single stallion. Ivanov was a devout Atheist who wanted to prove a link between apes and man. He decided to use his considerable artificial insemination skills to create a human-ape hybrid.
In the mid 1920s, Professor Ilya Ivanov began his project to hybridize humans and apes. The funds for this project from the Soviet government come to more than one million dollars in today’s money (2009). When applying to the Soviet government for funds, Ivanov emphasized the importance of his research for anti-religious propaganda. Ivanov was supported by ‘The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism’ because production of a hybrid would be seen as proof of human evolution and therefore of atheism.
All attempts to produce a hybrid failed. The reason is simple. Humans are a special creation of God. They have no link with any animal. In the course of his attempts to get women pregnant with ape sperm, at least five of them died. Dr. Bergman who is an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Toledo Medical School in Ohio states, “One problem is humans have 46 chromosomes - apes 48 - and for this reason the chromosomes will not pair up properly even if a zygote is formed. Another problem is a conservatively estimated 40 million base pair differences exist between humans and our putative [alleged] closest evolutionary relatives, the chimps. These experiments are the result of evolutionary thinking and they failed because their basic premise is false.” (20).
www.icr.org/article/human-ape-hybridization-failed-attempt/
The Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are quite different from each other. See 'New Evidence' section at bottom of this article. New

Aborigines, missing links? Creationist teacher, Ken Ham points out that "Darwin believed that the Australian Aborigines were the 'missing links' of evolution. As a result, hunters from England came to Australia to kill Aborigines and bring them back as specimens for museums. In fact, in the early 1900s, the Aborigines were listed as animals in an Australian museum booklet! ... Its been estimated that perhaps 10,000 bodies of Australian Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the missing link." (21).

Darwin’s Frustration With The Fossil Record
Darwin admitted to the many difficulties with his theory, including the absence of transitions from one variety to another. He said, “The sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the almost entire absence, as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature. We see this in the fact that the most eminent palaeontologists, namely, Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande, Pictet, Falconer, E. Forbes, etc., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, etc., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability [unchangeability] of species.” (22).
More than 150 years after Darwin’s paper, the transitional varieties are still missing. In recent times, Dr. Duane Gish has written a book titled, ‘Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record’. He clearly shows that all animals appear in the fossil record in their complete form, there are no transitions from one kind of animal to the next. Furthermore, we do not see any creature with a partly developed new complex organ.
More information on lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record can be found at: http://www.icr.org/article/525

Change of story
The lack of transitional fossils has been a severe embarrassment to theory of evolution believers. At least that was the case until two scientists in 1972 came up with a slight revision to the theory of evolution story to make it more palatable. They decided it is best to admit there is no evidence of intermediate creatures in the fossil record. Stephen Gould (1941-2002) who was Professor of Geology and Palaeontology at Harvard University, along with Niles Eldredge, came up with the idea that evolution happened quickly. Too quickly to provide fossil evidence. The new idea is termed ‘Punctuated Equilibrium’. The change in the story has caused some to quip, “First evolution happened so slowly we could not see it, now it happened so quickly we can not see it.” So either way, the evidence is not there.
The scientific evidence of the fossil record is of no help to the theory, nor is the theory of evolution ‘tree of life’ story. Stephen Jay Gould has admitted that the evolutionary trees which adorn textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, not the evidence of the fossil record. (23).
‘New Scientist’, (24 January 2009) had a drawing of a large tree on the front cover along with the words, ‘Darwin Was Wrong: Cutting down the tree of life’. One eminent evolutionary biologist says, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality”. (24). The above doubts from prominent theory of evolution scientists is a real problem because the ‘tree of life’ is a central pillar to theory of evolution dogma. Even rearranging the ‘tree of life’ is unacceptable to those who want the public to think the tree is based on the evidence of scientific research.
Top

The Creation of Man and the Evidence From Folklore
In addition to the scientific evidence, there is good evidence from folklore that man came into being through a special work of God. The Bible says, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7). It is interesting to note that the Latin homo means earth-born, and is related to our word ‘humus’ or soil. “hemo ... the earthy one, the earth-born, from L humus, earth (soil, ground)”. (25).
Evidence in support of the Bible that man was made by God from soil has been collected by Sir James George Fraser. His work in the field of anthropology is highly regarded. In his “Folklore in the Old Testament”, he shows that the accounts of man’s origin fall into two categories. The first consists of thirty-seven accounts which tell of Man being created from the clay of the ground. The second consists of twenty-nine accounts which say that Man was derived in various ways from the lower animals and even plants. The following are some examples, none of which were influenced by the opinions of others outside of the tribal group. The page numbers in brackets refer to ‘Folklore in the Old Testament’ by Sir James Frazer.

Accounts of Man’s Origin
Out of Clay

Babylonian: Man moulded from the earth mixed with the blood of the god Bel (p. 6).
Greek: Prometheus moulded man out of clay at Panopeus (p. 6).
Egyptian: Khnoumou, the father of the gods, moulded men out of clay on a potter’s wheel (p. 6).
Cheremiss of Russia: The creator moulded man out of clay (p. 22).
Dyaks of Borneo: The first man moulded from damp earth by their god Salampandai (p.14).
Nias of Samatra: The first man moulded from damp earth by their god Luo Zaho (p. 15).
The Mandan, Choctaws and Iroquois American Indians: all believe they ‘came out of the ground’ (25).
Australian Aborigines near Melbourne: The Creator, Pund-jel, took two large pieces of bark, laid clay upon them and worked it into two men. He then blew hard into their mouths, noses and navels and they became living men (p. 8).

From Plant or Animal

Turtle Clan of Iroquois Indians: Descended from the turtle (p. 30).
Carp clan of Ootawak (Ottawa) Indians: Descended from the eggs of the carp (p. 31).
Osage Indians: Descended from the union of a male snail and a beaver maid (p. 30).
Kayans of Borneo: Descended from a tree (p. 30).
Haida Indians: Descended from union between a raven and a cockrel (p. 31).
Samoans: Descended from two grubs (p. 40).
Some Californian Indians: Descended from the prairie wolf or coyote.

We can note from the above that there is an almost total absence of agreement among the evolutionary accounts while there is good agreement among the creation accounts. The aborigines near Melbourne have even preserved faithfully knowledge of the fact that man lived as a result of the breath of God. This proves that the truth, even when transmitted by word of mouth, can be preserved with considerable accuracy for thousands of years. Further evidence that one couple were created by God just a few thousand years ago comes from what we know about the population growth rate.

The population of the world
In the year 1 AD the population of the world was 138 million according to the World Book Encyclopedia. Figures vary. World History Atlas puts the figure at 250 million The Encyclopedia Britannica puts the figure at 300 million.
If there were 300 million people on earth at the time of Christ, this requires an annual growth rate of only 0.75% since the great Flood at around 2,500 BC when just eight people emerged from the ark. That is a doubling of the population every 92 years. Dr. Don Batten makes the following point. “What if people had been around for one million years? Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10^43 people today - that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.”
The Bible presents a much more realistic picture, “The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence? Hardly. The figures agree because the real history of the world is recorded in the Bible.” (Dr. Don Batten, http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people).
We will now leave behind the creation of mankind and look at the creation of all other living things. Some think God may have created one single life form such as an amoeba from which all other life has sprung. However, the biblical record and the evidence of science do not support that idea.

All Living Things Produce After Their Own Kind
Clear evidence that animals cannot be changed from one kind into another comes from the humble fruit fly. The fruit fly causes millions of dollars worth of damage to fruit crops around the world each year, so scientists have been at work on the fruit fly since the 1920s to change it into something which does not have such destructive habits. It has suffered many types of indignities, including bombardment from various kinds of radiation, but it steadfastly remains a fruit fly.
Some scientists got excited when a fruit fly produced offspring which had an extra set of wings. However, the mutation was not beneficial. The extra set of wings did not function, so they were a burden to the fly. Also, the mutation simply caused the DNA code for wings to be read twice, giving the extra set. No new complicated code was created by the mutation. Evidence that God created different kinds of animals comes from the fact that most kinds of animals cannot interbreed with another kind. The few which can, have sterile offspring, some examples are as follows:

Horse + Zebra = Sterile Zebronkey
Horse + Donkey = Sterile Mule
Lion + Tiger = Sterile Liger

The above is true because God has determined that each kind should reproduce after its own kind. “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.” (Gen. 1:25).
Top

DNA and the second law of thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics or law of energy decay, states that every system, left to itself, tends to move from order to disorder. If you leave a car out in the field long enough, it will eventually disintegrate. The whole universe is degenerating, it is moving toward a state of disorder known as ‘heat death’. Our Sun will eventually burn out.
When a seed or embryo produces order, it is only because God has placed information in the seed or embryo in the very complicated DNA molecule. The living plant or animal is shaped according to the information in the DNA. The DNA information could not get there by itself because we know from the second law of thermodynamics that matter will not arrange itself so as to reveal an intelligent design. DNA reveals a very intelligent design, in fact, beyond the intelligence of any scientist upon the face of the earth. Even if the second law of thermodynamics was not in operation - unfortunately for the evolutionist it is - it would be more likely that you could find ten super-computers together in the Amazon jungle as the result of random processes in nature, before you could find one accidentally produced DNA molecule which is capable of producing the simplest form of life. The lack of evidence for the theory of evolution is not lost on some scientists. Some are even bold enough to ask some challenging questions.

Colin Paterson, a senior palaeontologist at the British Natural History Museum reports on his questioning a group of experts, he said, “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing ... that is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said ‘I do know one thing - it ought not be taught in high school.’” (26). In addition to the wild assumption that material can bump into each other in the correct order and create life, we also find that unsubstantiated assumptions are made in order to get a large age for the earth.

The Age of the Earth
According to the theory of evolution, the earth is approximately four thousand five hundred million years old. A very old age for the earth is assumed because the theory of evolution requires a very long period of time.
Evolutionists mostly use radiometric dating techniques to support the above age for the earth; however, some scientists do not believe radiometric dating is accurate. Dr. Scott Huse for instance makes the point with regard to radiometric dating techniques, that the following assumptions must be made:

The rock contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.
Since then, no parent or daughter atoms were either added to, or taken from the rock, and.
The rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.

He further says, “Depending on the particular method involved, other assumptions may be involved, but these three are always involved and are extremely important. Recognising this fact, the dubious nature of radiometric dating techniques now becomes apparent especially since none of these assumptions are found to be valid” (27).
There are many examples of radiometric dating techniques giving inaccurate results. For instance, the carbon-14 method has dated living snails as being 2,300 years old, and the potassium-argon method has dated Hawaiian lava flows which are known to be less than 200 years old at up to three billion years old. (28).
Another presupposition used to give a very old age for the earth is the erosion technique. Thousands of High School students have been taught, “Scientific studies indicate that on the average erosion of rock takes place at the rate of about one foot in 5000 years. The Grand Canyon is 6000 feet [1,830 metres] deep in some places, so that at this average rate of erosion it is estimated that it could have taken 30 million years for the Colorado River to erode the canyon”. (29).
A problem with the above theory is that there is not enough soil buildup at the end of the canyon to indicate that it was slowly cut by the Colorado river. We should see millions of cubic metres of soil in a large river delta system, but we don’t. Many scientists now believe the Grand Canyon was cut in the time of the worldwide flood.
Some scientists believe the colourful layers of soil in the canyon area were laid down over millions of years. This age is arrived at by counting up the thin layers. Many of the layers are only a few millimetres thick. When the layers in the canyon are examined, it can be seen that they are horizontal. However, much of the top surface of the canyon is very uneven. If the top layer is uneven, then the lower layers should be uneven also if they were laid down over a long period of time layer by layer. A further problem for the above idea is that a fossil of a leaf has been discovered which rises through several layers. It is beyond the realm of credibility to believe a dead leaf can stay intact while year after year, the layers of soil build up around it. In many places there are deep cuts into the canyon wall. This indicates that the beautiful coloured layers which grab the attention of tourists were laid down quickly in water. Later, powerful water currents cut through the soggy soft earth.

Short-lived Isotopes
“Short-lived U-236 and Th-230 isotopes found in lunar materials are taken as testimony for youth. If the moon were of great age, the short-lived isotopes would have long since decayed and thus be presently absent. Yet they are not absent, they are in relative abundance.” (30).

Atmospheric Helium
Helium is continuously being released into the atmosphere as it is formed through the disintegration of uranium and thorium in the earth’s crust. This helium cannot escape from the atmosphere. Calculations show that the time required to produce the helium in the atmosphere is approximately 10,000 years. (31).

Petroleum and Natural Gas
Petroleum and natural gas are often contained in underground reservoirs at very high pressures (around 1,500 - 7,000 pounds per sq. inch). Household tap pressure is just 50 pounds per sq. inch. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock reveal that the oil and gas pressures could not be contained for much longer than 10,000 years in many cases.

Short-period Comets
Comets are assumed to be the same age as the solar system. Each time a comet passes by the sun, a small amount of its mass is ‘boiled off’. Calculations show that short-period comets would have totally dissipated in about 10,000 years through this process. To overcome this problem, it has been proposed that a large group of comet material exists at a large distance from our sun and that an asteroid passes by occasionally, pulling by means of gravitational force at least one lump of the material from the group. The comet material is called the 'Ort Cloud'. A problem for the theory is that gravity does not act in a selective manner so as to grab just one or a small number of comet material. (32).

Saturn’s Rings
Many astronomers who are evolutionists are puzzled by the beautiful rings around Saturn, because they know they could not remain in place for billions of years. They could only remain in place for, at most, 100 million years. It has been suggested that the rings were formed relatively recently through the collision of a moon with a comet, however, Astronomer Wing-Huan Ip, from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy says such a ring-forming collision could not happen in less than 30 billion years. (33).

The Speed of Stars
The stars of our galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic centre at different speeds, the inner stars rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are fast enough to make our galaxy a featureless smear of stars if it were more than a few hundred million years old, yet evolutionists claim our galaxy is at least ten billion years old. Evolutionists call this the ‘winding-up dilemma’ and try to solve the problem with a complex theory of ‘density waves’. The theory has conceptual problems, and is not confirmed by observation. This dilemma also applies to other galaxies. This dilemma does not exist for those who accept the galaxies as being recently created. (34).

Starlight and Time
Astronomy is one branch of science where some observations can be quite puzzling for many years before an answer to the mystery is found. The strange orbit of the planet Mercury is a case in point. Mercury has an elliptical orbit which very slowly changes over time. Scientists did not understand why. Some settled on the idea that there was an unknown planet close to the sun which always remained out of view on the other side. The planet was even given a name, it was called 'Vulcan'. It was an uncomfortable idea because a planet close to the sun, like Mercury, would have a short orbital period. Therefore it could not possibly remain hidden.
With the advance of science, it became clear that the strange motion of Mercury can be explained by Einstein’s theory of relativity. It turns out that space and time are warped significantly in the vicinity of the sun. When Einstein’s theory is factored in, the orbit makes sense. (35).
Other observations are also hard to understand without the application of advanced physics. For instance, why is the temperature of the observable universe the same in all directions? According to ‘Big Bang’ model cosmology, the ‘Big Bang’ occurred 13.7 billion years ago. The problem here is that it takes much longer than the 13.7 billion years for light, and therefore heat, to travel from one side of the universe to the other. That means there should be hot spots left over from the ‘big bang’. But there is an absence of hot spots. So how did the temperature even out so quickly?
There is another problem. If the universe was created by God around 6,000 years ago according to the biblical time frame, then we should not be able to see stars at distances greater than 6,000 light years if the universe has always been the same as it is now.
The 'if' is very important because the universe has not always been the same as it is now. Near the beginning of its existence, the universe went through a period of rapid expansion. The Bible tells us in several places that God stretched out the heavens, "... I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens..." (Isaiah 44:24), See also Isaiah 45:12, 51:13, Jer. 10:12, 51:15).
Scientific investigation in recent years is now revealing to us what effect the rapid expansion of the universe has had on our ability to see distant stars in a universe which is less than 10,000 years old. John Hartnett who is an associate professor in the field of physics has built on the work of secular cosmologist, Moshe Carmeli to more comprehensively understand on a universe wide scale what happens to time when the universe undergoes rapid expansion. He has released his findings in technical journals. Furthermore, he has produced a book which can be understood by the intelligent layperson titled, “Starlight, Time and the New Physics”. Those who have a degree in maths will get further help from the appendices at the back of the book.
Those who have taken at least a casual interest in Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity will know that under certain conditions, strange things happen which are not observed in every day life. For instance, with very sensitive instruments, it can be shown that time is affected by gravity. The force of gravity on a plane at high altitude is less than the force at ground level by a very minute amount, but the effect can be registered by very accurate atomic clocks. The atomic clock on the plane will run slightly slower than an atomic clock at ground level.
Time is also affected by high velocity. John Hartnett has shown in his technical papers that a rapidly expanding universe with our milky way galaxy at or near the centre will result in time advancing very very slowly on earth in comparison to the rest of the universe. That means (from our perspective on earth), time becomes available for light to travel large distances (billions of light years) to our telescopes on earth. It also means there is enough time for heat to be evenly distributed throughout the universe. So both problems are solved when the right physics are applied.
The above explanation is not enough to do this subject justice, so I will encourage the reader to obtain a copy of “Starlight, Time and the New Physics” by Dr. John Hartnett. It is a good read without having to digest the heavy maths in the appendices at the end.
For more information on the age of the earth, go to: www.creation.com/age-of-the-earth
The fact that we can see starlight which has originated from great distances does not give support to the theory of evolution. Furthermore, the history of the theory of evolution is not as simple or as glorious as many are led to believe.
Top

Having looked at the scientific problems for the theory of evolution. We will now look at its history.

The Founding Fathers of the Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution was known, shortly after its inception, as the Darwin-Wallace theory. Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) made a substantial contribution to the theory in 1855 with the publication of his paper, “On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species”. That's four years before Darwin published his famous book. An additional contribution was made in 1858 with the publication of his paper titled, “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type.” In this paper he explained the key to the theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest is the means by which change is brought about. Wallace is therefore clearly the true originator of this theory. Charles Darwin (1809-82) who received a copy of this paper quickly published his own work the following year (1859) titled, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Darwin plagiarised (stole) a lot of material from Wallace, and even the title came from Wallace’s paper. Darwin acknowledged the work of Wallace in the sixth edition of his book, he says, “The third volume of the ‘Journal of the Linnean Society’ contains papers, read July 1, 1858, by Mr. Wallace and myself, in which, as stated in the introductory remarks to this volume, the theory of Natural Selection is promulgated by Mr. Wallace with admirable force and clearness.” (36).
So why didn’t Wallace get the credit for the theory of evolution? Part of the answer lies in the fact that he was not well accepted in class-conscious England because he belonged to the lower class. A further embarrassment for those wanting to promote the theory was the eventual involvement by Wallace in spiritism (the occult) and his development of extreme socialist views. The name Wallace had to be dropped from the theory to give it credibility. Darwin was pleased to take full credit for the theory.
The wealthy and the powerful loved Darwin and his theory because it gave legitimacy to any greed that they may have had. The Bible teaches the importance of looking after the weak and needy. Now it is okay to trample on the weak and become more powerful.
Darwin gets more attention than he deserves. The big discovery in science in the area of origins is ‘plasticity’ as explained by the Rev. W Herbert. Yet Herbert is not well-known.
We see many examples of plasticity, but not of evolution. Quite often the word ‘evolution' is used by the media when ‘plasticity’ better describes what is happening. Take for instance the various strains of viruses which cause the flu. The flu is difficult to combat because it keeps changing shape. Sometimes it is claimed the virus is ‘evolving’. If evolution were true, viruses would be better off than humans because we take around 25 years to produce the next generation. Viruses on the other hand go through many generations in that period of time. With a slight change in every generation, they could make great advances. It would be wonderful for us humans if viruses were evolving because as they evolved into larger creatures, they would be forced to leave our bodies, leaving us virus free. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen because the genetic code for virus will not allow it to change into anything else. Plasticity will allow a virus to change into a different form of virus, but just as a frog can never change into a kangaroo, so too, a virus can never change into something like a flea.

Arguments for evolution
Darwin’s Finches
Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands in 1935. He found what he later claimed to be evidence of slow and gradual change in finches over a long period of time. Darwin noticed the thickness of the beaks of some finches were thicker than others. When Darwin began to form his theory of evolution, he correctly took this to be evidence that changes could come about in later generations from a small group or even a single pair of birds or animals. However, with the advantage of hindsight, we now know that evidence of small change is not necessarily evidence of large change.
Modern science has challenged the above view that the thickness of the beaks of the finches progresses in a straight line. It now reveals that the straight line should actually be a circle. The finches will, over a short number of generations, go from having a thin beak to a thick beak, and later go back to a thin beak, determined by such factors as the type of food available. The finches provide us with evidence of plasticity, not evolution. More than one hundred years after Darwin visited the islands, the finches steadfastly remain finches. There is no evidence that the finches can change into a more powerful bird such as an eagle. The finches provide us with evidence of plasticity, not evolution.
One science reporter states, “In 1967 finches were introduced to Southeast Island, about 160 km (100 miles) southeast of Midway Island in the Pacific Ocean. Over the next twenty years the birds spread to three small neighbouring islands and continued to breed. When studied in the mid 1980s the finches on different islands were found to have different beak shapes. This could not have been produced by random mutations in only 20 years. However it could have happened if changes in the diet merely activated or deactivated genes that controlled the size of beak and jaws. Such non-evolutionary adaption is the most likely explanation of Darwin’s Galapagos finches.” (www.creationresearch.net).

The peppered moth
Most people will have seen this argument in their high school science text book. In summary, the argument goes like this. In a situation where both light and dark moths rest on the trunk of a tree which is mid-tone in colour and hue, then both the dark and light coloured moths will be equally vulnerable to predatory birds. If however, soot from heavy industry should cover the trunk, making it darker, then the dark moths will not be so visible to predators. That results in the light coloured moths becoming more prone to attack from the birds. It is possible that all of the light coloured moths could get wiped out, but the dark moths would survive. This is presented as an example of ‘survival of the fittest’, a core belief of the theory of evolution.
Survival of the fittest is the mechanism according to Wallace and Darwin by which one species turns into another. By slow gradual incremental steps, pond scum develops into butterflies, dinosaurs, elephants and whales. Even professors. There is a serious problem with the above ‘survival of the fittest’ scenario. Even when I was a teenager in high school, I could see a problem with this theory of evolution story when it was presented to the class. The loss of the light coloured moths results in a loss of genetic information in the gene pool for the moths, not a gain.
To go from a simple creature to a more complex, you need an increase in the genetic information, not a loss. On this point, another problem presents itself. Where is the genetic information going to come from? When a software company such as Microsoft employs people to write the code for various programmes, it does not employ just any person who can tap the keys on a computer keyboard. It makes sure the person knows what unique arrangement of code is needed to perform a particular task. Only God knows what arrangement of code is needed to create a butterfly, an elephant and a whale. Humans have around three billion letters of code which must be in the correct order. The peppered moth story tells us how selection can come about, but selection is not the same as evolution.
In addition to the finches and peppered moths, cane toads have been used as an example of evolution.

Cane Toads
Cane toads (Bufo Marinus) were introduced into Queensland Australia from Hawaii in 1935 to combat scarab beetles (the French’s cane beatle and the Greyback cane beetle). They were having a devastating effect on the sugar cane crops. Unfortunately, the cane toad did not keep to the planned diet. Also, the poison it can eject proved fatal to some of the valuable wild life, so it soon became a pest. The can toad has hopped more than a thousand kilometres (600 miles) from its original colony in Queensland and has reached well into the Northern Territory.
Theory of evolution scientists got excited when they discovered the cane toads at the outer limit of the spread have longer legs than the average. They claimed this fact to be evidence of evolution. Clearly, the thin long-leged toads are mating with the fast toads in their midst because the slow toads have been left behind, but the change will always be small. They will never evolve into kangaroos. The long-leged toads are simply using the genetic material which is available in their group. No new genetic material has been added. It is an example of selection, not evolution.
Top

Earnst Haeckel, German biologist (1834-1919)
According to Haeckel, a theory of evolution advocate, embryos, when they develop, go through stages which are similar to other species. This idea is often termed ‘the law of recapitulation’. According to the theory of evolution dogma, this is evidence that various species have come from a common ancestor. Drawings of embryos showing various similarities were presented in high school text books to advance this story. The drawings and the accompanying story were exposed as being quite false back in 1874. So obviously, the story should have never gone into school text books. According to this theory of evolution story, the human embryo goes through stages which are similar to that of a fish. The folds in the skin of the curled up fetus are claimed to be gill slits, similar to those found in fish. Science does not support the above claim. Dr. David Menton is just one of many scientists who have exposed the errors in this story. He states that at no stage does the human embryo have gills, and at no stage does it have slits. (37). David Menton was an associate professor of anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (St. Lois) for almost two decades.
Wilhelm His, Sr (1831–1904), was a famous comparative embryologist and professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig. He uncovered Haeckel’s fraud. Professor Wilhelm His, “... showed in 1874 that Haeckel had added 3.5 mm to the head of Bischoff’s dog embryo, taken 2 mm off the head of Ecker’s human embryo, doubled the length of the human posterior, and substantially altered the details of the human eye. He sarcastically pointed out that Haeckel taught in Jena, home of the then finest optical equipment available, and so had no excuse for inaccuracy. He concluded that anyone who engaged in such blatant fraud had forfeited all respect and that Haeckel had eliminated himself from the ranks of scientific research workers of any stature.” (38).

Is the theory of evolution good for science?
It is often claimed that the theory of evolution is good for science. But the help is usually something else which is mistaken for ‘evolution’. For instance, as explained at the beginning of this paper, it is helpful to consider ‘adaptability’ when developing an insecticide, but ‘adaptability’ is not the same as ‘evolution’. So evolution should not be given the credit.
The theory of evolution is actually bad for science. It makes assumptions which hinder progress. Organs which did not appear to have any beneficial purpose were considered to be vestigial organs. They had a function in the less developed primitive body, but had become useless in the more highly evolved body. Some of our parts which were considered to be vestigial organs included the appendix, tonsils, coccyx (tailbone), thyroid gland and pituitary gland. With the advance of science, we now know that the above theory of evolution type of thinking is wrong. All the above organs have at least a minor role to play in our well-being.
My uncle once told me the story of a doctor in a country town a few decades back who, because of his theory of evolution beliefs, was happy to rid people of their vestigial appendix. A fat man who drank a lot, and who had the same beliefs, approached the doctor about having his appendix - what he considered to be a liability - removed. The doctor, because of the man’s condition, did not believe he was a good candidate for the operation. The man persisted in his request, but unfortunately the doctor was correct. His patient died on the operating table. In this case, theory of evolution beliefs led to the man’s death.
When scientists discovered DNA which did not appear to have any useful code, it was labelled ‘junk DNA’. Later they discovered the DNA did have useful code. The wrong belief about our origins had led the Atheistic scientists to make erroneous assumptions.

Percival Lowell
Another instance of the theory of evolution being bad for science can be seen from the life of Percival Lowell. Percival Lowell (1855-1916) spent many years observing Mars through a powerful telescope. He believed he could see canals on Mars, this in turn was taken to be a sign of intelligent life on the planet. This theory gripped the public’s imagination. I read a book in the 1960s in which the author claimed he had communicated with a Martian who was wearing a special breathing apparatus. The story was a complete fabrication, but many were not sure at the time what to make of these types of reports. Belief in martians led to the 1960s TV commedy, "My Favorite Martian".
So what happened to all those canals; the signs of intelligent life? Lowell saw more than 700 of them, and gave many of them names. Satellite reconnaissance of the planet in 1972 proved conclusively that there are no canals, furthermore, tests up to this point in time (November 2009) have shown that Mars is devoid of life. Because life can not come about accidentally, any life on Mars would need to have come from Earth, or be a separate creation by God.
Lowell obviously wanted to see signs of intelligent life, so he began to see things which were not there. The above highlights the problem with many reports from scientists. The report can be the result of the bias of the scientist and or the bias of the organisation which is paying his salary, and not the result of the evidence.

Consequences of the Theory
If the theory of evolution is true, then your value cannot be more than the total value of the chemicals in your body, plus the total value of your economic output during your life-time. If you swap the God of creation for the god of evolution, then you must be prepared to accept the new values which your god imposes, and the consequences of your decision.
The god of evolution is a dangerous god to bow to, because at best, he has no values. At worst, his values demand that only the fittest survive; the weak must make way for the strong. The extermination of millions of lives in Hitler’s Germany was the outworking of a Godless dictatorship enforcing evolutionary ideas. Hitler was an evolutionist; his aims were to build a super-race which would rule the world. In addition to the mass murder, at least two million human beings were forcibly sterilised under Nazi rule. The god of evolution sets no standards as to how man is to act toward his fellow man, hence the terrible atrocities in Hitler’s Germany. Might is right and it does not matter if the weak endure terrible suffering, might is still right.
The God of creation (the God of the Bible) says might is not right. He sets a standard for human behaviour. For example, he forbids murder, adultery and theft (Exodus 20:13-15). He establishes the privacy of the home (Deuteronomy24:10-11). The god of evolution does not recognise for instance, the privacy of the home, property rights, or the special value of human life. The God of creation establishes all three.

Scientists Who Believe
Evolutionists often propagate the lie that no true scientist takes creation science seriously. Firstly, it must be noted that Darwinism has not been enthusiastically embraced outside of the English speaking world, further, there are 600 + voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master’s degree in a recognized area of science). Click on link for a brief article and a long list of creationist scientists: Go

Many major contributions to science have been made by world-renowned creationist scientists. Such men include Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) whose contributions to science include the law of gravitation, the invention of the calculus and the reflecting telescope and Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907) who is responsible for the Absolute Temperature Scale. Others include:
Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith (1915-1995) was an eminent scientist who had earned three doctorate degrees in advanced science. He is the author of over sixty books and scientific articles. In some of his writings he has shown why the theory of evolution is not a credible theory. Part of his biography reads:
“Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith fearlessly confronted the seemingly all powerful theory of evolution in the universities and churches all over the world.”
“A.E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. ... At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich. ... he was appointed Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Centre. Here he received in three succeeding years - three ‘Golden Apple Awards’ for the best course of lectures, together with four senior lecturer awards for the best series of year lectures.
Dr. Wilder-Smith’s last Golden Apple award was inscribed, “He made us not only better scientists, but also better men.” (http://www.wildersmith.org/biography.htm)

Professor Leonid Korochkin (1935-2006) from Russia had earned three doctorates in biology and genetics. He used his extensive knowledge to show the failure of the theory of evolution. He was:

Head of the molecular biology laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Professor of Genetics at Yale University.

German-British researcher Ernst Boris Chain who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work with penicillin says, “The principle of (divine) purpose ... stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks ... the probability for such an event as the origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just too small to be seriously considered...” Also, William D. Phillips believes science points to God. Philips won the 1997 Nobel Prize in chemistry for using lasers to produce temperatures only a fraction of a degree above absolute zero. “Phillips once quipped that so many of his collogues were Christians he couldn’t walk across his church’s fellowship hall without ‘tripping over a dozen physicists.’” (39). Dr Yves Bergeron who is adjunct professor in the Department of Medical Biology at Laval University in Quebec City says, “ ...that though he studied ‘all the evolutionary hypotheses’ at school and university, he never really believed in the evolutionary story. ‘Even if you add billions of years, it makes no sense that all these things got organized by themselves without the intelligence of the Creator.’ For Yves, a world created in six ordinary-length days a few thousand years ago makes perfect sense of the data of the real world.’” (40).

We must now look at the main arguments put forward by three men who are arguably the most prominent advocates of the opposite view. The three men I have chosen are Charles Darwin for obvious reasons. Thomas Huxley, because this contemporary of Darwin advanced an argument in favour of the theory which was helpful for its advancement. The third person is Richard Dawkins. In recent years, Dawkins has gone on what appears to be a desperate campaign to win people over to Atheism and theory of evolution thinking. Many Atheists look to Dawkins for inspiration ahead of any other person. I will deal with Huxley and his argument last because it is the most vital of all the arguments, and also for those who don’t like maths, the most complicated. You can skip that section if you wish.

Arguments from prominent evolutionists
Firstly a little background. When Darwin and Wallace put forward their view on the origin of species, it formed a third major view. The three views were:

God created all species in an immutable (unchangeable) state. This was the predominant view.
God created many species in a highly plastic condition so that many varieties could spring from the originally created animals and plants.
From very simple animal and plant forms, all of the animals and plants have evolved.

As can be seen from the above, Darwin was taking an extreme view when he went beyond the second point and theorised on a tree of life which has all kinds of animals as descendants of a primitive ancestor. The evidence of science is not with either of the extreme positions, but with the middle position. That is, God created some animals and plants in a highly plastic condition (high amount of genetic information) so that a rich variety could come from the original much smaller variety.
Evidence for the middle position comes from several quarters, take for instance the breeding of dogs. A documentary titled, “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” was aired in the UK by the BBC in August 2008. It exposed the harm that is being inflicted upon many pedigree dogs because of poor breeding practices. Many dogs are bred for a particular look and shape which is detrimental to their well-being. Pure breeds on the whole, do not enjoy the same healthy long life that cross breeds enjoy. Problems include, rheumatism, back problems, dislocating knee caps, eye injuries from bulging eyes, breathing problems, high incidence of cancer and syringomyelia (SM). That last problem is the result of the skull size being too small for the brain. A dog with SM can end up in terrible pain. The only cure is radical skull surgery or the destruction of the dog.
A question which needs to be considered now is what happens genetically to modern purebred dogs. Are the dogs gaining genetic information when they are moving toward a desired shape and temperament? The answer to that question is a resounding, No! The BBC programme reports, “Imperial College London recently looked at ten different dog breeds, they found that only 10% of the genes they had forty years ago have made it into today’s generation of dogs, 90% have been lost.” (Pedigree Dogs Exposed). I don't think that figure should be taken literally, but the point is still clear. The evidence from science points to God creating an original dog kind which was rich in genetic information. When a dog breeder for instance aims for a small dog, he eliminates the large dogs and chooses the small dogs for breeding. Through this process over many generations, a small dog is achieved. At the genetic level, all of the genes which programme for a large dog have been eliminated from the collective gean pool of the small dog breed which has been created. A dog breed is not simply the result of gene selection, but also of gene elimination. Some of the genetic material which is lost could include that which is helpful in guarding against such things as rheumatism and cancer. Darwin’s pond scum to elephant and man type of evolution requires a lot of useful genetic code being added to the pond scum code, but science does not support the view that complex new organs can develop by adding code in an accidental fashion. In fact, a clever group of scientists could not come up with a fully functioning air breathing animal of any shape or colour by experimentally adding genes to pond scum in less than 300 billion years. If you think that is an exaggeration, take a look at the maths further down. Not only is Darwin’s view extreme in comparison to William Herbert’s middle view, it was presented to the public through his book with highly imaginative evidence. Most of the evidence relates to similarity. We are to believe that because an ape is similar to humans in many respects, it is therefore our relative. However, as explained at the beginning, similarity is not proof of common ancestry. Darwin knew the fossil record did not support his view. The evidence of the transitional fossils were missing in his day, and 150 years later, they are still missing.

Richard Dawking
Some of the arguments put forward by Atheists are not all that impressive, even some of those put forward by a Professor. Many of the arguments put forward by Professor Richard Dawkins could be answered by a smart High School student. For instance:
He has made the false claim that no true scientist is a creationist (someone who believes God created life). That claim is patently false because high ranking scientists have challenged Dawkins theory of evolution ideas in public debate. Dawkins has written a book titled, The God Delusion. As the name suggests, he argues that God does not exist. Dawkin’s book has enraged believers such as Terry Eagleton, the Professor of English Literature at Manchester University. In comments published in the London Telegraph he complained Dawkins’s book contained “vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince”. Rival science writer Professor Stephen Jones who wrote the best seller, “The Single Helix” said of Dawkins book, “... it was depressing to see the forces of irrationality coming back again”. Jones is the Professor of Genetics at University College London. (42). Dawkins can write a book with simplistic arguments attacking the existence of God, but can he go to a laboratory, put together some ingredients within a specially designed shell, then place his ‘seed’ in soil, water it, and watch it grow up into a plant? Hardly likely. On just this one point, God wins, Dawkins fails. An important part of the theory of evolution story is the claim that mutations are the means or at least a means by which changes are made to the genetic code. Dawkins was once asked in an interview to provide an example of a mutation adding useful information to the genetic code. He thought long and hard for an answer to the question, but in the end, he could not give even one example. (43). Clearly, Dawkins was exercising a blind faith in mutations. Whatever view people take on mutations, it should be based on the scientific evidence and not on a story which is designed to cover large holes in the theory of evolution.

Bad Design Argument
Dawkins, in an interview on 03 March 2010 with Fran Kelly, the ABC Radio National Breakfast host (Australia), made the claim that he had evidence that mammals are not designed because all mammals have a nerve (Recurrent Laryngeal nerve) that starts at the brain and goes down into the chest cavity, loops around a major artery and travels back up to its destination, the larynx (voice box). He makes the claim that for humans, that long journey is ridiculous, and for a giraffe, it is ‘mega ridiculous’. If there really was a God, he would not do it that way.
Atheists have fallen on their faces many times with the, ‘We don’t understand what this is for, therefore it proves there is no God.’ I am surprised that Dawkins still persists with that line of argument.
In the past, evolutionists have claimed the human body had many ‘evolutionary leftovers’. This idea arouse out of ignorance concerning the function of many organs. For instance, the appendix and the tonsils. The term, ‘Junk DNA’ was given to DNA which appeared at the time to have no useful function. All of the above have now been found to have a useful function. Dawkins has fallen into the ignorance is evidence error. He does not understand why the nerve needs to be so long, so lack of understanding becomes the basis for his argument.

Double Edged Sword
Dawkins argument is a double edged sword. As an Atheist, Dawkins believes every nerve and organ in our body just happens to be the right size and in the correct place through chance random processes. If chance random processes are so clever, how come it got one nerve wrong? God, the designer and creator of the universe and everything it contains, obviously has a reason for the nerve travelling down into the chest cavity which man has yet to discover. Dawkins and his fellow Atheists are not likely to be in any hurry to find a complicated answer to the above problem. To do so would only add another nail to the Atheist’s coffin.

Climbing Mt Improbable To overcome quite large scientific obstacles to the theory of evolution, Dawkins talks about ‘climbing Mt Improbable’. His argument is very clever, but not sound. Basically, his argument goes like this. We are to imagine the progress from microbe to man as being like climbing a tall mountain. Going from the base straight up a cliff face is very difficult, but if we start a long way back from the mountain and choose to go up a gentle slope, moving forward inch by inch, then we slowly climb, increment by increment, until finally we reach the top. By this approach, big problems can disappear if you just chop them up into small enough pieces. With this line of thinking, someone could put forward the claim that a man could hit a golf ball from this galaxy across to the next. The many objections to the idea are overcome by:

Ignoring a lot of scientific facts.
Then claiming that by driving the golf ball forward 100 metres or so at a time, then slowly, increment by increment, you will get that ball across to the next galaxy.

Now lets add some missing scientific facts:

The golf ball will not continue in the direction of the target galaxy because gravity will bring the golf ball to the earth.
Even if we ignore that scientific fact and imagine the ball staying put in the intended direction of travel, there are additional scientific facts which will prevent any man from driving a golf ball increment by increment to the next galaxy.

The theory of evolution story which has microbes turning into men can only gain respectability when a lot of scientific information is ignored. It is not only science which must be ignored, but also recent history. Atheism, along with theory of evolution thinking, was of no benefit to Hitler and his people, neither was it of any benefit to Stalin and his people. Both Germany and Russia suffered badly because their rulers did not believe they were accountable to God. They could do to others as they pleased.

Thomas Huxley, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, played a key role in the promotion of the theory of evolution. An argument put forward by Huxley which was very convincing in the eyes of many at the time, was what we could call the ‘ random chance event argument’. Huxley claimed that if monkeys typed away on typewriters for a large period of time, eventually one of them could accidentally produce a sonnet of Shakespeare. In like manner, life could form, or a significant new organ could come into being through a chance random event. This argument has to be shown to be sound, otherwise the key pillar to the inorganic matter to life, and microbe to man theory of evolution collapses. One way put forward to overcome problems with the theory is to ‘just add time’.

Just Add Time
Part of the theory of evolution story involves the belief that many of the difficulties with the theory can be solved with time. Vast amounts of time are needed to make the story seem plausible. If a complex structure is encountered, just add more time because with plenty of time, the difficulty will resolve itself. The problem with the above idea is that there is no such thing as an unlimited amount of time as far as this universe is concerned. According to ‘big bang’ cosmologists, the ‘big bang’ occurred around 13.7 billion years ago. That means, we can not go back any further in time. The future of the universe is also limited. All of the stars have a limited lifespan. Our sun has been claimed to be half way through a ten billion year lifespan. On the scale of human history, that is a long period of time, but on the scale of time needed for 1,000 letters of DNA code to randomly change places until they are in the right order, even 300 billion years is far too short a period of time. It is sobering to consider the fact that the human genome is 2.8 billion letters long. For a detailed treatment of the mathematical impossibility of the theory of evolution, see my paper, “The Mathematical Impossibility of The Theory of Evolution” available at www.defenceofthefaith.org

The Bible has the answer to the origin of life
While there are many brilliant men who are creationist scientists, it is not to any of these men that we look for the answer as to how God created the universe, but to His Word, the Bible. Actually, science owes a great deal to the Reformation and the determination of men to seriously study the Bible. Before the reformation, priests would interpret the Bible in whatever way they felt was right at that very moment in time. It was regarded as a mystical book, and was therefore given mystical interpretations.
Under the teaching of such men as Martin Luther and John Calvin, people came to understand that the Bible has a clear message which does not change, and which must be taken seriously. From this message, people came to understand that one triune God who rules the universe has one set of physical laws which do not change, and which therefore can be studied and relied upon. England and later America made considerable advances in understanding the Christian faith. Furthermore, they both made considerable advances in science. Other countries such as India and China did not advance greatly in science. Their belief in many gods did not give them the certainty and stability that comes from faith in one God who has one set of laws in place for the whole universe.
From the Bible we learn the following about creation:

God created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1).
He created all things including matter, energy, and the laws of science which man has striven to understand in order to advance his welfare (Eph.3:9, Col. 1:16, Heb.l:2, Rev. 4:11).
He created the laws of psychology. Those who break the laws of psychology, particularly in some moral area invariably pay a high price (1 Cor. 6:18).
The Bible outlines the stages of creation, the fact that on day one, God created light. Day two, the sky. Day three, the land appears, etc. (See Gen. 1:1-31). Special mention is made of the creation of man who is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). Man has been given dominion over the earth by God (Gen. 1:26).
Man, because of his divine image is very special to God. Animals can eat their food on the ground, but man must keep his food clean. Man, in contrast to the animals, must prepare much of his food by cooking. Man is the only creature who can engage in complex thoughts and tasks. Only mankind can communicate in a sophisticated manner with other humans. He is the only creature who can bow in prayer to God his maker. Adam and Eve initially lived in a very beautiful world which is described by God as being ‘very good’ (Gen.l:31).
It could be asked at this point, ‘Why do we see death, disease and violence in the world today if God had originally created the world as a place which is described as very good?’ The Bible informs us that these things came into the world through the rebellion of Adam and Eve against God. Adam was strictly warned not to eat from a certain tree; if he should eat from the forbidden tree, ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’, he would die (Gen. 2:17).
Adam and Eve decided to go their own way and eat from the tree, with the consequence that they died spiritually - died spiritually to God. The process of physical death began on that day also. Adam eventually died at the age of 930 years (Gen. 5:5).
The divine image suffered also, man no longer reflects perfectly the beautiful high standard of his maker. The image has been corrupted by sin with the consequence that man now has a tendency toward selfishness, greed, jealousy, hatred etc.
In addition to this direct harm which has been brought upon man as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve, God brought judgment upon the earth, so that man, from the time of the rebellion, has to work hard to provide for himself (Gen. 3: 17-19). Put simply, the earth is no longer a paradise because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Humanly speaking, man has been left in a hopeless situation, but God is determined to bring a great number of people back into a relationship with himself, and to renew the whole world (Rom. 8:20-21).
Adam brought sin and death into the world, but Jesus Christ has brought righteousness and life into the world through his righteous life and obedience to the Father, an obedience that went to the extent of dying a cruel death on the cross in order that those who trust in his righteousness and in his punishment for them, might be saved from the judgment which they deserve for their sins against God. God has sealed this salvation for those who trust in Christ by raising him from the dead. You can learn more about this wonderful salvation by reading one of the gospels in the Bible.

The Advance of Science
With the advance of science, it is becoming more and more evident that the earth and all living things upon it are the result of God’s special creation. Consequently, scientists are continuing to abandon the theory of evolution. Many books in recent years have been produced, revealing from scientific evidence that everything we see is the result of a very intelligent designer. If the information in this article is new to you, then I recommend that you read further. The books listed below in the ‘Recommended Reading’ guide are chosen for their interest value, and their ability to be easily understood by the average reader. All of the listed books are available in paperback from specialist creation ministry stores, or from well stocked Christian book stores.

The overwhelming evidence is that God created animals and man. From his creation we can know what God is like. For instance, we know that he appreciates beauty from the beauty of his creation. We can see that he is very clever from his complicated designs. We can tell from the fact that he has created humans who communicate with each other that He is a communicating God. If he is a communicating God, then it is logical that he has communicated with us. The question then arises, “Is there any point in history when God has clearly communicated with mankind?” That question is answered in the paper, “The Objectivity of The Faith: A faith with a firm foundation” (PDF version, 10 pages). Objectivity.pdf

An addendum has been added to this article since its initial completion. In this section I plan to post material from the latest scientific discoveries which are pertinent to this subject.

Addendum
As more scientific evidence comes to light which points to problems with the theory of evolution, it will be added to this section.

Synthetic Life
In May 2010, various news sources announced that a team led by Dr J. Craig Venter was successful in creating synthetic life. Just what this team of scientists have achieved and failed to achieve is worth investigating because some of the less informed in the general community think that many years back, scientists created life. That idea is quite wide of the true facts. The creation of synthetic life is well short of creating true life. In the context of the theory of evolution debate, we find that:
The creation of synthetic life can not come about by accident. You can not for instance, get synthetic life by throwing billions of pieces of DNA into a blender containing some liquid, and then run the blender all night to get a good unique fully functioning string of code which will sustain life. The successful creation of synthetic life by J. Craig Venter and his team did not come easily. From a report in New Scientist (29 May 2010) and various other sources we learn that:

It took a team of scientists (J. Craig Venter and twenty-one others, one of whom is a Nobel laureate) fifteen years to get this far.
The team spent about $40 million to create the synthetic cell.
They synthesised a genome from code contained on a computer. A computer being a very sophisticated device requiring lots of intelligent input in order to be created and work successfully.
Dr Venter makes the point, “We did not create life from scratch: we transferred existing life into new life. Nor did we design and build a new chromosome from scratch”
The team made use of what God provided. The real genius is the God of the Bible who not only designed and created bacterium from scratch, but plants, insects, birds, fish, animals and man.
The team has found that the DNA code has to be accurate. In a situation where the code has been stripped down to the most basic, there is little room for errror. Just one letter wrong in one million can lead to the failure of the organism. That is a severe blow to the theory of evolution story because mathematical calculations show that the correct arbitary arrangement of just 1,000 letters of DNA code can not happen in under 300 billion years. That is far longer than the age of a ‘Big Bang’ model universe - which is estimated to be less than twenty billion years. (See my paper, The Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution).

Switches
As science progresses, things only get worse for the Atheist who prefers that the inner workings of life be simple in order to maintain the view that the machinery of life is the end result of a series of accidents (mutations) in the genetic code. A further level of complication to the genetic code can be seen in the role of switches which switch on or off various bits of the genetic code.
A significant advancement in our understanding of the role of switches came to light in September 2012. One science reporter states, “The more we learn about the human genome, the less we seem to know about what all that DNA actually does.” She goes on to say, “After the genome was sequenced, another major project was launched to try to understand which bits of the genome do what. The results, released this week, reveal that our genome is far more complex and mysterious than biologists imagined just a decade ago. ... We see way more switches than we were expecting, and nearly every part of the genome is close to a switch. ... The way in which these switches work is also turning out to be vastly more complicated than thought.” This all points to the great genius of our creator God. The vast amount of evidence revealing complicated design was not lost on the man who was the world’s foremost Atheist.

Antony Flew
Antony Flew (Feb. 1923 – Apr. 2010) was the world’s foremost Atheist. If you wanted to get all the best arguments to back your claim that there is no God, you had to read Antony Flew’s books. Flew taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, Reading, and at York University in Toronto.
Flew was of the view that Atheism should be the starting position for any person and that any move from that position must be based on evidence. The view that evidence is required appears to be a safe position for the Atheist because God is Spirit, which means he can not be directly seen. Flew engaged in several debates with Theists who argued that there is evidence of God’s existence in his creation. Furthermore, the evidence is compelling, especially when the fine detail of microbiology and the laws of the universe are examined. Flew’s response was always to argue that there was not enough evidence. However, as the evidence from science continued to mount, Flew found that he could no longer logically maintain his position. He contacted Gary Habermas, a friend and debating adversary in 2004, and confessed to him that he had changed his position. When word got out, it sent shock waves through the Atheistic community because he was in a sense, the captain of their team. He subsequently wrote a book with some input from Roy Varghese titled, “How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”. That book is listed in the reading guide at the end of this paper.

The magnetosphere
There is clear evidence of design regarding the way the Earth is protected. The Earth has a magnetic field which extends out into space from the north and south poles and wraps around the Earth. The magnetic field deflects harmful solar wind safely around the Earth, creating a protective shield called the magnetosphere. The How It Works Book Of Space reports, “Without this protection, life on Earth could not exist.” (2010, p. 20).

The Y chromosome in chimps and humans
The Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “Horrendously different from each other”, David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts reports. The evidence from science, against his theory of evolution thinking, drove him to make that remark. “... Page’s team found that the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa.” Page says, “the relationship between the human and chimp Y chromosomes has been blown to pieces”. (David Catchpoole, Creation, Vol. 33, No. 2 2011. A detailed report on the finding can be found in Nature 463(7278):149, 14 January 2010. and Nature 463(7280):536-539, 28 January 2010). For further information: Go : For more detailed information: Go

I will close with a list of references from the Bible relating to creation, and which will be helpful for Bible study groups or individual study.

Bible References to Creation

God is the creator of heaven and earth. Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 45:18, Amos 4:13, Acts 14:15, 17:24-27, Heb. 11 :3.
The earth belongs to God. Psalm 50:10, Ex. 19:5, Deut. 10:14, Isaiah 66:1-2, Acts 7:49, 1 Cor. 10:26.
Jesus Christ is co-creator with God the Father. John 1:1-3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10.
Creation gives praise to God. Psalm 148:1-13, Acts 2:24, Rom. 1:20.
God is sovereign over the earth. Job 34:12-14, Jer. 27:5.
God gives man dominion over the earth. Gen. 1 :28.
Man is responsible to God for how he treats the earth. Rev. 11:18.
The earth is under a curse. Gen. 3:17-19, is subject to decay. Rom. 8:19-23.
There will be a new heaven and a new earth. Isaiah 34:4, 66:22, Rev. 21:1 -3.

Top

End Notes

Adaption, 5. Biol., “The Macquarie Dictionary”, Macquarie University, Australia, 2nd Ed, 1987, p. 64.
Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species”, 6th Ed.
Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species”, 6th Ed.
Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man”, 1871.
‘Can thermodynamics explain biological order?’, Impact of Science on Society, vol. 23 (3), 1973, p.178. (From “The Revised Quote Book”, Creation Science Foundation, 1990, p. 6.
Ernst Chain, “The Revised Quote Book”, Creation Science Foundation, 1990, p. 6.
Paul Davies, “The Goldilocks Enigma”, Penguin Books, 2006, Preface and Acknowledgements, p. ix-x.
Paul Davies, Cosmos, Issue 14, April/May 2007, p. 48.
“Creation Research”, Newsletter, 22 March 2006.
Nucleotide, Encyclopaedia Britannica, CD, 2004.
Nucleic Acid, ‘World Book Encyclopedia’, Vol. 14, p. 448-449.
Cell, “World Book Encyclopaedia”, Chicago, 1974, p. 250j.
Dr. Chris Smith, Breakfast Programme, Radio National, ABC, Australia, 04 September 2009 at 0637.
“Creation Ex Nihilo”, September 1986, p. 6.
Richard Bliss, “Origins: Creation or Evolution”, Master Books, California, 1988, p. 16.
Creation, June - August 2006, p. 50.
Ian Taylor, “In the Minds of Men”, TFE Publishing, Toronto, 1987, p. 202.
M. Lemonick and A. Dorfman, Time, 12 October 2009, p. 34.
Time, 12 October 2009, p. 35.
Bergman, J. 2009. Human-Ape Hybridization: A Failed Attempt to Prove Darwinism. Acts & Facts. 38 (5): 12.
Ken Ham, "Hid Adam have a Bellybutton?", Master Books, 1999, p. 10.
C. Darwin, “On The Origin of Species”, 6th Ed.
“The Revised Quote Book”, Creation Science Foundation, 1990, p. 10.
Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Murie Curie University in Paris, France, quoted in ‘Creation’, Vol. 31, No. 3, June-August 2009, p. 9.
Eric Partridge, Origins, “A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English”, 4th Ed., Routledge & Kegan, London, 1966, p. 292.
Philip E. Johnston, “Darwin On Trial, IVP, 2nd Ed, 1993, p. 10.
Scott M. Huse, “The Collapse of Evolution”, Baker Book House, Michigan, 1983, p. 19.
“The Collapse of Evolution”, p. 20.
“Exploring the Sciences”, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, Revised Ed. 1968, p. 190.
Paul D. Ackerman, “It’s A Young World After All”, Baker, Grand Rapids, 1986, p. 44. quoting R. L. Wysong, “The Creation-Evolution Controversy”, Inquiry Press, p. 177.
“The Collapse of Evolution”, p. 26.
“The Collapse of Evolution”, p. 28.
“Creation Ex Nihilo”, Sept. - Nov. 1990, p. 40.
Scheffler, H. and H Elsasser, “Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987, pp 352-353, 401-413.
John Hartnett, “Starlight, Time and the New Physics, Creation Ministries International, Australia, 2007, p. 34-35.
Charles Darwin, “On The Origin of Species”, 6th Ed.
David Menton, ‘Lucy: She’s No Lady!’, Answers in Genesis, USA, 2004, DVD.
Russell Grigg, http://creation.com/ernst-haeckel-evangelist-for-evolution-and-apostle-of-deceit.
Chuck Colson, ‘Breakpoint’, The Nobel scientists: what they say about God, “New Life”, Melbourne, 26 Oct. 2000, p. 3.
Carl Wieland, Creation, September-November 2009, Vol. 31 No. 4, p. 18.
"Pedigree Dogs Exposed", Passionate Productions, BBC, UK, August 2008. Also, Catalyst, ABC, Australia, 10 September 2009.
The Courier Mail, 23 December 2006, p. 25.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related
Numerology, "The Guiness Book of Records", 1985, p. 79.
J. Craig Venter, New Scientist, 29 May 2010, p. 3.
J. Craig Venter, Catalyst, ABC TV, Australia, May 2010.

Recommended Reading

Carl Wieland, “Stones and Bones”, Creation Ministries, 3rd Ed. 2006, 31 pages.
Thomas Heinze ,“The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution”, Chick Publications, 2005, 94 pages.
Richard Bliss, “Origins: Creation or Evolution”, Master Books, 1988, 78 pages.
Scott M. Huse, “The Collapse of Evolution”, Baker Book House, 172 pages.
Ian Taylor, “In The Minds of Men”, TFE Publishing, 498 pages. Highly recommended for those who wish to study the subject in detail.
Duane Gish, “Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record”, Master Books, 1985, 277 pages.
Paul Ackerman, “It’s A Young World After All”, Baker Book House, 131 pages.
Henry Morris, “The Troubled Waters of Evolution”, Creation Life Publishers, 1975, 217 pages.
Henry Morris, “Scientific Creationism”, Master Books, 281 pages.
Dr. G. McLean, “The Evidence for Creation”, Co-authors, R. Oakland, L. McLean, Whitaker House, 185 pages.
Philip Johnson, “Darwin on Trial”, IVP Books, 213 pages.
Lee Strobel, “The Case for Faith”, Zondervan, 373 pages.
Douglas Wilson, “Letters from a Christian Citizen”, 111 pages.
Alister Mc Grath, "The Dawkins Delusion".

Recommended Viewing on DVD

“The Voyage That Shook The World”. This is a thorough examination of Charles Darwin, his trip to the Galapagos Islands and the ideas he developed during that trip.
“The Privileged Planet”, (Focus on the Family) This DVD reveals the clever design of the earth and its special place in the solar system. The laws which are in place can not be the result of an accident.
“Lucy: She’s No Lady”, a critique by Dr. David Menton who was associate professor of anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (St. Louis) for almost two decades.

Top

Internet Sites
www.creation.com Go
www.creationresearch.net Go
www.icr.org Go
www.christiananswers.net Go

Fossils
The fosils do not prove the theory of evolution (Institute of Creation Research) - Go
Is there some truth in the dragon myths? Go
In this frankly honest TV programme from the ABC, "Media Watch", false claims about some human bones found on the Island of Palau are exposed. (The 'Media Watch' programme was aired on Monday 22 February 2010. Go

Human origins
An attempt by a Russian scientist to create a Human-Ape hybrid in the 1920s - Go
Lucy, not an early human after all, just ape - Go
Darwin was contemptuous of women. He believed natural selection left women inferior - Go
The population of the world is in accord with the biblical history of mankind Go

Recurrent-laryngeal-nerve
Earlier in this article I tackled Richard Dawkin's argument that the recurrent-laryngeal-nerve is evidence there is no God because, if there is a God, he would not make such a big mistake. I made the point that if scientists discover there is a reason for the nerve descending into the region of the cavity of the chest, then it would be another nail in the coffin of the Atheist. Since publishing this article back in 2009, it has come to my attention that scientists have found evidence of purpose and clever design regarding this nerve. The 'Creation.com' web site has an article dealing with this nerve - Go

Origin of animals
Professor says evidence is lacking for genetic advancement - Go
New evidence shows that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old - Go
Further evidence shows that dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago. - Go
The peppered moths illustration is a desperate and failed effort to prove evolution - Go
A super fast computer called Blue Gene built to find out how proteins fold - Go

The earth and the universe
The age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old - Go
Siccar Point, a rocky peninsula 60 km (40 miles) east of Edinburgh, Scotland has been used as evidence (since the time of James Hutton in the late 18th century) toward the view that the earth is billions of years old . However, a close examination of the site tells a different story. Go
The earth is unique, indicating design by God - Go
There is no evidence that stars evolved - Go
More creation of stars evidence - Go
The multitude of stars align with Bible statements - Go

Recommended Viewing on Youtube
Copy and paste the address into the youtube address bar, or simply click on 'Go'. I have put the youtube clip featuring Dr James Tour in the top position because it is arguably the best critique of the theory of evolution I have come across. Also, it is brief at around twenty minutes.

Dr. James Tour, a synthetic chemist, explains (in a little over 20 min.) why the creation of life without intelligent input is not possible. Go
Dr David Berlinski shows the theory of evolution is at odds with the facts of science (37’41’) : Go
Evolution demolitiion. This is a very good documentary. Find out what Atheists don't want you to discover about the theory of evolution. The last few minutes of the presentation contain beautiful scenery without sound (1hr 01’): Go
The discovery of the complexity of our DNA disproves evolution (50’ 40”): Go
Atheist professor, Dr Richard Lumsden destroys evolution story (7’35”), : Go
Professor Antony Flew, the world’s foremost Atheist becomes a believer in God after being confronted with the amazing complexity of design in life (5’ 5”): Go
‘The God Delusion Debate’ Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox (10’ 02”). Go
The next youtube documentary has a different focus and is long in comparison to most of the others (at 1 hour 44 min). It asks a question about the first book in the Bible, "Is Genesis History?" The answers provided are quite fascinating. Go

Some of the speakers
Dr David Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford University, Rutgers University, The City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Université de Paris. Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. Berlinski has authored books for the general public on mathematics and the history of mathematics. (Dr David Berlinski, Wikipedia).

Professor Antony Flew
Atheists looked to Antony Flew for arguments to bolster their denial of God, but not any more. He found he could not keep arguing against a source for the incredible complexity of design in nature. It rocked the Atheist community when Antony Flew announced his change in position. He subsequently wrote a book with some input from Roy Varghese titled, “How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”.

Top

This html version of the paper uploaded to the Internet on 18 November 2009. A revised and expanded edition uploaded on 01 October 2010. Youtube links included on 01 October 2015. Further information is uploaded when it becomes available, and as time permits.

Aletheia Publishing
Box 641
Albany Creek 4035
Australia
www.defenceofthefaith.org

Can The Theory Of Evolution Survive The Attack Of Science?

Can The Theory Of Evolution
Survive
The Attack Of Science?