The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.
Psalm 24:1-2

Does evolution refute the Bible?
Written by Ronald J. Gordon ~ Published January, 1998 ~ Last Updated, December, 2005 ©
This document may be reproduced for non-profit or educational purposes only, with the
provisions that the entire document remain intact and full acknowledgement be given to the author.

    Few words have created more discomfort for Christians than the word evolution. It has become a reproach to many, for it's basic conclusions would appear to invalidate the fundamental trustworthiness of the biblical record, and hence their own faith. Others simply attempt to compromise evolution with the Genesis account when presented with this formidable adversary. The word evolution came into prominence during the middle of the 19th Century when Charles Darwin issued his controversial work entitled "The Origin of Species" [A] in 1859. He was not the first to suggest an evolutionary approach to resolving the mystery of the beginning of life, but his monumental publication gained a wider acceptance than other researchers. More correctly a naturalist than a scientist, Darwin sailed around the world, making observations about plant and animal life in the various regions which he visited. His conclusions drew him to propose an evolutionary hypothesis which directly challenged the stability of both scientific and religious thought, namely that all life 'evolved' from a common ancestral form, instead of the contemporary biblical view that all life forms were the result of a momentary creation. Over the years, evolution widened as a belief system, acquiring many different faces according to the various scientific disciplines which applied it. For this exercise, the word evolution requires a more specific explanation in order to express our singular intent, because many people have varying degrees of understanding regarding what evolution IS and what evolution is NOT. We also need to set forth an underlying principle of what we INTEND to accomplish in this exercise, and at the cost of redundancy, what we do NOT INTEND to accomplish. The above title adequately captures our intention: to review the basic tenets of the hypothesis of evolution, and see if there are valid proofs that will successfully refute the biblical record. Conversely, it is not our intention to unnecessarily extend the length of this work by attempting to prove the complete biblical account of Genesis, nor do we wish to address every facet of the entire hypothesis of evolution, for there is a profound difference between appearance and reality. Many of the suppositions and analogies of Darwinism clearly appear to be in opposition to the record of Genesis. Our energy is primarily concerned with examining whether these proofs can successfully prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the biblical account of Genesis is invalid.

Which evolution?

    There are two different kinds of evolution: Macro suggesting "external changes" whereby all living systems have a common progenitor from which each system has developed because of transitional changes, and Micro specifying "internal change" within the same family or type. For example, Indian elephants have smaller and more pointed heads with smaller ears, whereas African elephants have broader heads with much larger ears. This is an example of a naturally occurring Micro event within the same family. Hybrid corn is another example of Micro evolution whereby different strains have been genetically combined, to produce a new variety of corn that will exhibit different attributes. Micro events occur through a genetic alteration which is observable. Conversely, Macro events have never been observed at any time by anyone, yet they are key to the validation of evolution. The multitudinal array of plant and animal kingdoms are composed of millions of different genera and species, with no indisputable evidence of distinct transitional forms between the major class structures. Without noticeable proofs of these intermediary links, Macro evolutionary reasoning must then educe their past existence, and hold that their problematic absence is a temporary discomfort, an impasse that will hopefully be resolved upon their eventual discovery. Darwin bemoaned this absence, citing it as the greatest challenge to his hypothesis.

    For this study, we focus our attention toward Macro evolution which suggests that "all living systems have developed from a common progenitor through transitional or intermediary changes." As previously stated, we believe that Macro events have never been observed in any form, to any degree, at any time, by anyone. We do stipulate that all living material contains similar DNA or RNA molecules, that only twenty known types of amino acids are found in the protein of all known species, and that immunological reactions in many animals are quite similar. But our fundamental argument persists that molecular similarity between organisms, genetic changes within a class, or biologically similar reactions do not prove that one type of organism has evolved into an entirely new living self-sustaining, pro-creative system. The key to Macro evolution are transitional forms or what the generic student calls 'missing links.'

    The biblical account of creation is contained in the first two chapters of Genesis, and more specifically for this exercise, we are concerned with the passage of Genesis 1:11-25, where the words after his kind are repeated no less than eight times. Here we find the creationist model wherein all life forms were created at one specific time, and given the biochemical means to reproduce according to their own genetically defined type. This manner of creation does not need intermediary forms, because there would not have been a need for transition. This is our fundamental argument with Macro evolution which requires huge transitional leaps from one class or family to another. We will argue that the biblical principle of kind producing after it's own kind is not only persuasive, but still to this day the only process observable, continuously resisting the efforts of time and human initiative to alter it. We further observe that this biblical principle is challenged only with the absolute ingenuity of human desire to circumvent what occurs naturally. Geneticists frequently observe Micro changes within an organism, such as the transformation of a new gene trait from parent to offspring. However, these transformations have never been observed to mutate or 'jump' into an entirely new living, self-sustaining, pro-creative system. Darwin's finches are still finches, mutated fruit-flies after thousands of generations are still fruit-flies. In those very few times when mutation has been successful, the offspring is not a self-sustaining, pro-creative organism. Mules are the mutant offspring between a female horse and male donkey, but as with other mutants they are sterile - genetic dead-ends. Whereas a mutation is supposed to be evolution's answer to the rise of entirely new pro-creative systems, upon actual observation they have tended to be one of the more successful arguments against evolution, because these specimens are routinely sterile, often weak, no friend of the competition in natural selection, and occasionaly dysfunctional.

Classification

	Tiger Swallowtail Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Mammalia Family: Lepidoptera Genus: Papilio Species: Glaucus

    Even the most superficial observation of plants and animals reveals that life forms can be easily grouped together in categories, such as but not limited to dogs, cats, birds, snakes, and insects. An even closer observation reveals that there are many different kinds in each category; for example, large cats and small cats, domestic cats and wild cats, spotted cats and stripped cats. Additionally, there are relationships and uniquenesses within the many different kinds. Taxonomy is the science dealing with the classification of all living things, and most often the student is introduced to the Linnaean hierarchical system or the PhyloCode. It deals with terms and relationships such as kingdom, phylum, class, family, genus, and species. For purposes of comparison, each level is classified with a descriptive word (often Latin), so that all living organisms may be referenced individually, to the exclusion of all other forms. The common name for the yellow butterfly in the photo is Tiger Swallowtail, but this is typically a North American label. In order to share findings about this same butterfly to a foreign researcher in another language and culture, to the exclusion of other life forms, a person must use the family, genus, and species names. By this universal method of classification, the possibility of mistaken identity should be alleviated, except in the most extenuating situations. To insure consistency, something needs to regulate this system of nomenclature so that it will always remain consistent and universal, and this oversight is administered by the British International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. After all the classifying and regulating has been done, something is noticeable missing, at least for the evolutionist. Just at the very moment when nearly every known living organism on the planet has been given a name, the absence of "transitional forms" is all too apparent. There is no clear explanation from any classification table to answer the evolutionary hypothesis of common ancestry. Cats are still cats and whales are still whales, as far back in time as it has been possible to unearth their fossilized remains. Although many species bare strikingly similar attributes to others of the same class or family, there are no animals that exhibit a gradual change between any two. No one can produce a half-dog half-cat variety. Even with the most elaborate charts and taxonomical gymnastics, the preponderant fact still remains that all living forms contain a strong element of distinction. Nearly seventy-five percent of all living animals are insects, and they are more distinct from each other than any other class. How then is it possible for evolutionists to propose a solution of Macro evolution without clear incontrovertible evidence? On those few occasions when transitional forms have been declared, the assertion is based on similarities and conjecture, not incontrovertible evidence.

Mutations and Acquired Characteristics

    Evolutionists propose an answer for materialization from common ancestry through the agency of either character acquisition or mutation. Character acquisition is the oldest of these two which postulates that a distinctive species may acquire new characteristics from generation to generation. At the turn of the Nineteenth century the French scientist, J.P. Lamarck proposed that ducks once had feet much like chickens, but then for some unknown reason decided that they wanted to swim. As they tried to swim with great awkwardness, their desire for larger webs on their feet produced a stretching which was then acquired in the next generation. Over a period of many generations with each successive offspring possessing larger webs, the toes of the ducks eventually became filled with a web between each tip. In other words, wishful thinking causes a real physical change to take place. August Weismann later doubted Lamarcks explanation for he believed that genes control the development of these characteristics, because the act of simply wishing does not easily lend itself to describing the process of transference. Weismann tested the theory by cutting off the tails of day old mice, and then observing the tail length of the next generations to see if there was a measurable difference. No matter how many succeeding generations of mice experienced the forced acquisition of this new character trait, each new-born mouse still had a tail about the same length. [B] In other words, gene information controls the traits that will be inherited by succeeding generations.

    In the early 1800's, the French endeavored to increase the percentage of sugar in sugar beets through a process of isolating those beets with the highest percentage of sugar and using their seeds for the next generation. Year after year large numbers of beets were tested and only the sweetest were used for the next generation. By 1878, the average percent of sugar had, indeed, risen from about six to nearly seventeen percent, naturally convincing researchers that they were finally able to force succeeding generations to acquire new characteristics. Unfortunately, the percentage of sugar in sugar beets has not changed significantly since then because gene information is not affected by character acquisition. [C] What this project really demonstrated was that selection (natural or unnatural) only shifts the array of gene frequencies. In other words, genes that favored high sugar yield were retained as unwanted genes were eliminated, but the amount of yield is proportional to the number of genes retained. Once that number had been reached, the genetic brakes came on and the percentage of yield could increase no farther. Character acquisition does not appear to be the answer to Macro evolution for when this process is put to the acid test it fails predictably. But yet, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, evolutionists continue to plead character acquisition to suggest that a thin skinned, light haired animal from the tropics would actually develop thicker skin and longer hair (over many generations) if moved to the Arctic; that teeth of carnivores (over many generations) would actually grow longer from the necessity of having to kill larger and larger prey; that gills of fish (over many generations) would begin to breathe air if removed from water. All these instances fail to demonstrate a process of character transference from one generation to another, because it is the gene that holds the controlling factors.

    In another attempt to encourage character acquisition, researchers tried to change the number of bristles on the thorax of fruit-flies by isolation. After the flies were temporarily put to sleep, a lab technician would count the number of bristles and place those with the fewest number in a large jar, where they could only breed among themselves. This was repeated after each generation and the number of bristles continued to diminish until about the nineteenth generation when the number remained a constant, no matter how often the experiment was repeated. The genetic brakes came on again. In most breeds of cattle, the production of butterfat can be increased, but only until its genetic limit. For example, it is not very difficult to raise the average butterfat production in a herd of 100 cows from 200 to 300 pounds a year, with the farmer culling the herd of poor producers and breeding among the highest producers. To increase this same herd from 400 to 500 pounds of butterfat per year not only becomes more difficult, it requires diligence with a little bit of luck in breeding. But to increase beyond 500 pounds of butterfat per year is almost impossible. Once again, the genetic brakes come on as one shifts the array of gene frequencies. This lack of change is frustrating to the evolutionist, but is exactly what the creationist would expect.

    Mutation is another facility through which evolutionists propose the transition and proliferation of life. One of the main differences between acquisition and mutation is that we can generally predict the former but rarely the latter. For example, if a plant is placed in the dark it will lose its green color and predictably acquire a different color trait (acquisition). If the same plant is set under ultra-violet light, many of the seeds will be defective (mutation) but no one can reliably predict what will happen to the seeds or the quality of their maturity should they even grow when planted. Mutation has become a holy grail for evolutionists because of the dissatisfying results of character acquisition. Fruit flies have received more radiation than perhaps any other species on the planet. For many years, researchers engaged in a wide variety of radioactive bombardments on these little animals, many experiments of which were to create a distinctively new species through gene mutilation. Unfortunately for both researcher and fruit flies, all that was produced was mutilated fruit flies. No distinctively new, self-sustaining, pro-creative life form was engineered. Additionally, further research has shown that mutants are generally sterile, weak, and rarely able to compete in the process of survival of the fittest. Natural selection usually overlooks, eschews, or destroys these misfits. Even among humans, people tragically shun others with mutant qualities - ask children with freckles. Mules are the mutant offspring between a female horse and male donkey. Mules are unable to produce offspring of their own, except in the most extreme and rare conditions. All male mules and most female mules are sterile. A very small number of female mules have produced young, but only after they were bred to 'male asses' or 'male horses.' These mutants are genetic dead ends but usually referred to as hybrid animals, possibly because this word does not carry the baggage of evolutionary dysfunctionality.

    In all fairness, some mutant or hybrids are beneficial, depending on your interpretation of beneficial. A navel orange is a hybrid fruit resulting from a mutation which creates a depression at the blossom end, that also inhibits the formation of seeds. It is beneficial for the consumer, in that discomfort from seeds is eliminated, but a disaster to itself because it cannot reproduce. Navel oranges survive only because workers graft their twigs into another non-mutant variety of orange tree.

    In the last century when genetic information was poorly understood, evolutionists used character acquisition to bolster their proofs in spite of demonstrable evidence to the contrary, i.e. natural selection and wishful thinking does not transfer to the next generation what only the gene can accomplish. In this century with a veritable explosion in genetic understanding, evolutionists use mutation to bolster their proofs in spite of demonstrable evidence to the contrary, i.e, no matter how often you mutate a species, you fail to achieve a superior, physically stronger pro-creative species. Mutants are sterile derelicts, genetic dead ends that fail to provide convincing proof that single celled life forms evolved into complex plants and animals. Fruit-flies bombarded with radiation will still be fruit-flies. Since the basic evolutionary premise of natural selection maintains that the fittest will, not only survive, but continue these gene traits into their future generations, how then may weak sterile mutants overpower their stronger, more healthier and attractive competitors for breeding rights? These suppositions usually seem contrary to what is actually observed in the field.

The Geologic Column

    Still another tool of developmental investigation is the geologic column. What's a geologic column? If one could extricate a giant cylinder of earth material, beginning at the surface and protruding deep within the crust, one would observe a geologic column. Since this is usually not feasible for great depths, one needs to locate the side of a hill or deep canyon where erosion or violent movement has exposed the same various layers or strata. The concept of a geologic column is attributed to Charles Lyle in about 1830, but over the years, many scientists have vastly improved his work and given new classifications. The major strata are called Proterozoic (before life), Paleozoic (ancient life), Mesozoic (intermediate life) and Cenozoic (recent life). Each name reveals the prevailing evolutionary concept that layers were formed largely due to sedimentation over millions of years with the lowest strata being the earliest. But the distribution of these layers is chaotic, for not all layers appear in the proper sequence in all areas of the earth and many not at all. If all classified layers were placed on top of each other, the resultant column would be over 140 miles high. In actuality, it is never more than several thousand feet, and in some areas the very lowest and presumably earliest strata are fully exposed to the surface. The entire column as represented in many textbooks is rather artificial because they usually incorporate all the layers for the purpose of education. Each layer name represents a different period of time, and each contains fossilized remains of animals that lived during that era. In other words, each level represents a historical record of that age. There is wide disagreement over what the "universal sequence" of the earth should be, plainly because the strata is very different all over the world. Some argue that no two places on the earth have the same column, whereas others contend that like sequences have been found in at least two or more places. Correlation is the name given to this process of comparing strata in different places and then drawing conclusions based on their findings. A movie director commenting on film making recently noted that without video tape, history often becomes an illusion, whereby we sort of 'connect the dots' through various witnesses to try and understand what most probably occurred. In this manner, researchers of various scientific pursuits have carefully studied these exposed layers and tried to connect the dots, by establishing the fossil contents of one strata with that of many other strata. When enough information has been gathered from enough locations, one may then draw reasonable conclusions to surmise what may have happened during the process of earth's development.

    Through the many years of debate, the geologic column has become a weapon of persuasion for both the evolutionist and the creationist. How can the same thing benefit each side, you may ask? Because so much of the information is based on conclusions, analogies, or presumptions. One attribute of the column that is most precious to the creationist is that no transitional forms or missing links appear in the column. At no place, in any observable strata, at any depth, has anyone, at any time, ever observed a preponderance of transitional life forms which are so necessary to the hypothesis of evolution. Transitional forms are the bedrock of evolution, for Darwin's hypothesis supposes that all life forms evolved from one common ancestral form through the processes of character acquisition, mutation, or natural selection. If this is valid, then it would be a reasonable expectation to find a multiplicity of these transitional forms, evenly distributed throughout the historical record of the geologic column. Their absence has driven creationists to argue more persuasively for the biblical record which describes a momentary creation of all life as distinct whole organisms. If a preponderance of transitional life forms existed in the geologic column, it would lend favor to the hypothesis of evolution, and demand greater explanation from creationists. Another frequent peculiarity of the geologic column is the existence of large plants and animals that fully extend through several layers. [D] This lends favor to the creationist model that does not accept the notion of each layer being formed over millions of years, but rather due to a global cataclysm which the Bible calls Noah's flood, arguing that a dead dinosaur cannot stand on it's tail for millions of years. Evolutionists counter that layers must have folded, even if no physical evidence of fault slippage is present. Additionally, fossils representing presumably different ages are often found encased in the very same layer, which is just what a creationist would expect from a global catastrophe. Evolutionists will argue that mixing has occurred between these layers, because they routinely approach these situations with an evolutionary standard of formation in mind. In other words, the main proof of evolution becomes the assumption of evolution.

    Jurassic is another layer classification that was used by film makers in the movie Jurassic Park. Amusingly though, the period of dinosaurs which were generally pictured in the movie lived in the Cretaceous Period rather than the Jurassic. Evidently the moguls in Hollywood did not Understand Dinosaurs or more probably just disliked the title Cretaceous Park.

Darwin Speaks

    Was the geologic column known to Charles Darwin, and did he make any statements concerning it? The answer is yes to both questions. It bothered him greatly that his necessary transitional forms were missing from the known classified strata. Here are a few statements taken from The Origin of Species, followed with a brief summation of his conclusion. Since this work now appears online, we do not cite page numbers for each quotation, because the reader may quickly locate each passage with the search capabilities of their browser (CTRL+F).

    "In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened."

    While describing the process of comparison and ranking a given species, Darwin stipulates to the absence of intermediate or transitional links. He admits that the geologic column is not his closest friend, because natural observation of the strata do not yield the very forms which are so necessary to prove his hypothesis. The key terminology in this section are the words 'analogy' and 'suppose,' for they are much of the basis for his conclusions. Classification and correlation are determined more often by supposition than by observable criteria. In other words, even though evolutionists have not actually found transitional forms, they pretend that they existed because transitions are vital for their purpose. However, assumption is not improper in science, for it is always a tool that lends itself to the serious investigator. Many discoveries and inventions have been the result of imagination that was based on assumption. Our purpose in highlighting this passage is to sustain two points: (1) that Darwin was aware of the lack of transitional forms, and (2) that he depended to a great deal on analogy.

    "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

    I look at the geological record as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines."

    Darwin refers to the lack of transitional forms in the geological record numerous times in his monumental composition, and it would not be advantageous to cite each one. Therefore we focus our attention on those several passages wherein a new concept is introduced. Here it is 'imperfection.' Darwin literally blames the ground for not recording what he thinks should have been there. We say this not in sarcasm but in amazement, for here is a learned individual who bemoans his predicament without considering that maybe his basic assumption is the reason for his disappointment. Researchers should be free to utilize the advantage of supposition in order to propel their investigation into new paths of discovery, but one must be careful that self-delusion does not accompany the process. Is it not entirely probable to suggest, that the reason why the ground will not yield Darwin's transitional forms is because it never possessed them?

    Another innovation which Darwin introduces in this passage is what he terms the 'changing dialect' of the geological record. There is truth in this for the earth is not one homogeneous process of uniform activity. Earthquakes occur in some regions but not in others. Asteroids strike in some places but not in others, and likewise other cataclysmic events such as volcanos and floods. We agree with his observation, but we disagree with his conclusion. If Macro evolution is genuine and the earth contains millions of different living plants and animals, then the number of transitional forms would have been enormous, and to a far greater degree than the earth may conceal under a paradigm of changing dialects. The geologic column should be littered with these relics, and their abundance should be the Macro evolutionists most persuasive argument, but their absence in the geologic column is a glaring indictment against the hypothesis.

    "I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory."

    What can we add? Even when the absence of transitional forms has pressed his theory to the point of reconsideration, Darwin tenaciously holds to the theory and dismisses observation to the contrary. He calls the earth poor because it is not able to yield his transitional forms. At the cost of redundancy we say again, is it not reasonable to conclude that the geologic column is unable to produce what it never possessed?

    "On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it."

    "Charged with such links?" Exactly the point we have been trying to make! As stated previously, the number of transitional forms should have been enormous and much of the geologic column littered with these relics. Their super abundance should be the Macro evolutionists most persuasive argument. "Most obvious?" We concur, for the absence of these forms is the 'most obvious' objection to the hypothesis. Darwin was intellectually honest enough to admit this.

Figure 1


Figure 2

    Suppose that you are given a piece of paper with only two objects as depicted in Figure 1: a blue diamond and a yelllow circle with only empty space between them. If asked the question: "What message did the graphic artist intend to convey," it would be natural to conclude that someone drew each geometric shape with the intention of high-lighting their distinctiveness, especially since there is significant emptiness between them. Conversely, if you were given a piece of paper holding the image shown in Figure 2, a blue diamond on the left and a yelllow circle on the right, with a series of transitional shapes in between, it would also be natural to conclude that the graphic artist intended to show the similarities or connectedness of both shapes by high-lighting the evolving nature of each intermediary object. Under examination, most people focus their eyes, to a greater degree, on the middle shapes instead of the diamond or the circle at either end.

    Each of these figures may easily be compared with our two contending philosophies: Figure 1 representing a creation model and Figure 2 representing an evolutionary model. Now at this point it would be logical to ask: "Which figure most closely represents the geologic column?" Since Darwin, himself, intellectually bemoans the absence of transitional forms in the geologic record, we are philosophically admonished to nominate Figure 1 and creation as the most logical solution to the emergence and proliferation of life. Conversely, if the geologic witness revealed a multitude of transitionals, then it would be most logical to align with Figure 2. Here then are we presented with the unreasonableness of evolution, for it requires us to accept an undefined process without clear evidence, plus we are further admonished to eschew the very observable evidence that rests beneath us.

    Additionally, we must learn to appreciate the shear numerical dimension of evolutionary transitions. In Figure 2 we have used twenty intermediary steps between the blue diamond and the yelllow circle. If every form of plant and animal required twenty transitions between their closest progenitor, then the geologic record should contain twenty times the number of specimens that exist today. It cannot be over emphasized how staggering are the number of transitionals which we are pressed to embrace.

    "I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the countless generations of countless species which have certainly existed."

    "Far more imperfect" must be the earth than Darwin had first believed. It is actually perplexing to read the numerous (sic) places where Darwin blames the ground for not yielding what he supposes must certainly have been there. In all candor, why is it so difficult to expect the ground to yield what it has never contained? "Countless...countless" are the species that must have existed. Perhaps Darwin is making this point better than we, for it must be emphasized over and again, how enormous should be the number of transitional animals in the geologic column. But there are none. And the few fossils that have been argued by evolutionists as transitionals is based on pure speculation. The researcher is advised to reconsider at some point, that if plenary evidence from observation repeatedly demonstrates major objections to a hypothesis, perhaps the rider should dismount from a premise that can no longer bear the load. Few people actually realize to what great extent, that Darwin had questions over his own hypothesis, which he occasionally referred to as "grievously hypothetical." [E]

    Modern geologists, paleontologists, and even cosmologists do not use Darwinian terminology ( far more imperfect or extreme imperfection of the geological record or history of the world imperfectly kept ) to describe the present geological column. Rather, these learned men and women look to each strata as a reliable deposit of history. So firm is their passion for reliability, that we are presently encouraged to believe that the geologic column offers us the near exact date of the extinction of the dinosaurs. A cosmic theory growing in popularity suggests that an asteroid struck the earth near the Yucatán peninsula in Mexico about 65 million years ago, that destroyed larger forms of life while depositing its signature as a layer of ash over most of the earth. Humorously called the Blast from the Past, this layer of ash is offered as evidence of an exact record of an actual history event.

    If the geologic column is now a reliable witness of historical events, then why are modern researchers unable to produce these countless finely-graduated organic chains which Darwin insisted must have existed? We suggest the most simple of various answers, the ground cannot produce what it never possessed.

Biblical Sense

    Since faith is generally assumed to be entwined with reading the Bible, may one successfully argue that a discussion of biblical events will make sense apart from the necessity of exercising faith? Yes, certainly. We shall demonstrate the trustworthiness of an ancient witness apart from faith, although believers will most certainly start from a position of faith.

    Charles A. Young published General Astronomy in 1898, a college level textbook that was routinely cited as the authoritative word on astronomical disciplines. Today, it is has little academic value other than amusing reading. Why? Because of concepts such as the following. (1) The heat from our sun comes from it's cooling off (like a burning log); whereas we now know that the heat from our sun results from the changing of 4.2 million tons of matter into energy each second. (2) The solar system was formed according to the Nebular Hypothesis; a concept which is generally refuted. [F] (3) Young believed that dark spots in our night sky were holes through which we look into empty space; whereas now we know that most of the universe is far beyond our own galaxy. Just think of the implications. In less than one hundred years, the best specialized reference material that man can produce is outdated! Although written by a distinguished authority, this textbook offers little more than humorous reading. But the creation account of Genesis is almost four thousand years old, and it stands as a fierce competitor in the modern arena of ideas. Additionally, this record was written, not by astronomers, physicists, cosmologists, or scientists -- but sheepherders. One of the reasons why some Christians are so quick in attempting to compromise Genesis with evolution is because this ancient record so easily lends itself to modern scientific teachings.

    In the following chart, we are NOT equating the biblical record with modern science, but only exhibiting the amazing parallels between the two philosophies.

Figure 3

Genesis	Text	Does Modern Science Teach This?
Chapter 1:3	"Let there be light"	Big Bang of exploding hot gases.
Chapter 1:4	"God divided the light from the darkness"	As rapidly expanding gases began to cool, gravitational forces encouraged a separation of faster hotter gases from the slower cooling darker masses.
Chapter 1:6	"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters"	Cooling matter became planets with an atmosphere.
Chapter 1:9	"Let the waters...be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear"	Atmospheric shrouds began condensing which precipitated oceans in all land mass depressions.
Chapter 1:11	"Let the earth bring forth grass ..seed ..herb ..fruit"	Earliest plant life forms began on land.
Chapter 1:20	"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life"	Earliest animal life forms began in the sea.
Chapter 1:24	"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind"	Complex animal life structures appear on dry land, with genetic instructs to reproduce distinctive offspring, only within their own kind.
Chapter 1:26	"Let us make man in our image"	Humans were the last creatures to appear.
Chapter 1:28	"Be fruitful, ..multiply ..replenish ..subdue ..have dominion"	Humans gained or refined intelligence so that they were able to control other life forms.

    Please understand again that we are not trying to equate the biblical record with modern evolutionary thinking, only to illustrate that it is intellectually unwise for the modern researcher to discount the biblical record as scientifically unreliable. We iterate that the Genesis record is almost four thousand years old, written by sheepherders, and remains a fierce philosophic competitor in the modern arena of ideas. Although many professors dismiss the biblical account of creation as mere fanciful tales, they walk to their classrooms and teach almost the same thing! Modern theories concerning the development of the universe and the subsequent appearance of life needs constant revision, and in less than a century, they may offer us little more than humorous reading.

Conclusion

    After reviewing the basic tenets whereby Macro evolution is suggested to have been the agent responsible for the creation and proliferation of innumerable varieties of life forms, we find that most of the proof clearly rests on analogy, supposition, inference, and processes that cannot be demonstrated. Character acquisition has failed to prove that certain traits can be transferred to successive generations because it is the gene that controls these attributes. Mutation has not adequately explained or demonstrated that mutants can produce healthy, more desirable pro-creative offspring. The geologic column does not record the transitional forms which evolutionists claim must have existed. If Macro evolution is true, then we should clearly expect a preponderance, not scarcity, of information which clearly demonstrates processes whereby one distinctive organism changed into an entirely new, distinctive pro-creative organism. This obvious lack of incontrovertible evidence has been the birth mother of Neo-Darwinism, one more approach to explaining the hypothesis of evolution, by mixing different attributes of older theories into one brand new concept. "Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics which says that organisms do not change with time, with Darwinism which claims they do" — Lynn Margulis [G]

    Our intention in this exercise has been two-fold: (1) to carefully examine the basic tenets of evolution and determine whether observable processes successfully refute the biblical record of creation in Genesis; and (2) to advocate that the biblical record of Genesis is reasonable, sensible, and convincing. Why is it convincing? Because every new birth in the human and animal kingdom still follows the biblical mandate of “Kind producing after Kind,” and the most profound efforts to subvert it constantly results in complete failure and frustration. Every time an infant emerges from the womb the Bible rejoices with one more validation of itsself. Therefore, we conclude that the hypothesis of Macro evolution does not successfully refute the Bible.

Return to Inspiration

Written by Ron Gordon

---

Footnotes

[A]	Charles Darwin, THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES (1859), New York: Mentor Books, 1958.
[B]	William J. Tinkle, HEREDITY: A Study in Science and the Bible, Houston: Zondervan, 1970, pp. 38-39.
[C]	D.S. Falconer, INTRODUCTION TO QUANTITATIVE GENETICS, Ronald Press, 1960, p. 186.
[D]	Boardman, Koontz, & Morris, SCIENCE AND CREATION, Creation-Science Research, 1973, p. 33
[E]	Personal letter of Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, November 29, 1859, published by Francis Darwin, More Letters of Charles Darwin, London: Murray, 1903, p. 126.
[F]	Baker & Fredrick, ASTRONOMY, 9th ed. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1971, and George Gamow, THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE, New York: Mentor Books, 1961.
[G]	Margulis, Lynn cited in THE THIRD CULTURE by John Brockman, Simon and Schuster 1995, p. 133.