Evolution: Science or Creation Story?

The uninformed are sometimes of the opinion that the debate over evolution is about science
versus the Bible. This could not be further from the truth. The modern debate is about
whether or not science itself supports the theory of evolution. This article is about the
scientific problems of Darwinism. In other articles we address the theological aspects of the
debate.

As evidenced by a wave of recent books on the subject, there is a growing uneasiness in the
scientific community about the validity of Darwinian evolution. Many scientists and
philosophers are taking a fresh look at evolution, and based on the latest evidence are raising
huge questions. Indeed, a hard look at the scientific data accumulated since the time of
Darwin in the late nineteenth century, is leading some observers to conclude the following:
The evidence for Darwinian evolution is so fragmentary that it would not command any
respect at all, if it were not for the fact that the evolutionists have agreed in advance to
exclude all thought of intelligent design.

There are, it seems, two definitions of science. One is to look at the facts, test the hypothesis,
and see where it leads you—even if you don't like it. This, of course, is the traditional
definition. But many are now questioning whether evolutionary dogma may have used a
second definition—to start with a definition of naturalism, and look only at the pieces of
evidence which fit that philosophy.

The purpose of this essay is to survey several books on the topic, and to present their
arguments about the growing problems for evolution. The reader is asked, for the moment, to
look at this question as a true scientist would—that is, without a preconceived conclusion.
Rather, examine the evidence as a jurist in a court of law.

Over 700 scientists worldwide have signed a statement of scientific dissent from darwinism.
See this website for the statement and list of signers of the statement: Scientific Dissent
Statement.  

This article is primarily an article about science. But we will examine aspects of the
philosophy behind this debate. We specifically will not draw from the Bible. Yet we
will demonstrate how Darwinists are more closed-minded than Christians.

(Notes: While the terminology used in this essay may be new to some people, the concepts
are not difficult. They are easy enough to be understood by high school students. References
used are by their number listed in the Resource List at the end. For example, all references to
Johnson's book Darwin on Trial are referenced in the text as number 5.)

We have grouped the issues into four categories:

A. Problems w/Darwinian Mechanism

B. Problems of Building Consistent Evolutionary Tree
C. Problems from Unexplained Anomalies
D. Is Darwinism Good Science (or Bad Philosophy)?
Problems with the Darwinian Mechanism
 The Problem of the Obvious
 The Problem of Reverse Complexity
 The Problem of Irreducibly Complex Systems
 The Problem of Survivability of Intermediates
 The Problem of the Missing Models
 The Problem of First Life
 The Problem of Deleterious Mutations
 The Problem of Mathematical Improbability
 The Problem of Cosmology

The Problem of the Obvious

The question of evolution versus creation is fundamentally about this question: Is life the
result of random chance, or is life the result of specific intelligent design for a purpose, by a
magnificent Creator?

On a very elementary level, one is faced with the obvious—that there at least appears to be
intelligent design. Order and design surround us. Famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins in his
1986 book The Blind Watchmaker acknowledges this problem when he admits, "Biology is
the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a
purpose." (7, pg. 76)

When looking at rocks near the bank of a stream one can obviously tell the difference
between a rock that has been randomly formed by the erosion of sand and water, and an
arrowhead. One is the product of natural processes; the other is the product of intelligent
design.

If one asks an evolutionist if the watch he is wearing created itself, he will say no. Such a
conclusion is obvious. But biological systems are vastly more complex than a watch. It
should be equally obvious that a hand, or an eye, or even an amoeba must be designed.

Likewise, when one sees a bird's nest, everyone naturally assumes that there is a bird that
built it. The existence of a computer demands a computer designer. Creation demands a
creator.

The Problem of Reverse Complexity

Biochemist Michael Behe wrote a book in 1996 entitled Darwin's Black Box, The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. The book is a landmark work on the issue of evolution.

In the book, Behe explains that the theory of evolution was formulated on an assumption that
life was built on levels from simple to complex. That is, the earliest forms of life were simple,
and more and more complexity was added as the evolutionary process continued. Further,
this assumption said that modern cellular life is simple, and that complex beings were merely
combinations of simple cells. But since the invention of electron microscopes in the 1950s,
we have been able to look into the cell and see that this assumption, which is fundamental to
evolution, is incorrect.
A single simple cell contains as much data as all the individual letters in the world's largest
library—that's about a trillion bits of information. (10, pg. 110) We are overwhelmed and
awed at chemical coding devices, nucleotides, genomes, neural transmitters, ribosomes, and
the other discoveries, which demonstrate the magnificence of the cell. Life at the
microbiological level is incredibly complex.

The Problem of Irreducibly Complex Systems

Behe further explains that life at the cellular level is not merely complex, but "irreducibly
complex." He explains the idea this way. Take a mousetrap. The trap is actually made up of
several parts that must function together—a platform, a bait catch, a spring, a hammer, and a
holding bar. Each component is necessary for the trap to work. But all of these parts must be
present in the correct way, at the correct strength, at the same time, etc., for the trap to
function. A partially complete mousetrap is not partially workable—it is not workable at all.

All parts of a complex system would have to have developed simultaneously. The problem
for evolution is this, the theory is based on minute independent mutations which do not have
a designed plan. But the very existence of complex systems, with dependent parts, severely
challenges the theory. Could independent, random activity produce irreducibly complex
systems?

In his book, Behe details the chemistry of several complex organic systems, including blood
clotting, cilia, flagella, and immune systems. Each system is delicately interrelated and
complex. So complex, in fact, that given our modern knowledge of biochemistry, evolution
becomes intellectually untenable, if not impossible.

A flagellum, for example, consists of numerous specialized and interrelated parts, working
together as a tiny machine. Such molecular machines defy a Darwinian explanation. An
illustration given by Behe is an animal trap found in the woods. The trap consists of a small
tree bent down to form a spring mechanism. At the top end of the tree is a rope to catch the
prey. And there is a release mechanism allowing the trap to spring when an animal sets foot
in it. If you see such a trap in the woods, you could only conclude that it was intelligently
designed, not a result of accidental processes.

Or consider the human brain. The total number of connections in the human brain is around a
thousand million. Our three pound brain can think, plan, and contemplate the mysteries of the
universe. Its memory can retrieve a name that has been stored for 50 years. How could the
human brain have been created by lifeless matter without the aid of any kind of supernatural
intelligence? One is free to believe what he wants, but we submit that neither common sense
nor analysis supports the idea that complex living systems created themselves from nothing
by chance.

But the issue is even more significant than irreducible complexity by itself. In addition to the
complexity issue, we see that biological systems are also functional. The term that is used for
this is specification. Specification combined with complexity demonstrates purpose, as if
there were a "wiring diagram." Such cannot be generated by unguided natural processes. This
is discussed in some detail by authors Leslie Orgel (The Origins of Life) and various books by
William Dembski.
The Problem of Survivability of Intermediates

A major reason irreducibly complex systems create such a challenge for evolution is the
problem of survivability of intermediate life forms. Evolution says that by a process of
minute changes over very long periods of time, organisms were built up. But evolution
requires that organisms with each minute change survive, that is, the change must have
survival value. In addition to survival, each step in the process must be able to reproduce
itself. Darwin himself stated: "Natural selection can act only by the preservation and
accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the
preserved being."

Looking at each component of the mousetrap example, one can understand that there is no
survival value of each individual component apart from the complete system. Further, for the
system to function, all components must be there together. If even one is missing, or is not an
adequate size and shape, the organism won't work. If the mousetrap were a living system, to
have evolved, each component as it developed would have had to have "waited" patiently on
the development of the other components. But without a master plan, a "design" if you will,
they would not have waited—they would have died.

In the case of a living organism, the "intermediate" components most likely would have been
detrimental to survival. For example, in blood clotting, the mechanism is extremely delicate.
Too much clotting or too little clotting and the organism dies. An intermediate system with
either too much or too little clotting would not have the necessary survival value to carry on
the "experiment" to try to find the precise combination. The evolutionary process would have
aborted.

The concept of irreducible complexity is easily understood in large systems. Evolutionists

suggest, for example, that an animal's forelimbs evolved into wings. But that process would
have had intermediate life forms that became awkward for climbing or grasping long before
they became useful for gliding, thus placing the hypothetical intermediate creature at a
serious disadvantage, not at an advantage for survival.

Gary Parker, a biologist (and former evolutionist), uses the example of a woodpecker. (14,
pgs. 56-61) He explains that a woodpecker needs a combination of adaptations—a heavy-
duty skull, a tough bill, shock absorbing tissues, a long sticky tongue, and nerve and muscle
coordination. The bird might have all of the other features, but without the heavy-duty skull,
for example, it's skull would collapse when it hammers wood with the tremendous force that
it uses. There would be no survival value of the intermediate form of woodpecker, so no
offspring would be produced to continue the process of evolution to a "completed"
woodpecker.

If you have ever examined a model of a human knee in a doctor's office, you must be
impressed with the combination of cartilage, muscle, ligaments, and bone that in a precise
combination allow the knee to work. If just one ligament was too weak, the whole thing
would fail, and the survivability of not only the knee but the animal itself would be in
question.

For another example, the human eye is so complex that Darwin himself, even with his limited
knowledge of chemistry, saw the human eye as an enormous problem for his theory. The eye
is capable of focusing at various distances and of controlling the amount of light it receives
from total darkness to bright sunlight while delivering images in living color. A sophisticated
camera could only exist as a result of intelligent designers and builders. Rationality demands
that we concede the same of an even more complex eye.

Evolutionist F. Hitching was still pondering in a 1982 book entitled The Neck of the Giraffe,
"Is it really plausible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened
coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved
in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn't see?" (1, pgs. 36-39)
And these men didn't even consider in their statements the chemical complexity of the eye. It
takes Behe two pages in his book just to describe the biochemistry of vision. (1, pgs. 18-22)

Molecular biologist Michael Denton makes an analogy with language. He explains that in
sentence structure, it quickly becomes obvious that there are limits in getting from one
sentence that makes sense to another by changing one letter at a time. For example, how can
one get from "He sat on the mat" to "He stood on the mat"? To do so, you would have to go
through four changes, each of which would make no sense. (The first change might be "He stt
on the mat.")

While complex systems can undergo a certain limited degree of functional change, there is
invariably a limit. "He sat on the mat" can get to "He sat on the cat" in one step, but it cannot
get to "He stood on the mat" in single steps required by evolution. (2, pgs. 87-91)

The Problem of the Missing Models

Behe challenges the scientific community for its lack of mechanistic models for evolution. He
says that no models have been built to explain the details of the evolution of specific systems.

For example, he points out that in the past several decades, probably ten thousand papers
have been published on cilia. Yet not a single credible paper has even attempted to guess at
an evolutionary mechanism for the system. The literature of evolutionary biology is typically
little more than fuzzy word pictures. For example, he says all that scientists can come up with
when describing blood clotting is that the tissue factor "appears," fibrinogen is "born,"
antiplasmin "arises," a cross-linking protein "is unleashed," and so forth. (1, pgs. 67-69, 93)
He flatly states that, "The fact is, no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation
came to be." (1, pg. 97)

Behe further exclaims that "In fact, none of the papers published in JME [the Journal of
Molecular Evolution] over the entire course of its life as a journal has ever proposed a
detailed model by which a complex biochemical system might have been produced in a
gradual, step-by-step Darwinian fashion... The very fact that none of these problems is even
addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate
framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems." (1, pg. 176) He
makes the quite dramatic claim that, "There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper
on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems." (1, pg. 179)

In a 1997 radio interview, Behe said that his public challenges to the scientific world to come
up with specific models have been unmet, confirming that none exist! Even the nonscientist
must begin to ask, "Is the theory of evolution scientific or is it something else?"
The Problem of First Life

The failure of scientists to produce life in the test tube is notable. After a flurry of excitement
of the possibility in the 1960s, the following quote expresses the current state of affairs. It
was written by Klaus Dose, a prominent biochemist working in the field:

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and
molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the
origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal
theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."
(1, pg. 168) Modern science has confirmed the principle of biogenesis, that life only comes
from life.

Concerning the prebiotic soup from which life supposedly arose, there is no reason to believe
that it even existed or that life has a tendency to emerge even when the right chemicals are
present. Modern chemistry now indicates that, in fact, organic compounds produced on the
early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing
life. As such, the scientific evidence continues to mount against evolution. (5, pgs. 102-112;
14, pgs. 17-38; and 2, pgs. 249-273)

In fact, as of 2011 it is now safe to say that chance as the engine for first life has been
universally rejected.

But the question must be asked, if scientists actually do produce life in the lab, would that
prove evolution or would it prove the importance of intelligent interference? We submit that
it would merely demonstrate the latter. For now, the world waits for evolutionists to show us
some evidence for their theory.

The Problem of Deleterious Mutations

Evolution relies heavily on mutation to produce improvements in organisms through random

chance. But, the evidence doesn't support this. Instead of improvements, mutations tend to
show deterioration. Indeed, 99.99 percent of mutations are harmful, even lethal. As explained
by Parker in his book (14, pgs. 95-104), almost every mutation we know is identified by the
disease or abnormality it causes, not its benefits. For example, in humans hemophilia is a
mutation of a clotting factor. Tay-Sach's Disease is apparently a mutation in the gene for
producing an enzyme crucial to brain function.

Indeed, human beings are subject to some 3,500 mutational disorders. The reason they don't
show up more often is that we have two sets of genes, and the good set tends to cover up the
bad set.

About the only example ever given of a positive mutation is sickle-cell anemia. People
carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin are resistant to malaria. But sickle-cell anemia is a disease; it
kills people. Further, the mutation does not produce genetic information that leads to a new
species. It is thus an inadequate example to support evolutionary theory.

Bad mutations are 1,000 times more prevalent than good ones. To believe that mutations are
the mechanism for evolution is comparable to saying that standing in front of an x-ray
machine long enough will lead to positive health benefits. Or, since mutations are just
mistakes, you could say evolution is comparable to a really bad typist who is re-typing a dime
romance novel, and produces a Shakespearean play by chance. It is no more likely that
random changes (from whatever cause) in genetic information will benefit an organism, than
random changes in a TV's circuitry will make a better TV.

Pierre Grasse, considered the "dean of French zoologists," said that mutations are "merely
hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but
no final evolutionary effect." Further, he says, mutations are not complementary, nor are they
cumulative." That is, they don't add up to anything. While Grasse is still looking for a
mechanism for evolution, he admits that mutation/selection cannot be it. (14, pgs. 104-110)

Evolution is about how new organisms developed via a greater quantity and quality of genetic
information. We suggest that the notion that mutations could even theoretically produce a greater
quantity and quality of genetic information approaches the level of absurdity.

There is an online program called Mendel's Accountant that demonstrates this problem as the

fatal flaw for Darwinian theory. The program is available at
http://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net/. When biologically realistic parameters are selected,
Mendel's Accountant shows consistently that genetic deterioration is an inevitable outcome of
the process of mutation and natural selection. The primary reason is that most deleterious
mutations are too subtle to be detected and eliminated by natural selection and therefore
accumulate steadily generation after generation, and inexorably degrade fitness.

According to Larry Vardiman, PhD., in an article in Acts & Facts magazine (July 2008),
"Mendel's Accountant provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the "fatal flaws"
inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory
effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty that should satisfy any reasonable and open-
minded person."   

Lastly, it can be argued that the existence of mutations presupposes creation. Mutations are
only changes in genes that already exist. Mutation, therefore, is a result, not a cause.

This point cannot be over-emphasized. Modern evolution—the so-called neo-Darwinian Synthesis—

rests solely on mutation and natural selection. But neither mutation nor natural selection is capable
of producing the greater quantity and quality of genetic information necessary for evolutionary
higher-order develpment. Further, these processes operate on existing structures, and do not have
the power of creation of new structures. This conclusion should be obvious enough for a thinking
middle-schooler to grasp.

As explained by Phillip Johnson, "The only reason to believe that mutations of the kind and
quantity needed for blind watchmaker evolution to actually occur is that the theory requires
them." (7, pgs. 80-81)

The Problem of Mathematical Improbability

Many mathematicians have looked at probability science for help with evolution. Could it
have occurred by chance?
Below are some numbers. To illustrate the magnitude of these numbers, for the sake of
comparison, be aware that the number of electrons in the universe is believed to be 1080.

Mathematician William Dembski calculated that if the probability of something occurring is

less than one in 10150, it has no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any
conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. He further estimates that the probability
of evolving the first cell is no better than one in 104,478,146. (Source: Impact magazine,
November 1999)

In regard to the universe occurring by chance, researcher Hugh Ross explains that there are
actually two sets of odds that interrelate: first, the unique characteristics that must be
fashioned to explain the earth's capacity to support life, and second, that life could arise even
on a suitably configured planet by random chance. He calculates the odds for life as remote
as 1 in 10100,000,000,000. (Source: Facts and Faith magazine, Second Quarter 1998)

Yet some say that, well, given enough time, evolution could occur. But it would be like
saying that putting the parts to a computer in a washing machine, and given enough time that
they will assemble themselves into a functioning computer. It won't happen—no matter how
much time.

Mathematician/astronomer Fred Hoyle put it this way. He said that the probability of
evolution creating the living world by chance is like believing that "...a tornado sweeping
through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." (See Evolution
from Space, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasingne, J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981).

Denton concludes that probability science comes "very close to a formal disproof of the
whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the
laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?" (2, pg. 316)

Evolutionists have been faced with such figures for many years. If they could come up with a
number within the realm of possibility, they would be crowing about it. But they have not
been able to do so. Life was designed; it did not evolve. The correctness of this conclusion is
the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 to one.

There is one thing we can say further. Given the probabilities against evolution, if evolution
did occur, it would constitute a miracle—convincing proof of God's existence.

The Problem of Cosmology

Cosmology is the study of the principles of the universe. The laws of physics, assuming no
outside interference by God, predict a uniform and homogenous universe. This is based on
the uniformity of the gas that the evolutionists believe originally filled the universe. But
instead of uniformity, the universe is lumpy, with areas of emptiness and areas with galaxies.
In fact, the mere existence of galaxies, stars, and planets is a great puzzle for evolutionists. (3,
pg. 155)

There are numerous evidences of apparent fine-tuning of the universe that suggest intelligent
design. Hugh Ross (in the Moreland book from the resource list) lists over fifty scientific
laws and parameters that are so tightly precise that without them life could not exist. These
include: nuclear force constant, electromagnetic force constant, polarity of the water
molecule, ratio of protons to electrons, velocity of light, oxygen to nitrogen ratio in the earth's
atmosphere, star color, etc. (11, pgs. 160-168) For example, it has become clear that the odds
of a life-sustaining universe resulting from the (alleged) Big Bang are minute. If the
expansion rate after the Big Bang had been one part in a hundred thousand million million
weaker, the universe would have collapsed. But if it had been one part in a million stronger,
the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars to form. The Bible says that "The
heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1).
God reveals himself to us in such clear and convincing ways through the things He has made,
that the Bible further says that the person who can't see it is without excuse. He is willfully
blind. Because of the philosophical position he holds he is seeing what he wants to see and
closing his eyes to the rest (Romans 1).

For more on this, we recommend Hugh Ross' website http://www.reasons.org/. 

Problems of Building a Consistent

Evolutionary Tree
 The Problem of the Evolutionary Tree
 The Problem of Biased Assumptions
 The Problem of Pre-Cursors
 The Problem of Molecular Isolation
 The Problem of Sudden Appearance in the Fossil Record
 The Problem of the Missing Links
 The Problem of "Ape-Men"
 The Problem of Stasis
 The Problem of Convergence
 The Problem of Symbiosis
 The Problem of Embryology
 The Problem of Vestigial Organs

The Problem of the Evolutionary Tree

When scientists classify groups, they can classify them by various characteristics—for
example, by field characteristics, bone patterns, internal organs, or other methods. But these
different methods lead to different conclusions about taxonomy, suggesting that life forms are
non-branching—a problem for the evolutionist. For example, Parker explains that when his
students classified lizards by different systems, they noticed that, "The pattern is not a
branching one suggesting evolutionary descent from a common ancestor; rather, it is a mosaic
or modular pattern ... suggesting creation." (14, pgs. 41-42)

Every student has been shown the "evolutionary tree," with a nice sequence of life from ooze
to zoo to you. That tree does not exist in the real world, as those simple illustrations would
have us believe. Denton devotes an entire chapter (2, pgs. 119-141) demonstrating the
numerous problems with Haeckel's famous evolutionary tree. Some of his comments are:
"..many groups are so isolated and unique and of such doubtful affinities that there is
complete disagreement as to where they should be placed in the tree." And, he says, "direct
evidence for evolution only resides in the existence of unambiguous sequential arrangements,
and these are never present in ordered hierarchic schemes." He quotes Patterson as to
ancestors, "they exist not in nature but in the mind of the taxonomist, as abstractions ... yet
they are always discussed as if they have some reality."

The Problem of Biased Assumptions

Evolutionists rely heavily on similarity to demonstrate evolution. Apes have much in

common with man, they point out, including their genetic makeup. While apes and humans
are similar in some ways, they are very different in other ways. But to conclude evolution is
the cause of the observed similarity is a matter of assumption (preconception).

Similarity does not prove evolution, but merely proves similarity. If anything, similarity
provides evidence of creation. A fork and a spoon may look similar, but that is not evidence
of a common ancestor, but rather is evidence of a common designer using common materials.
(14, pgs. 38-47)

Denton is more scientifically critical. He points out that what appear to be similar structures
or organs develop from different embryological paths or even different genes. For example,
forelimbs appear similar to hindlimbs, but nobody believes that one evolved from the other.

Marvin Lubenow in his interesting book (Resource List) points out a fundamental flaw in the
logic of evolutionists. He notes that studies on the anatomy of living primates are used to
support evolution. But all of these studies are fundamentally flawed in regard to a rule of
logic called "begging the question." In begging the question, one assumes to be true the very
thing you are trying to prove.

The Problem of Pre-Cursors

Evolution is sometimes explained by the notion of "pre-cursors." At first glance, a bicycle

seems enough like a motorcycle to be its precursor. On deeper investigation, while a bicycle
resembles a motorcycle, the parts of a bicycle cannot be molded into a motorcycle by a
process resembling evolution. As explained by Behe, a bicycle has nothing that can be
modified to become a gasoline tank, for example. He states: "A bicycle thus may be a
conceptual pre-cursor to a motorcycle, but it is not a physical one. Darwinian evolution
requires physical pre-cursors." (1, pgs. 44-45)

As an example, Denton discusses mammalian hair, and points out that there is no
evolutionary pre-cursor. While hair comes in different varieties—from quills in porcupine to
soft fur of a kitten—no structures are known which can be considered in any sense
transitional between any other vertebrate structure and hair. (2, pg. 106)

Or consider the metamorphosis of the butterfly. There is no conceivable evolutionary

precursor to this astounding event. Biology is fraught with such problems for evolution.

The Problem of Molecular Isolation

Denton also devotes a detailed chapter in his book about the biochemical matrix of
organisms. He insists that, "There is not a trace at the molecular level of the traditional
evolutionary series: cyclostome [invertebrate] to fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal." In
fact, he says that studies of the dispersion of molecular characteristics is so great, that "Each
class is isolated and unique. No classes are intermediate or partially inclusive of other
classes." Denton believes that this information is so devastating to the theory of evolution,
that were it known when the theory of evolution was being developed, the idea of organic
evolution would never have been accepted. (2, pgs. 274-307)

The Problem of Sudden Appearance in the Fossil Record

If evolution were true, we should find a few simple lifeforms in the lowest level of the
geologic strata, with a consistent upward progression of lifeforms of a more advanced nature
in the next highest strata, etc. But we don't find that at all. Instead, what we find is the
"Cambrian Explosion," the existence of many and varied lifeforms found together near the
bottom of the geologic column. It is well known by paleontologists that virtually all the plant
and animal "phyla" (basic body plans) appear suddenly in the rocks of the Cambrian era. (7,
pg. 87, 3, pg. 123)

Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould acknowledges this severe problem for evolution. He said, "In
any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
it appears all at once and 'fully formed'." (5, pg. 50) Gould is here admitting that the fossil
record does not record gradual evolution. The geologic column as shown in textbooks is an
example of artistic speculation.

When asked why they believe in evolution, many people simply say "dinosaurs," without
having really thought through why they think dinosaurs indicate evolution. It is important to
see dinosaurs for what they were—part of the process of decline (including extinctions) that
has been going on since creation. The Bible outlines a process which began with creation as a
completed event in the past, then then decline set in.

Instead of expanding numbers of organisms over time as predicted by evolution, we find the
fossils substantially present early in the fossil record, then a decline in the number of
organisms over time (extinction). The fossil evidence better fits the the biblical model than
the evolutionary model.

The Problem of the Missing Links

Where are the missing links? Darwin recognized that his theory implied that "the number of
intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been
inconceivably great." And yet he acknowledged that the missing links were not to be found.
Darwin himself wavered over his theory and asked, "Why if species have descended from
other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable
transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see
them, well defined." (5, pg. 46)

Darwin could only assume that over time, we would find the missing links in the form of
fossils. But, a century and a half later, the fossil record is empty of such missing links—not
only between man and apes, but also between all other groups.

This is not just the view of creationists, but is widely acknowledged by evolutionists.
Evolutionist R.B. Goldschmidt said "...practically all orders or families known appear
suddenly and without any apparent transitions." (3, pg. 377) Evolutionist David B. Kitts said,
"evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide
them." (3, pg. 378) Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould, described "the extreme rarity of
transitional forms in the fossil record" as "the trade secret of paleontology." (5, pg. 59) A
paleontologist at the University of Texas candidly admitted to the author of this essay that not
only are there no missing links found in the fossil record but, "We gave up looking for them
years ago."

No link has been found from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals,
etc. According to creation scientist Duane Gish, the two most notable gaps in the fossil record
are (1) the gap between microscopic, single-celled organisms and the complex, multicellular
invertebrates (jellyfish, etc), and (2) the vast gap between these invertebrates and fish. These
gaps "are so immense and indisputable that any further discussion of the fossil record
becomes superfluous." (3, pg. 115) Further, these breaks establish "beyond doubt that
evolution has not occurred." (3, pg. 127)

Gish explains that there should be billions times billions of intermediates between these
major groups, if evolution was true. But there is not a single one! It is impossible, given the
evolutionists' time scale of millions of years, that not one intermediate could be found. Gish
has challenged evolutionists in debates for years to offer examples, but evolutionists have
none.

Evolutionist Steven Stanley put it this way, "The known fossil record fails to document a
single example of phyletic (gradual) evolution accomplishing a major morphological
transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (2, pg. 182)

Examples of animals once held up as intermediates have systematically been thrown out. You
may ask, "What about such examples as Archaeopteryx, the flying animal with some reptilian
features?" Archaeopteryx is now widely admitted to be a bird, plain and simple, complete
with feathers. (14, pgs. 148-150 and 2, pgs. 175-178) In an article in the Wall Street Journal
("Bye Bye Birdie: Famed Fossil Loses Avian Perch," October 23, 2009), we read this: "There
are lingering doubts that birds today are descendants of dinosaurs. Researchers at Oregon
State University recently argued that the distinctive anatomy that gives birds the lung
capacity needed for flight means it is unlikely that birds descended from dinosaurs like
archaeopterix and its kin."

Using Archaeopteryx as an example, scientists now know that the problem of getting a reptile
to evolve into a bird is horrendously problematic. Here are some of the difficulties: (1)
Feathers are fundamentally different structures than scales, arising from different layers of
skin. Scales are merely folds in the epidermis, while feathers and hairs develop from follicles.
(3, pg. 323) (2) In theory, feathers may have arisen from frayed outer edges of scales, but it is
difficult to understand what the adaptive value of frayed scales would be to an organism. (3)
To get from a reptile to a bird, you need more than feathers. A bird has very different
respiratory, cardiovascular, muscular, and gastrointestinal systems than a reptile. At this point
one has again run into the problem of irreducibly complex systems.

But the problem is more than just a few critters in the fossil record that don't appear to fit
neatly into well-defined classifications. Darwin's theory implied not merely that fossil
transitionals would be found, but it predicted that a truly complete fossil record would be
mostly transitionals. The world's museums should be bursting at the seams with transitional
fossils. Instead of transitionals, the fossil record shows completely formed organisms, well
adapted to their environments—just as we find today.

The most logical conclusion is that the so-called missing links were impossible creatures that
never existed.

Quoting Glenn S. Sunshine from his book Why You Think the Way You Do (page 168), "It
also sounds like special pleading, a 'Darwin of the Gaps' explanation, to say that the
fossilization of the transitional forms predicted by Darwin never had the opportunity to take
place in the emergence of any species on the planet, past or present. Nor is it much better to
say the fossils are there but haven't yet been found. This is a statement of faith, not fact."

The Problem of "Ape-Men"

Many people still believe in evolution based on fossils of "ape-men." One by one, each of
these has subsequently been discredited. Piltdown Man, "discovered" in 1912, turned out to
be a deliberate hoax, but was not realized as such until the 1950s. Over that period, an
estimated 500 doctoral dissertations were written on him. Piltdown Man is now considered
the most successful scientific hoax of all time. (9, pgs. 39-44)

Nebraska Man, like Piltdown Man, was an influence during the famous Scopes trial in 1925.
But Nebraska Man was based solely on a tooth, which was later determined to be the tooth of
a pig.

Recent analysis of Australopithecus ("Lucy") demonstrates its strong apelike characteristics.

The evidence indicates that this beast is an extinct orangutan or close cousin (not an ape-
man).

On the other hand, other candidates have turned out to be truly human—Java Man, Peking
Man, and Homo erectus, for example. Similarly, Neanderthal Man was once considered to be
an intermediate ape-man, based on an ape-like posture. But the original conclusion, now
discarded, was based on a specimen that had severe arthritis, which gave him a stooped
posture. Neanderthal people had certain unique facial and perhaps even identifiable DNA
characteristics, but they lived at the same time as modern man and, while there are
disagreements on this, they are generally considered part of the human family. (9, pgs. 36-39)

In other cases, mislabeling has occurred. Homo habilis is now recognized as a "waste bin of
various species." It is not a separate and single species at all, but consists of pieces from at
least two different animals—one human and one nonhuman. Homo habilis is flawed and
cannot be considered an ancestor to man. (9, pgs.157-166)

It is important to recognize that there is great variability within living humans. For example,
modern humans have a cranial capacity ranging from about 700 cubic centimeters to about
2200 cc, the range being unrelated to intelligence. The same would be true about fossil men.

Every candidate once proposed as the evolutionary ancestor of man has been knocked off the
list. (14, pgs. 155-168) Yet each one of these examples in its time was heralded as convincing
proof of evolution. They became so much a part of the scientific psyche that it affected two
generations of students. And every so often the popular press creates (and probably will
continue to create) a flurry of public interest in a newly discovered fossil. But the press
seldom prints the eventual follow-up story that discredits the find when more evidence is in.
(For those interested in this aspect of the creation/evolution debate, we highly recommend
Lubenow's book from the Resource List.)

The evolutionary family tree of man has evaporated. Even famous paleontologist Mary
Leakey admitted this in a 1984 book when she stated, "...in the present state of our
knowledge, I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable
pattern." (9, pg. 182)

Why have scientists tended to jump so quickly at these examples on such flimsy evidence?
Perhaps prestige, or even money? Research funding demands some evidence of progress.
These fossils provided what was needed.

The Problem of Stasis

As acknowledged by evolutionist Gould, "Most species exhibit no directional change during

their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when
they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless." (5, pg. 50) The
fossil record shows stability, not change.

The problem of stasis in the fossil record is particularly evident in plants. Though unwilling
to give up on evolution, Professor of Botany, E. J. H. Corner of Cambridge University,
admitted, "...to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."
(14, pg. 148)

The Problem of Convergence

Convergence is similarity without a common ancestor. The eyes of vertebrates and the eyes
of squids have many similarities. Evolutionists, however, cannot find or even imagine a
common ancestor that would explain their similarities. This problem is common in
morphology. Of course, convergence in the sense of similar structures to meet similar needs
would be expected on the basis of creation according to a common design, but creates
problems for the evolutionist. (14, pg. 42)

The Problem of Symbiosis

There are many examples of how different animals cooperate. For example, certain fish have
smaller fish that clean their teeth of parasites. The larger fish could eat the smaller fish, but
do not. Evolution cannot explain this, as there is simply no common ancestor for these two
separate organisms.

Many species of wildlife have white underbellies. By an apparent coincidence, this helps
scavenger birds and animals find the dead species. There is no conceivable morphological
(evolutionary) relationship between scavenger and prey. But this makes perfectly good sense
when viewed from a Special Creation standpoint.
The Problem of Embryology

In an idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," students have been taught that embryos
show evidence of evolution. The idea was that embryos of advanced organisms go through
developmental stages similar to evolution. Thus, while in your mother's womb, you go
through a fish stage, with gill slits and even have a tail which you outgrow, etc.

The only problem with all of this is that it is not true. This idea was an unsophisticated notion
that was discarded by embryologists over 50 years ago. Yet students are still taught this myth
sometimes, and it has been stuck in the consciousness of many people as evidence for
evolution. (14, pg. 47-56)

Not only has this theory been totally discarded, it is well known that organisms undergo
development characteristics of their own class. Fishes follow one pattern, amphibians
another, birds yet another. Modern embryology tends to confirm the separate nature of animal
kinds, rather than the similarities hoped for by evolutionists.

The Problem of Vestigial Organs

It was once believed that there were numerous organs in the body that had no function, the
appendix being an example. This supposedly was evidence for evolution, as these organs
were left over from the process of evolution. Science has eliminated all such idea, as all 180
organs once listed as having no function in human beings have been found to have significant
functions.

Many of these false ideas just won't die. Evolutionists will cling to anything to try to validate their
theory. The saddest thing is that these outdated ideas are still taught to students in a way that forces
them to accept them without challenge. Fortunately, in this age of information, people willing to
think things through critically are beginning to see the gaping flaws in evolutionary dogma.

Problems from Unexplained Anomalies

 The Problem of Sexes
 The Problem of the Kanapoi Elbow Fossil
 The Problem of Geologic Catastrophes
 The Problem of Young Earth Evidence

The Problem of Sexes

Advanced organisms have two sexes. Gradual evolution could not have produced sexuality.
To say that it could have done so is to assume that both sexes evolved from the same
ancestor. Even if one sex of a species evolved, it would have died without a mate. As put by
Parker, "...we can't even imagine that males evolved from females, or vice versa, or that
human beings evolved from some animal that had only one sex." (14, pg. 41)
The Problem of the Kanapoi Elbow Fossil

This fossil, known as KP 271 is strikingly like modern humans. It is the oldest hominid fossil
ever found to date, dated at 4.5 million years ago (on the evolutionist's time scale). This puts
it before any other supposed "ape-men," including the australopithecines ("Lucy"). If this is
true, evolution cannot be true. As put by Lubenow, "The concept of human evolution decrees
that it is impossible for true humans to have lived before the australopithecines—even though
the fossil evidence would suggest otherwise—because humans are supposed to have evolved
from the australopithecines." (9, pg. 57) While Lubenow's conclusion about KP 271 being
human is questioned by some evolutionists, it is just another example of how the
evolutionists are now constantly trying to swim upstream against the evidence challenging
their theory.

The Problem of Geologic Catastrophes

Evolution demands long, uninterrupted spans of time. Yet the geologic record is one of
catastrophes that interrupted life on earth. Gould admits that these "great dyings" are a
problem because "our strong biases for gradual and continuous change force us to view mass
extinctions as anomalous and threatening." (5, pg. 57)

There are numerous evidences from geology that support the biblical flood account.
Examples are petrified logs and polystratic trees (extending through several layers of strata).
Indeed, the mere existence of fossils confirms the flood account. If the Bible is accurate as to
history, what we would expect to find is billions of dead things found in rock layers, laid
down by water, all over the earth. Indeed, that is precisely what is found. (4, pg. 26)

The Problem of Young Earth Evidence

Some creation scientists believe in a relatively young earth. A majority seem to accept an old
earth view.  

In either case, the evidence presented shows that evolution could not have happened no
matter how much time we give it. But here is another problem for the theory. Evolution
requires huge amounts of time. Of the hundreds of dating methods or evidences of the age of
the earth, "young earth creationists" are convinced that the preponderance
of evidence supports a young earth—at least far too short amount of time for evolution to
have happened.

Some of the evidence offered includes: the decay of the earth's magnetic field, influx of
minerals and sediment into the ocean via rivers, decay of natural plutonium, decay of lines of
galaxies, the slowing rotation of the earth, the moon's recession rate from earth, the amount
of atmospheric helium, pleochroic halos, the existence of comets and meteors, population
growth, the "Poynting-Robertson effect", the existence of star clusters and super stars. (See
Morris' book in the Resource List.)

An interesting piece of evidence came from the aftermath of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens volcanic
eruption, the most extraordinary geologic event of the Twentieth Century. When one looks at
strata of rock layers, for example in the Grand Canyon, evolutionists assume that each small
layer of rock was laid down over millions of years. But scientists witnessed similar layers of
sedimentary rock laid down by water flooding and lava flows caused by the Mount St. Helens
eruption-proving that it doesn't require millions of years, but merely hours in catastrophic
conditions. (See 13, video listed in Resource List.)

Young earth scientists argue that some popular dating methods that evolutionists use to
suggest an old earth are subject to critical analysis, as they often give questionable and
inconsistent results. For example, carbon 14 dating, contrary to popular belief, is only
workable for a few thousand years of age. Radioisotope dating gives inconsistent results and
is subject to various questionable assumptions. (12, Chapter 5)

There is strong evidence that the much quoted age of the sun of 4.5 billion years is a number
not based on adequate science, but rather is a biased number based on how much time the
evolutionists feel they need to support their theory. When "unacceptable" dates for rocks are
encountered, geologists use their evolutionary assumptions about the presumed age of the
fossils in the rock layers to date the rock. Since the rock layers in turn are used to date the
fossils they contain, this is circular reasoning. (See chapter 18 and the appendix of Lubenow's
book for a fascinating description of this problem.)

For websites of young-earth creationists, see www.icr.org or www.answersingenesis.org. For

websites from the perspective of old-earth creationism, see www.reasons.org or
www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley.

Is Darwinism Good Science (or Bad

Philosophy)?
 The Problem of Definition
 The Problem of Scientific Method
 The Problem of Natural Selection as a "Tautology"
 The Problem of Desperate Theories
 The Problem of Reductionism
 The Problem of Human Consciousness
 The Problem of Philosophical Paradox
 The Problems of Fear and Anger
 The Problem of Ethics
 The Problem of Motive

The Problem of Definition

The first question to ask someone when they say they believe in evolution is: What do you
mean by evolution? For many people, the answer may translate to "change."

If this is what they have in mind as a definition of evolution, then of course they are correct.
Change takes place every day. We all personally experience physical change as we grow
older.

But this definition misses the point. Evolution is a very particular type of change. It is the
process that produces greater genetic complexity. More specifically, evolution is the
development of new species via an increase in the quantity and quality of genetic information
through random natural processes.

There is a difference between evolution and variation. Most people and many textbooks tend
to confuse these two concepts. They may give several specific examples of "evolution,"
including dog breeding, fruit flies, peppered moths, horses, and Darwin's famous finches. But
these are examples of variation, not evolution. The difference is enormous.

Variation (sometimes inappropriately called "micro-evolution") is horizontal drift or

adaptation. It can often be identified as a cyclical phenomenon. Evolution ("macro-
evolution"), on the other hand, is vertical change, in which new genetic information is added
(an expansion of the gene pool) to produce a higher (more complex) form of life. No one in
Darwin's time or today, including the strictest biblical creationists, doubt that variations occur
within kinds. (Variation within kinds, incidentally, is consistent with the Bible. The book of
Genesis discusses how God created separate kinds of animals.)

The potential power of evolution is the theoretical ability of a lower kind of being to change
into a higher order of being, for example from a frog to a dog, all through random and
unplanned natural processes. The historical textbook examples (finches,etc.) show nothing of
the sort! They do not present evidence, for example, about how finches came to be in the first
place or if finches changed into other kinds of higher animals. The finch proposition merely
shows that you start with finches and end with finches. Coloration, beak shape, etc., may
vary, but the finch remains not only a bird, but a finch.

The same is true of each of the traditional examples of "evolution." The case of peppered
moths is most interesting. Supposedly, dark moths increased in number versus light-colored
moths in England during the Industrial Revolution. The dark moths predominated as they
were better protected from predator birds because they blended with the soot-darkened tree
trunks. But the reader is asked to think critically about this example. In this case, there was
not even any variation that occurred. You had both light-colored and dark-colored moths to
start with, and light-colored and dark-colored moths in the end. Yes, natural selection
occurred (if the tale is at all true), but that did not result in evolution, with a greater quantity
and quality of genetic material.

A number of years ago, revelations surfaced that these moth experiments were doctored.
Textbook photographs were actually of moths glued to tree trunks—a place on the tree they
do not actually land! Evolutionists were crushed. Many science teachers taught this tale as a
key piece of evidence for the truth of evolution. But subjected to analysis free of evolutionary
presuppositionalism, this was never a legitimate example of evolution at all! There was never
any new genetic material, especially not any leading to a higher order of being. Yet this
example reportedly has continued to show up in some high school science text books. This
whole affair makes a mockery of real science.

In other situations, variation may be explainable by understanding that the ability for
variation is already present in the genetic material. Human skin or hair color, for example, is
easily understood this way. It was not mutation or other genetic change that causes such
variation. The ability for such variation has always been in the genes.

After thousands of years of dog breeding, dogs have never become something other than
dogs. And, it should be made clear, that domestic dog breeds are a result of intelligent
manipulation, not blind chance ! (Remember, blind chance is by definition a key ingredient
for evolution.) All of the genetic material for every breed existed in the original dogs. If all
dogs were released and allowed to interbreed, they would return to what primitive dogs
looked like. It must be asked, How can intelligent selection meet limts and yet non-
intelligence operate without limits? Dog breeding is just another example of how
evolutionists have tried to pull the wool over our eyes.

Are these the best examples of evolution its proponents can present? If these examples are the
sum of the best available "evidence," the lack of credible evidence herein actually tends to
discredit the theory of evolution rather than support it.

The Problem of Scientific Method

The scientific method requires that a theory must be observable, repeatable, and testable.
Neither evolution nor special creation can meet these tests. There is not even any observable
evidence in science to show that it is even possible for new information to be added to the
cell to produce upward change in the Darwinian sense. Thus, our attempts to explain origins
are technically not scientific theories at all.

One of the nation's most eminent biologists, Keith Stewart Thompson, has stated: "Perhaps
the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably,
some two to ten million species on Earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive
somewhere between three and five million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but
significant numbers of originations and extinctions every decade." But, of course, we do not
see that. (From the article "Natural Selection and Evolution's Gun," American Scientist, Vol.
85, Nov/Dec 1997, p. 516)

As put by creation scientist Henry Morris, "If there is anything certain in this world, it is that
there is no evidence whatever that evolution is occurring today—that is, true vertical
evolution, from simpler kind to some more complex kind. No one has ever observed a star
evolve from hydrogen, life evolve from chemicals, a higher species evolve from a lower
species, a man from an ape, or anything else of this sort. Not only has no one ever observed
true evolution in action, no one knows how evolution works, or even how it might work.
Since no one has ever seen it happen (despite thousands of experiments that have tried to
produce it), and no one has yet come up with a workable mechanism to explain it, it would
seem that it has been falsified, at least as far as the present world is concerned."

And as concerns the past, no one in 5,000 years of recorded history has ever recorded
evolution. Further, the fossil record is one of extinction, not evolution. And Morris notes that,
"No fossil has ever been found with half scales/half feathers, half legs/half wings, half-
developed heart, half-developed eye, or any such indication." Evolution must be accepted on
faith. (Appendix 3, The Defender's Study Bible, notes by Henry Morris, Ph.D., World
Publishing, 1995) The idea that evolution is science and that creation is religion is false.
Evolution is based on the philosophical premise of naturalism, not science. In fact, as special
creation (supernaturalism) fits the evidence better, it can be argued that creationism is more
scientific than evolution.
The Problem of Natural Selection as a "Tautology"

The theory of evolution predicts that by a process of mutation and natural selection, the fittest
organisms will produce the most offspring. The problem is that the theory defines the fittest
organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring. A tautology is a way of saying the
same thing twice, that is, a formula which is true in every possible interpretation
(Tautology). On inspection, natural selection is a tautology. (5, pgs. 21-22)

This understanding strikes at the heart of the theory of evolution, challenging evolution at its
roots. In effect, proponents are saying that evolution proves evolution, which is circular
reasoning. (3, pgs. 38-67)

Let's elaborate. For those not familiar with principles of logic, there are various rules of logic
that must be followed to prove something to be true. Failing to follow logic produces a
"logical fallacy." One such principle is "Begging the Question," that is, "circular reasoning."
This is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or
explicitly in the premise (See Begging the Question.) 

As put by Glenn S. Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do,

"Ultimately, the evidence for Darwinism is circular:

 Naturalists assume Darwinian evolution.

 They use it as the framework for interpreting any evidence they find.
 They proclaim that the evidence proves the theory.

...In other words, Darwinism interprets the evidence rather than the evidence testing
Darwinism. As a result, no matter how many failed predictions come from Darwinism,
it can never be proven false. Simply put, naturalistic evolution is an article of faith. If
you are surprised or offended by this argument, then I would simply put this question
to you: What evidence would falsify Darwinism? If you cannot think of or imagine
anything that would, it is an article of faith and not a scientific theory." 

While no one doubts that natural selection (survival of the fittest) exists, there is a
fundamental question as to its role in evolution. Like mutation (as discussed earlier), natural
selection can only act on pre-existing structures. At best, natural selection helps explain how
species survive, but it does not explain how species originate. This is now admitted by
evolutionists. For example, evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted, "...natural selection
operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to
improve it." (14, pg. 84). This seems so obvious upon reflection, it is amazing that so many
people have bought into the idea that natural selection could even theoretically produce
evolution.

Related to this is the problem of chance. When asked how we came to be (or how the
universe came to be), many people will blindly say: by chance. Theologian/philosopher R. C.
Sproul, in his book Not A Chance, explains that many people have not thought this idea
through. He explains that chance has no power at all, certainly not the power to create. The
law of causality says that every effect must have an antecedent cause. But chance is nothing
except a term to describe probabilities. It is not a causal agent. Indeed, chance has no being
(is only conceptual). Saying that Chance created is a poor excuse for acknowledging that you
may not know what created. Chance is no thing—that is, nothing. Nothing creates nothing.

The Problem of Desperate Theories

Over time, the theory of evolution has changed, as scientists recognized flaws in the concept.
In Darwin's time, many people thought that the giraffe's neck was explainable by the animal
stretching to reach leaves. This was the theory of "use and disuse," which was given a fancy
name—pangenesis. This idea was later thrown out in favor of what is referred to as neo-
Darwinism. The "neo-Darwinian synthesis" says that evolution came about through mutation
and natural selection.

Given the paltry evidence for this modern view of evolution, proponents of the theory seem
intent on finding some other mechanism for life on earth other than God. Even well respected
scientists have come up with some startling alternative theories.

One of the most accomplished scientists of our time, Francis Crick, is the co-discoverer of
DNA. Apparently recognizing the dead end for the theory of evolution, Crick has put forth
the theory of "directed panspermia." This idea is that life on earth originated from intelligent
beings from outer space, who sent bacteria to our planet.

Besides having no evidence for such an idea, its obvious problem is that it merely puts the
origin of life back a step, to some other planet. In the words of Phillip Johnson, "When a
scientist of Crick's caliber has to invoke undetectable spacemen, it is time to consider whether
the field of prebiological evolution has come to a dead end." (5, pg. 111)

Evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt put forth a theory that, given the improbability of gradual
evolution, that evolution must have occurred in big jumps. Thus, an occasional lucky accident
might produce a "hopeful monster," a member of a new species with the capacity to survive
and propagate. Of course, with what would such a creature mate?

Though perhaps an exaggeration of the idea, this hopeful monster theory brings forth images
of a dinosaur laying an egg one day, and lo and behold out comes a bird—a preposterous idea
that gained no respect in scientific circles. It really is easier to believe in miracles. Lubbenow
says of this idea, "It must be the only theory ever put forth in the history of science which
claims to be scientific but then explains why evidence for it cannot be found." (9, pg. 182)

Evolutionists tell us that you cannot see evolution happening today because it occurs too
slowly. But they tell us you cannot see it in the fossil record because it happened too rapidly!
Sounds like rather inconsistent reasoning, don't you think?

If you believe that a frog turned into a prince instantly, that's a fairy tale. If you believe that a
frog turns into a prince in 300 million years, that's evolution. It sounds more and more like
those "just so" stories we were read as children. It takes a lot more faith to believe in
evolution than it does to believe in creation!

Well...the theory of evolution can now be revealed as whatever anyone wants it to be. The
theory is thus not unlike the silly putty egg. It just molds to suit one's fancy. Thus, the title of
this essay.
The Problem of Reductionism

Just about everybody agrees that it is impossible to produce a coherent book by randomly
combining letters, spaces, and punctuation marks. Yet, evolution really says just that—that
life is merely the sum of random chemistry. This is referred to as "reductionism."
"Materialism" or "naturalism" are terms for similar notions. Technically, materialism is
defined as a philosophical theory that regards matter as the original cause of everything.
Naturalism is a philosophy that makes nature the whole of ultimate reality. This is the
philosophical underpinning of evolution.

But, as explained by Phillip Johnson, a book is not just paper and ink. Music, thought, or
Shakespeare's plays are more than the sum of our brain chemistry. Likewise, a computer is
more than silicon and plastic, but it is a product of the information put into it. The reality of
life cannot be fully understood by strict materialism. Matter and information are
fundamentally different things. (6, pgs. 68-81)

The discovery of DNA really means that at the core of life is a language. And there are no
known natural forces capable of producing such information.

The scientist who insists on studying only what he can feel, see, touch, taste, or smell before
he will believe it, is being inconsistent. For example, such things as energy or the laws of
nature and physics cannot always be directly sensed in these ways, thus scientists study them
by their effects. In a similar way, we can study God by His effects. The laws of logic are
another example of something that is real but not material. We submit that a person limiting
himself to scientific materialism may be biased by attempting to limit truth, that is by limiting
the evidence at hand.

Materialistic naturalism—the foundational principle of evolution—is not a science at all, but a

philosophy. It is an assumption, designed to eliminate God by definition. Thus evolution is deeply
rooted in the philosophical assumption of materialism.

The Problem of Human Consciousness

The human appreciation of values, of harmony, of beauty, etc., suggests a Creator who
created these values and the ability to recognize and appreciate them. Unselfish love (not
motivated by sex) is an example of something that is real, yet cannot be explained merely by
molecules and chemical analysis.

Law professor Phillip Johnson discusses the debate among scientists over the problem of
consciousness. Materialists admit that science cannot solve the consciousness problem.
Natural selection is "absurdly" inadequate to explain the consciousness of a poetry-writing
mind. (7, pg. 89) And Johnson asks, if the natural order were ruled by merely survival and
reproduction, why was the process not satisfied to stop at cockroaches and weeds? (7, pg. 92)

Not withstanding the magnificence of the human mind, materialistic scientists must result in
concluding that consciousness must be meaningless or illusory. Johnson challenges the
materialists with the idea that perhaps their thoughts are mere illusions. This challenge
reveals that materialists will embrace even madness if the only alternative is to give up
materialism. (6, pgs. 81-83)
The Problem of Philosophical Paradox

As mentioned above, Darwinism is closely associated with the philosophy of naturalism.

Darwinists believe that we were created by some kind of naturalistic process—by matter in
motion—that matter did its own creating. Thus, naturalism is the view that the entire realm of
nature is a closed system of material causes and effects, which cannot be influenced by
anything from the "outside." This view does not necessarily deny the existence of God, but it
does deny that a supernatural being could in any way influence natural events. If God exists,
he is so far away to be irrelevant. The absence of a Creator is therefore the essential starting
point for Darwinism. (5, pgs. 116-117)

It is noteworthy that many famous Darwinists have been atheists. Francis Crick was a signer
of the Humanist Manifesto, which is a foundational document of a major atheist organization.
Prominent Darwinists such as Harvard's Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould have
proudly claimed Marxist inspiration for their biological theories. (5, pg. 137)

While there are numerous books available on the philosophy of science, Johnson submits a
simple, but challenging thought: The paradox of scientific naturalism is that the cosmos can
be understood by a rational mind only if it was not created by a rational mind. (5, pg. 164)

The Problems of Fear and Anger

Evolutionists seem to fear an open, free, and thorough scientific discussion of the scientific
data. Eugenia Scott, from her strategic position as director of the main anti-creationist
organization, has warned her fellow evolutionists not to debate. "Avoid debates," she says. "If
your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution,' please decline ... you
probably will get beaten" (from "Monkey Business," The Sciences magazine,
January/February 1996, p. 25.).

Recognizing the flaws in their arguments, fundamentalist evolution preachers attempt to shut
off discussion by the phrase: "You can't do science without evolution." This is dogma, not
science. Like much of the evolutionary rhetoric, it is propagandistic bluff. The only plausible
explanation of why they want to shut off reasonable discussions of the evidence, such as in
public schools, is because they know they cannot defend the theory. They want evolution
taught as dogma without consideration of the evidence.

And if the reaction you get from someone when you bring up this subject is outright anger,
that being the best defense they can muster for evolution, you know you've hit a nerve. You
have affronted their religion.

The Problem of Ethics

Many people have rejected evolution after thinking through its evil, but logically consistent
implications. Marx and Hitler both championed evolution, as it provided an intellectual
foundation for their political philosophies. (10, pg. 105; 5, Chapter 12; and 8, pg. 53)
Darwinism has also given intellectual support for racism. Though certainly not all
evolutionists are racists, it is noteworthy that the full title of Darwin's book is The Origin of
Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle
for Life. It should be obvious why evolution has contributed to the philosophical basis for
evil. After all, if survival of the fittest is the basis for a philosophy, why not: racism, the
holocaust, tyranny, and so forth? Consider this quote:

"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of
trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought
anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as the truth, that we all just came from the
slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing, and I've since come to believe
that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be
accountable to Him." 

These are the words of mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer, on an NBC "Dateline" TV program,
November 29, 1994. Before his conversion to Christianity, Dahmer was the perpetrator of
one of the most ghastly string of murders in American history. Dahmer killed and
cannibalized numerous victims. His actions were incredibly disgusting, but not inconsistent
with his worldview.

As even admitted by evolutionary biologists like George William, Darwinism is a repulsive

doctrine. Williams expresses open disgust at the ethical implications of a system that assigns
no higher purpose to life than selfish bargains and conspiracies to propagate one's genes into
future generations. (Source: Dinesh D'Souza's book What's So Great about Christianity, page
263.)

There is one question that can never be answered by an evolutionary assessment of ethics:
Why should I be moral tomorrow? Moral rules without grounds or justification need not be
obeyed. With evolution, no one individual has philosophical worth. If an individual becomes
a casualty from the struggle for power or survival, so be it. This is in direct conflict with
Christianity, which places infinite worth on every individual.

As put by Glenn S. Sunshine in his book Why You Think the Way You Do (page 169), "If
materialism is true, there is no such thing as good or evil. (If matter and energy are all that
exist, what is goodness? What about evil? Are they matter or energy? They are neither, and
so they do not really exist.) We are left with relatively few choices as anchors for ethics."

Related to this is the problem of meaninglessness, that is nihilism. A consistent evolutionist

cannot escape the problem that there is no basis for ethics nor for meaning in life. We began
this section with a quote from Jeffrey Dahmer. Now lets end with a quote from evolutionist
James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA. He said at a luncheon given in his honor, "I don't
think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say, 'Gee, your life
must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose,' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."

The Problem of Motive

We have quoted various evolutionists' own acknowledgments of the problems with their
theory. Since so many evolutionists admit the problems of their theory, there must be a
motive for their continued insistence upon it. We have previously suggested the question of
whether some scientists are too eager to claim validity for "discoveries" because of a desire
for research funding or notoriety. The problem of peer pressure undoubtedly plays a role as
well, because careers depend on favorable peer reviews. But we submit that the following
quotes begin to even better explain the situation:
George Wald, the 1967 Nobel Peace Prizewinner in science, wrote:

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or
spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was
disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural
creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we
choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."

Perhaps most telling of all, Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, said,

"I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God
interfered with our sexual mores." (8, pg. 52)

As put by Dinesh D'Souza, "If you want to live a degenerate life, God is your mortal enemy.
He represents a lethal danger to your selfishness, greed, lechery, and hatred. It is in your
interest to despise Him and do whatever you can to rid the universe of His presence." 

St. Paul, writing in the first chapter of the biblical book of Romans, discusses how men are
inclined to "suppress the truth." We submit that what we have with evolution is really a
philosophy of life that does just that—suppresses the truth. It is a failed attempt to throw out
God in order not to be under His authority.

How the Bible and Evolution Conflict

An Analysis of the Tension Between Two Worldviews

Let's first make the point that the tension between the Bible and evolution is not at all about
the age of the earth! Authors Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn, in their book Beyond
Creation Science, argue that the majority view of Christians throughout the ages has been
that the Bible teaches an old earth. They quote, for example, St. Augustine, considered the
top theologian in the early Christian age, as saying in his ancient book titled The Literal
Meaning of Genesis: "But at least we know that it [the creation day] is different from the
ordinary day with which we are familiar." While some Christians hold to a literal 6-day
creation, even these do not necessarily hold to a young earth view, believing that the
creation week happened billions of years ago.

The tension between evolution and creation is philosophical not scientific. Here are some
points:

1. Creationism and evolutionism begin from two radically different points. Creation: In the
beginning there was God. Evolution: In the beginning there was random chance.
2. Darwinian doctrine insists that the evolution of life is a random process—that we are here
by a series of pure accidents (e.g., mutations, and molecules in motion, gene recombinations
and duplications). This is in direct conflict with the biblical doctrine of election—that life is
not merely a series of accidents. According to the Bible, each believer is in some sense
individually foreknown and chosen by God from before the foundations of the world. (1
Samuel 16:7-12; Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5; Matthew 24:31, 25:34; Romans 8:29-30; 1
Corinthians 2:7; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 1:4-12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 1:1-2, 2:9)
3. The God of the Bible is more than Creator and Savior. He is also Sustainer. With evolution,
life is a self-sustaining process ruled by fate, and God plays no role in the universe or in the
ongoing lives of men. This contradicts the biblical doctrine of providence—that all things
happen under the authority of God, and that God is still at work sustaining (though not re-
creating) His creation. (Genesis 45:7-8, Nehemiah 9:6; Esther 4:14; Psalm 104:30, 145:16,
147:9; Proverbs 16:9,33, Isaiah 45:1,7, 46:10; Matthew 6:26, 10:29-31; John 5:17, 14:16-17,
15:26, 16:13-15; Acts 17:26, 18:9-11; Romans 8:9-11; Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3)
4. Still another aspect of the God of the Bible is that He is Judge. The Bible makes a major point
of an afterlife in heaven or hell. Indeed, Jesus discusses this concept more than any other
biblical figure. As part of the process of ultimate judgment by God, a new type of
resurrection body will emerge to another life—to either be glorified in heaven or
condemned to hell for eternity. Evolution is in great conflict with this view, including the fact
that the physical cannot evolve into an afterlife. (Matthew 5:22,29,30, 23:33, 24:31; Romans
8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:42-53; 2 Peter 2:4-10)
5. The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to
the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process.
(Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)
6. The Bible indicates that creation was a completed event in the past, and is not continuing as
evolution suggests. (Genesis 2:1-3; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Hebrews 4:3-11) As put by the
Concordia Study Bible (annotations page 8), "His creative work was completed—and it was
totally effective, absolutely perfect, 'very good.' It did not have to be repeated, repaired or
revised, and the Creator rested to commemorate it."
7. Given the above, the creation by God of distinct "kinds" as described in Genesis 1 and 1
Corinthians 15:38-39 implies that transmutations between kinds is precluded, or at least
superfluous.
8. The Bible indicates that there is clear physical evidence of creation. (Psalm 19:1-6; Acts
17:24-29) Evolution denies the evidence for creation. If Darwinism were a reasonable
hypothesis, atheists would have a perfectly good excuse, in contradiction to Romans 1:20.
On the other hand, creation is a consistent theme throughout the Bible.
9. There is no hint of evolution in the Bible. While this is an argument from silence and thus
does not necessarily preclude evolution, such an important concept as to origins would
surely have been suggested in the Bible due to its theological implications. On the other
hand, creation is a consistent theme throughout the Bible. It is mentioned approximately 64
times in 18 books of the Bible.
10. Evolution is a philosophy based on naturalism and materialism. Naturalism holds that nature
is all there is and that the universe is self-sufficient without a supernatural cause or control
of the world. Materialism regards matter as the original cause of all—that matter did its own
creating. Materialism denies the existence of the soul. The philosophical assumption of
evolution is therefore essentially atheistic or agnostic, thus clearly incompatible with special
creation and the other miracles of the Bible. With evolution, if God exists, He is so distant as
to be irrelevant.
11. The Bible teaches that God created man by fiat, that is, by supernatural power, not by
natural processes. (Genesis 2:7; Psalm 33:6,9; Psalm 148:5; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 11:3)
12. Some 75 passages of Scripture including those by Jesus, refer to the creation narrative of
Genesis 1-2, confirming it as actual history. (Matthew 19:4; Mark 10:6; Luke 3:38, Revelation
2:7) See In the Beginning elsewhere on our site.
13. There is an important reason to interpret from the Bible that Adam was a real person.
Unless the concept of original sin through Adam is true, Jesus' coming makes no sense. That
is, Christians believe that Christ's atoning sacrifice for our sins was necessary because of
man's sin nature inherited in some sense from Adam. The Bible teaches that Jesus was the
"second Adam." So if Adam was not real, thus did not bring sin into the world, Christ's
 redemptive sacrifice was not necessary. (Genesis 3:15-19; Romans 4:22-25, 5:12-21; 1
Corinthians 15:21-23,45-57; 1 Timothy 2:13-14). 
14. The overarching theme of the Bible is Creation/Fall/Redemption. (God created the universe
"very good." Then man spoiled it by his rebellion—the "Fall", necessitating God's
redemption of mankind through Christ.) This sequence is crucial to Christian theology. Did
God really create things bad, not "very good" as the Bible says (Genesis 1:31)? If things were
bad to start with, the Fall becomes a superfluous concept. (The Fall presupposes that there
was something good from which to fall.) Thus, a major point of tension exists between the
Bible and evolution at the heart of the biblical doctrine of the Fall. Note the following quote
from G. R. Bozarth, The American Atheist magazine, September 1978, 30:

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over
evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life
was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the
rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who
died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

15. Evolutionism, indeed, denies that man even has a sinful nature or else suggests that we
should not be faulted for our human nature because "that is just our nature." Thus evolution
is inconsistent with the Christian belief that man is indeed fallen and in need of a savior.
16. The theory of evolution itself has continually changed over time. This is in contrast to the
Bible, which has not changed over time.
17. Morality in evolutionary thought is a function of natural selection, survival of the fittest, or
situation ethics. The Bible teaches transcending moral truth, given by God. (Exodus 20:1-17;
Isaiah 5:20-21)
18. Evolution is closely associated with the philosophy of secular humanism, which accepts
human beings as the ultimate source of meaning and value. The Bible, of course, places God
as the ultimate source of meaning and value.
19. The Bible teaches that man was created for a special purpose. Evolution denies that man has
a divine purpose, or at least implies that man's purpose in life is whatever one wants to
make of it (secular humanism). (Isaiah 43:7; Jeremiah 29:11; Matthew 6:10; Romans 8:28,
14:12; Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 2:10, 3:21; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 4:10)
20. Since evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence of meaning, and
therefore an absence of objective moral values. This is clearly in conflict with the Bible.
Evolution results in a philosophy of nihilism (the denial of any basis for truth), which
ultimately ends in despair. The Bible claims to have the Truth, which gives ultimate hope.
(John 14:6; Colossians 1:27)
21. The Bible not only fits the evidence of scientific investigation, it provides an answer for why
the world was created. Evolution does neither.

Here is a helpful article about whether Adam and Eve were literal people: Keller on Adam.

Sinned in a Literal Adam, Raised in a Literal Christ

Question: If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve, how can
we know where sin and suffering came from?

Answer: Belief in evolution can be compatible with a belief in a historical fall and a literal
Adam and Eve. There are many unanswered questions around this issue.
Compared to other questions laypeople ask pastors about creation and evolution, I find the
concerns of this question much more well-grounded. Indeed, I must disclose, I share them.
Many orthodox Christians who believe God used evolutionary biological processes to bring
about human life not only do not take Genesis 1 as history, but also deny that Genesis 2 is an
account of real events. Adam and Eve, in their view, were not historical figures but an
allegory or symbol of the human race. Genesis 2, then, is a symbolic story or myth that
conveys the truth that human beings all have and do turn away from God and are sinners.

Before I share my concerns with this view, let me make a clarification. One of my favorite
Christian writers (that’s putting it mildly), C. S.Lewis, did not believe in a literal Adam and
Eve, and I do not think the lack of such belief means he cannot be saved. But my concern is
for the church corporately and for its growth and vitality over time. Will the loss of a belief in
the historical fall weaken some of our historical, doctrinal commitments at certain crucial
points? Here are two points where that could happen.

The Trustworthiness of Scripture

The first basic concern has to do with reading the Bible as a trustworthy document.
Traditionally, Protestants have understood that the writers of the Bible were inspired by God
and that, therefore, discerning the human author’s intended meaning is the way that we
discern what God is saying to us in a particular text.[1]

What, then, were the authors of Genesis 2-3 and of Romans 5, who both speak of Adam,
intending to convey? Genesis 2-3 does not show any of signs of “exalted prose narrative” or
poetry. It reads as the account of real events; it looks like history. This doesn’t mean that
Genesis (or any text of the Bible) is history in the modern, positivistic sense. Ancient writers
who were telling about historical events felt free to dischronologize and compress time
frames—to omit enormous amounts of information that modern historians would consider
essential to give “the complete picture.” However, ancient writers of history still believed that
the events they were describing actually happened.

Ancient writers also could use much figurative and symbolic language. For example, Bruce
Waltke points out that when the psalmist says, “You knit me together in my mother’s womb”
(Ps 139:13), he was not saying that he hadn’t developed in the perfectly normal biological
ways. It is a figurative way to say that God instituted and guided the biological process of
human formation in his mother’s womb. So when we are told that God “formed Adam from
the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7), the author might be speaking figuratively in the same way,
meaning that God brought man into being through normal biological processes.[2] Hebrew
narrative is incredibly spare—it is only interested in telling us what we need to know to learn
the teaching the author wants to convey.

Despite the compression, omissions, and figurative language, are there signs in the text that
this is a myth and not an historical account? Some say that we must read Genesis 2-11 in light
of other ancient creation myths of the Near Eastern world. Since other cultures were writing
myths about events like the creation of the world and the great flood, this view goes, we
should recognize that the author of Genesis 2-3 was probably doing the same thing. In this
view, the author of Genesis 2-3 was simply recounting a Hebrew version of the myth of
creation and flood. He may even have believed that the events did happen, but in that he was
merely being a man of his time.

Kenneth Kitchen, however, protests that this is not how things worked. The prominent
Egyptologist and evangelical Christian, when responding to the charge that the flood
narrative (Gen 9) should be read as “myth” or “proto-history” like the other flood-narratives
from other cultures, answered:

The ancient Near East did not historicize myth (i.e. read it as imaginary “history”). In fact,
exactly the reverse is true—there was, rather, a trend to “mythologize” history, to celebrate
actual historical events and people in mythological terms. [3]

In other words, the evidence is that Near Eastern “myths” did not evolve over time into
historical accounts, but rather historical events tended to evolve over time into more
mythological stories. Kitchen’s argument is that, if you read Genesis 2-11 in light of how
ancient Near Eastern literature worked, you would conclude, if anything, that Genesis 2-11
were “high” accounts, with much compression and figurative language, of events that
actually happened. In summary, it looks like a responsible way of reading the text is to
interpret Genesis 2-3 as the account of an historical event that really happened.

Consider the New Testament

The other relevant text here is Romans 5:12ff, where Paul speaks of Adam and the fall. It is
even clearer that Paul believed that Adam was a real figure. N. T. Wright, in his commentary
on Romans says:

Paul clearly believed that there had been a single first pair, whose male, Adam, had been
given a commandment and had broken it. Paul was, we may be sure, aware of what we would
call mythical or metaphorical dimensions to the story, but he would not have regarded these
as throwing doubt on the existence, and primal sin, of the first historical pair.[4]

If you don’t believe Adam and Even were literal but realize the author of Genesis was
probably trying to teach us that they were real people who sinned—Paul certainly was—then
you have to face the implications for how you read Scripture. You may say, “Well, the
biblical authors were ‘men of their time’ and were wrong about something they were trying
to teach readers.” The obvious question is, “How will we know which parts of the Bible to
trust and which not?”

The key for interpretation is the Bible itself. I don’t think the author of Genesis 1 wants us to
take the “days” literally, but it is clear that Paul definitely does want readers to take Adam
and Eve literally. When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants
you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority.

Sin and Salvation

Some may respond, “Even though we don’t think there was a literal Adam, we can accept the
teaching of Genesis 2 and Romans 5, namely that all human beings have sinned and that
through Christ we can be saved. So the basic biblical teaching is intact, even if we do not
accept the historicity of the story of Adam and Eve.” I think that assertion is too simplistic.
The Christian gospel is not good advice, but good news. It is not directions on what we
should do to save ourselves but rather an announcement of what has been done to save us.
The gospel is that Jesus has done something in history so that, when we are united to him by
faith, we get the benefits of his accomplishment, and so we are saved. As a pastor, I often get
asked how we can get credit for something that Christ did. The answer does not make much
sense to modern people, but it makes perfect sense to ancient people. It is the idea of being in
“federation” with someone, in a legal and historical solidarity with a father, or an ancestor, or
another family member or a member of your tribe. You are held responsible (or you get
credit) for what that other person does. Another way to put it is that you are in a covenant
relationship with the person. An example is Achan, whose entire family is punished when he
sins (Josh 7.) The ancient and biblical understanding is that a person is not “what he is”
simply through his personal choices. He becomes “what he is” through his communal and
family environment. So if he does a terrible crime—or does a great and noble deed—others
who are in federation (or in solidarity, or in covenant with him) are treated as if they had
done what he had done.

This is how the gospel salvation of Christ works, according to Paul. When we believe in
Jesus, we are “in Christ” (one of Paul’s favorite expressions, and a deeply biblical one.) We
are in covenant with him, not because we are related biologically but through faith. So what
he has done in history comes to us.

What has all this to do with Adam? A lot. Paul makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 15
about Adam and Christ that he does in Romans 5.

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (1 Cor 15:21-22).

When Paul says we are saved “in Christ” he means that Christians have a covenantal, federal
relationship with Christ. What he did in history is laid to our account. But in the same
sentence Paul says that all human beings are similarly (he adds the word “as” for emphasis)
“in Adam.” In other words, Adam was a covenantal representative for the whole human race.
We are in a covenant relationship with him, so what he did in history is laid to our account.

When Paul speaks of being “in” someone he means to be covenantally linked to them so their
historical actions are credited to you. It is impossible to be “in” someone who doesn’t
historically exist. If Adam doesn’t exist, Paul’s whole argument—that both sin and grace
work “covenantally”—falls apart. You can’t say that Paul was a man of his time but accept
his basic teaching about Adam. If you don’t believe what he believes about Adam, you are
denying the core of Paul’s teaching.

[1] Granted, often New Testament writers see Messianic meanings in Old Testament prophecies that
were doubtless invisible to the OT prophets themselves. Nonetheless, while a biblical author’s
writing may have more true meanings than he intended when writing, it may not have less. That is,
what the human author meant to teach us cannot be seen as mistaken or now obsolete without
surrendering the traditional understanding of Biblical authority and trustworthiness.

[2] See Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan, 2001) p. 75. Of course, Waltke
notes that Psalm 139 is poetry and Genesis 2 is narrative, but that does not mean that prose
cannot use figurative speech and poetry literal speech. It only means that poetry uses more
figurative and prose less. Another example of a narrative that speaks of the divine power
behind a natural process is Acts 12:23. There we are told that Herod Agrippa was delivering a
public address to an audience when “an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten
by worms, and died.” Josephus relates that Agrippa did indeed fall ill at the same time, but it
was due to a “severe intestinal obstruction.” Here again we see the Bible speaking of God’s
action behind a natural biological process.

[3] K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2003) p.425.

[4] N.T. Wright, “Romans” in The New Interpreter’s Bible vol.X, p. 526.

Tim Keller is the senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Manhattan, New
York. He is also co-founder and vice president of The Gospel Coalition. For more resources
by Tim Keller visit Redeemer City to City.

Theistic Evolution
Trying to Reconcile Evolution and Creation

Many Christians feel compelled to try to reconcile evolution and creation through a view
called "theistic evolution." In this article we will examine whether there are legitimate ways
to do this. But anyone who attempts to do so are up against an initial problem that evolution
is essentially an atheistic philosophy. For the evolutionist, if God exists he is irrelevant. The
following definition of evolution was the 1995 official Position Statement of the American
National Association of Biology Teachers and is consistent with what other major science
organizations mean by evolution:

"The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal,

unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is
affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."

The concept of evolution being a godless random chance process is emphasized throughout
the writings of scientists. For example, consider the words of famous geneticist Richard
Lewontin:

"It is not that the methods and insitutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material
explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori
adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts
that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannopt allow a
Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who
could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow
that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

Or consider this quote from Richard Dawkins: "miraculous additions at any one stage of
descent...i.e. any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at
all."
From such quotes we may infer that it is either/or: either 100% evolution or 100% intelligent
design. But the landscape here is getting murky. Some intelligent desing proponents are
saying that evolution happened but also that God's supernatural intervention helped at certain
key points. Here is an interesting article that actually puts scientists in four different camps on
this question: Paul Nelson on Design and Common Ancestry.

First, let us make a distinction between "Old Earth Creationism," "Young Earth

Creationism," and "Theistic Evolution." Old Earth Creationism says that God intervened in
natural processes at key points, such as at the creation of man. This view is sometimes
called Progressive Creationism. A difference between Old Earth Creationists and Young
Earth Creationists is that Old Earthers do not see the 6-day creation account in Genesis as
literal 24-hour days, but rather long indeterminant periods of time. Or they may say that the
6-days of Genesis were literal but there were very long gaps in between the days. The
proponents of Old Earth Creationism believe that the Bible is fully compatible with the
generally accepted view of scientists about the age of the earth and other details of science.
The most well-known proponent of old earth creationism is astronomer Hugh Ross whose
website is Reasons to Believe.

Young Earth Creationistists hold to a literal 6-day creation. But they also believe that their
views are fully compatible with science—that the vast majority of scientific evidences that
help date the age of the earth point to a very young earth. The proponents of this view include
Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research.

The majority view among Christians, including those holding to Intelligent Design, is for an
old earth.    

Old earth (progessive) creationists believe that when the Bible says that there was no death
before Adam's Fall, it means spiritual death only. This is a necessary belief for the
progressive creationist because they assume that man was created by God long after other
animals were created, and these animals lived and died essentially as they do now. So
physical death came into the world prior to Adam.

Young-earth creationists disagree, saying that when the Bible says "death," it means physical
death as well as spiritual death. And this physical death must applied to animals as well as
mankind.

There are numerous other implications about how the book of Genesis is interpreted in this
regard. This all interesting to the theologian. But we would emphasize here that the bigger
debate is not about the age of the earth. The key point in the debate with evolutionists is
whether God created the universe and life, or whether it was a matter of pure chance.

There are four basic categories of theistic evolution, which we will simply call TE-1, TE-2,
TE-3. In discussion with proponents of theistic evolution, we have noticed that most have not
thought their position very deeply. They simply hold to some sort of vague idea. By breaking
down these various views we might help the reader to get a better grasp of the possibilities.
Our thanks to Stephen Meyer at the Discovery Institute for some of this helpful thinking.

TE-1 says that God directed evolution and further that we can scientifically detect this. This
view, along with young-earth creationism and old-earth creationism can be considered part of
the Intelligent Design movement. All 3 groups believe that we can infer from rigorous
scientic examination that an intelligent agent must have been involved in the origins of life
and its various forms. TE-1 seems to be an extreme version of progressive creation in that
God was involved in every tiny mutation and each "natural" selection event. As far as we
know, there are yet no visible groups that are proponents of TE-1.

TE-2 says that God directed evolution but that this cannot be detected scientifically. This
group seems to take their view of origins of man largely on faith as they offer no scientific
explantion for it. If we understand their views, The BioLogos Forum is a proponent of this
idea. Like TE-1, God intervened trillions and trillions of times into random processes. Here's
an interesting article about this: Olasky on Evolution. Olasky points out that there are serious
contradictions with this view and Christianity. Also see our article How the Bible and
Evolution Conflict.

TE-3 says that God did not direct the evolutionary process in any way. Yet they still say that
God was involved in the process somehow. Thus, they believe that God guided an un-guided
process. This view is obviously logically contradictory and thus is impossible.

Deism. There is another view that allows God in the picture. It says that God created the
universe and then stepped back and let things run on their own. Evolution by random chance
then took over and became the mechanism by which lifeforms came into being. This view is
called deism. While it is a possible view, it certainly is not Christian. The Christian God not
only created the universe, but specifically created all life. Further, God is not only creator,
but sustainer of the world as well. There is a further philosophical problem with deism that
has led many theists who have studied philosophy to discard it. The problem is that under
deism whatever is, is right. In other words, if God allows all events to happen, how can one
say that any event or choice is wrong? Thus ethics has no meaning.

We might call this view "Deistic Evolution." And it seems that there are at least a couple of
version of it, which can label DE-1 and DE-2. Here is how they might look:

DE-1. God's only role is that of creating the universe.

DE-2. It seems that a few people say that God created the universe and did not intervene
again until raising Jesus Christ from the dead. This seems to be yet another attempt to
reconcile Christianity with evolution. But there are numerous problems with this view as
well. For example, why would you assume that humankind would even exist at all if God did
not ultimately determine it? Is God involved in your life? Can you trust in a God that is not
really sovereign in all things?

So, any form of deism brings the ire of atheists and Christians alike.

Some Christians trying to harmonize evolution and creation will make the statement, "I
believe that God used evolution to create." This is a naive statement. In fact, it is an internal
contradiction. By definition, evolution is purely a random chance process ("undirected
material process") with no part by a Creator God. We believe it is impossible for the rational
Christian to say that God used evolution to create.

A final consideration is that some Christians have attempted to reconcile creation and
evolution by compartmentalizing science and religion. Under this view, the two disciplines
attempt to find truth in different ways, and the disciplines should respectfully not interfere
with each other. But this too is inconsistent with Scripture. This is merely succumbing to
society's effort to marginalize Christianity. The Bible insists that its worldview is all
encompassing (Romans 1:19-20; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Philippians 2:10).

And some Christians attempt to reconcile evolution with the Bible due to an unfounded
concern that the Bible will not hold up to scientific scrutiny. This is an unwarranted fear.
Concerning science and Scripture, while the Bible was not written as a science textbook,
Christians should welcome the Bible being investigated through scientific endeavors such as
archeology, geology, paleontology, etc. The Bible consistently holds up under such tests. It
is now even recognized that the Bible correctly demonstrates pre-science knowledge
throughout the science disciplines. And there are no scientific mistakes in the Bible
(Defender's Study Bible, annotations by Henry Morris, page 1525).

See our essays at Tough Questions.

Christianity is not based on blind faith, but faith in evidence. The Bible teaches that we
should use our minds (Isaiah 1:18; Matthew 22:37) to "test all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21)
in light of evidence (Acts 1:3, 2:32; 1 Corinthians 15:6; Colossians 2:81), and to contend for
the faith intellectually (1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3). The Bible is trustworthy. Christians do not need
to discount the Bible or to water down their faith by putting faith in the theory of evolution.

Conclusion: Creation and evolution are competing worldviews that cannot be successfully
reconciled.

Evolution is poor science. It is a bankrupt philosophy that is harmful to society. It is contrary to

Christianity. The evidence is greatly against it. Why are you still clinging to it?

Evolution/Creation Class Study

An Outline for a Bible Class Study
Here is a group of videos that can be used in a class study. 

DVD's: "The Case for the Creator," "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," and "The Privileged
Planet." These three DVD's can be purchased as a set from
http://www.buzzplant.com/illustra/ecard1/.

Video: "The Triumph of Design," featuring Phillip Johnson.

Available from Triumph of Design or 1-800-771-2147 (days) or 1-888-US AWARE x 800 (after
hours)

Recommended further reading: Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. See also Prof.
Johnson's web site www.origins.org.

Video: "From Evolution to Creation" by Gary Parker, Ph.D.

 Recommended further reading: Creation Facts of Life by Gary Parker

Video and book available from Answers in Genesis, www.AnswersInGenesis.org or 1-800-

778-3390.

Video: "The Challenge of the Fossil Record: Evolution? The Fossils Say No!" by Duane
Gish, Ph.D.

Recommended further reading: Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! by Duane Gish, Bones of
Contention, by Martin Lubenow. (Books and video available from the Institute for Creation
Research, www.icr.org or 1-800-337-0375.)

Video: "Opening Darwin's Black Box, An Interview with Dr. Michael Behe." 

Recommended further reading: Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, Ph.D. The book and
video are available at www.IntelligentDesign.org. Note: The video may be out of print.
Contact the Discovery Institute 206-292-0401. They may have suggestion for other videos.

Video: "Darwin's Dilemma, available at http://www.darwinsdilemma.org/.

Discussion: Semantic Considerations and Scientific Problems with Evolution

Recommended further reading: Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds by Phillip E.

Johnson.

Discussion: The Philosophical and Theological Problems of Evolution

Recommended further reading: Evolution: Science or Creation Story, available on this web
site.

  

CONCEPT:

This class can be presented in church group sessions of an hour in length with only limited
prior study or preparation. The last 2 classes can be led by someone who has read at least
some of the materials listed for further reading. 

The following videos could also be used, depending on how long you want the series to
continue: "Facts and Bias: Creation vs. Evolution" featuring Ken Ham (available from
Answers in Genesis), "Scientific Creationism" and/or "Biblical Creationism" featuring Henry
M. Morris, Ph.D. (from the Institute for Creation Research), "Mount St. Helens: Explosive
Evidence for Catastrophe" featuring Steve Austin, Ph.D. (from the Institute for Creation
Research).