Saturday, April 3, 2010

The Natural Limits of Evolution

by Babu G. Ranganathan

Is it possible to be scientifically-minded and not believe in evolution? Well, it is important to distinguish between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution involves variations within biological "kinds" (such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.). Micro-evolution is truly scientific, but macro-evolution which teaches that variations in nature can occur and did occur across biological "kinds" (especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones) has never been scientifically proved even though it is almost universally taught and taken for granted as being a scientific fact.

Although it's been observed new species have come into existence, they don't carry any new genes. They've become new species only because they can't be crossed back with the original parent stock for various biological reasons. A biological "kind" allows for new species but not new genes. Nature has no ability to invent new genes for new traits. Only limited variations and adaptations are possible in nature, and all strictly within a biological "kind" (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.)

The genes already exist in all species for micro-evolution. It's just a matter of the genes having an opportunity for expression. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution is possible in nature. Micro-evolution is the only evolution that can be truly observed, quantified and can be truly called "science," but not macro-evolution. Macro-evolution would require entirely new genes (entirely new genetic information) to come into existence and not just variations of already existing genes. The scientific evidence from genetics and other areas of science supports only the possibility of mico-evolution or limited evolution in nature.

The famous nineteenth century naturalist Charles Darwin assumed that because micro-evolution occurs in nature then macro-evolution must also be possible, but the modern scientific evidence from genetics supports only the possibility of micro-evolution, or limited biological variation, occurring in living things. For example, no matter how many different races or varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Modifications or recombinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes for entirely new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or some other entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as being new traits. The genes already exist in every species for micro-evolution to be possible. The reader should be aware, however, that most biological variations within a species are not because of mutations but, rather, because of new combinations of already existing genes. Mutations are rare and, over time, will accumulate to erode or destroy the genome of a species because mutations  are accidents in the genetic code caused by environmental forces such as radiation.

The theory of macro-evolution teaches that there are no biological limits to variation and change. For example, macro-evolution teaches that over millions of years something like a dog evolved into an ape and then something like an ape evolved into a human being. But, unless the environment or Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering such macro-evolutionary changes, as proposed by Darwin, are not possible - millions of years or no millions of years!

What about natural selection? Natural selection can only "select" from possible variations of already existing genes and traits. It doesn't produce genes or biological traits. That's why it's called natural "selection." It is a passive process in nature. When a biological change or variation occurs (i.e. change in hair color) that helps an animal survive in a new environment then that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection is just another term for survival of the fittest.

There is no conscious or active selection on the part of Nature, as some think. Natural selection may explain how biological traits or variations survive but it does not explain how biological traits or variations originate. As one individual has said, "Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest!" Natural selection explains only a small part of reality. The real issue is not natural selection but what biological variations are naturally possible because natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible.

Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza’s extensive research points to a better explanation than natural selection for variation and adaptation in nature. Dr. Guliuzza explains that species have pre-engineered mechanisms that enable organisms to continuously track and respond to environmental changes with system elements that correspond to human-designed tracking systems. This model is called CET (continuous environmental tracking). His research strongly indicates that living things have been pre-engineered  to produce the right adaptations and changes required to live in changing environments. It’s much like a car that’s been pre-engineered so that the head lights turn on automatically when day changes to night.

All observed biological traits and variations are the result of new combinations of already existing genes or the result of modifications (mutations) of already existing genes. This allows for only limited biological variations to occur. Evolutionists, however, believe that, if given enough time, random or chance mutations in the genetic code, caused by random environmental forces such as radiation, will produce entirely new traits and variations which natural selection can then act upon. However, mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don't do any damage to buildings, there are also mutations that don't do any biological harm. But, even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species. Natural selection would have no chance. It wouldn't get to first base!

Even a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species - not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years if their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving! Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book "In The Beginning", makes this point by saying "All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100 percent complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing."

In any case, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that the environment has the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on genes would be helpful here. What we call "genes" are actually segments of the DNA molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of various nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to construct (or build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, brain, etc. If the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct sequence then malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing serious health problems and even death.

There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells.

The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.

Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the process of such random changes.

Such changes as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler species into the DNA of a more complex one. Yes, the raw materials and chemicals to make new genes exist in all species, but random forces of the environment (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes or into an entirely new genetic code.

What about “Junk DNA”? It's not junk! We were simply ignorant of its usefulness. Recent research shows that these so-called "non-coding" segments of DNA are vital in regulating gene expression (when, where, and how genes are expressed). There's no room for random mutations to operate safely. Random genetic mutations, caused by random environmental radiation, are destructive. Even if mutations are not immediately harmful, after enough of them accumulate they will be harmful. And, even if a good mutation does occur, for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net effect, over time, being harmful to the species as a whole and even causing extinction, not upward evolution. Most variations are from new combinations of already existing genes, not mutations.

Recent research also shows that repetitive structures in DNA are vital in forming the chromosome matrix, which, in turn, enables chromosomes to be functional and operative.

Genetic information, like other forms of information, cannot arise by chance, so it is far more logical to believe that the DNA and biological similarities between species are due to a common Designer rather than common ancestry through evolution by way of random mutations. The Creator simply designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

Usually what is meant by the term "biological kind" is a natural species but this may not always be the case. The key to keep in mind here is that in order for evolution in nature to occur from one biological "kind" to another biological "kind" entirely new genes would have to be generated and not just merely modifications and/or recombinations of already existing genes. If, for example, offspring are produced which cannot be crossed back with the original stock then there is, indeed, a new species but if no new genes or traits developed then there is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the two distinct species would continue to belong to the same "kind".

If the environment doesn't possess the ability to perform genetic engineering and if macro-evolution really did not occur then how else can one explain the genetic and biological similarities which exist between various species and, indeed, all of life. Although it cannot be scientifically proven, creationists believe that the only rational explanation for the genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life is due to a common Designer who designed and created similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the most complex. Even humans employ this principle of common design in planning the varied architecture of buildings!

Genetic or DNA similarities can only be used to prove relationship within a biological "kind" but not between biological "kinds". Since members within a biological kind can interbreed and reproduce the genetic similarities must be evidence of relationship.

Various issues (i.e. the origin of life, the fossil record, mutations, natural selection or survival of the fittest, genetic and biological similarities between species, arguments from embryology, the subject of vestigial organs or structures, the age of the earth, etc.) will be examined and discussed in this essay. Although some issues such as mutations have already been raised and covered in the above paragraphs, we will cover the above issues again in more detail in the rest of this essay. Here you will read scientific information that, unfortunately, most editors and publishers of science textbooks fail to mention or include when covering the subject of origins. The best, the most readable, book on the subject that I can recommend to the reader is Dr. Walt Brown's amazingly comprehensive work "In The Beginning" which is available for free reading on the Internet at:

Definition of Science

First, it is important to understand that science itself can deal only with how the universe works or operates, because this is what we can actually observe or test. Human observation, either directly through the senses or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of all scientific knowledge. The subject of the origin of life and the universe is outside the scope of human observation and, therefore, does not technically come under the definition of science per se. Since no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by chance or evolution, and no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by design or creation, both evolution and creation are ultimately remain positions of faith and not science. However, it is possible to evaluate which faith, evolution or creation, is better supported by the actual evidence from science.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

The creationists believe that the scientific evidence from genetics, biogenesis, thermodynamics, paleontology, information theory, laws of probability, and other areas of science better support faith in creation (the belief that an intelligent power was behind the origin of life, natural species, and the universe) than chance or evolution.

One problem with the evolutionary theory is that it attempts to explain the origin of the universe by laws which describe its operation. It's much like attempting to explain the origin of a TV set by the various laws which govern the operation of the TV. Such laws are adequate in explaining how the orderly system in a TV set operates and functions, but those same laws of physics, if left to themselves, would not be adequate or sufficient in explaining the origin of the T.V.

Similarly, the laws of physics and chemistry are adequate in explaining how the order in life and the universe functions and operates, but, those same laws of physics and chemistry, if undirected and left to themselves, can never be adequate in fully explaining the origin of life and the universe. As we shall examine later in this essay, some properties of life (i.e. amino acids) have been shown to be able to come into existence by the chance, but other properties of life (such as the sequential arrangement of amino acids into proteins and the sequential arrangement of nucleic acids into DNA) have never been shown to be able to occur by chance.

Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and the biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The problem for evolutionary theory is how did the cell come into existence when there was no directing mechanism. In fact, if the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait for millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate, especially without the protection of a complete and fully-functioning cell membrane. It's a classic Catch-22 situation for the evolutionary theory. More will be said on this matter later.

Origin of Life

At the very foundation of evolutionary theory is the belief that life originally evolved from nonliving matter. This belief is known as spontaneous generation. This evolutionary theory was successfully refuted by the experiments of the brilliant creationist and scientist Louis Pasteur in the late nineteenth century. All empirical and scientific evidence to this day demonstrates that life can only come from pre-existing life. Even in the laboratory, scientists with all their intelligence, planning, sophisticated equipment and technology have not been able to create a single living cell from nonliving matter. They haven't even come close. What scientists have done is genetically engineer, or alter, already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but, again, they did not produce any of these new life forms from non-living matter. It is truly remarkable how so many in our society, even those who are well educated, erroneously believe that scientists have created life in the laboratory.

Recent news reports suggest that scientists may be close to creating artificial (synthetic) life. None of this is happening by chance but by intelligent design and planning. Why, then, will not many give credit to God for the original DNA and life?

Even in the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing and living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design.

Genetic engineering would never help support any argument for evolution because, unlike evolution, genetic engineering is not a process left to chance, but, rather, genetic engineering is a highly complex procedure which involves intelligent design, planning, and very sophisticated technology.

What happens many times in genetic engineering is that scientists transplant a gene from one organism into the DNA, or genetic code, of another organism which does not possess that gene, and, thereby, they alter the organism receiving the foreign gene. But, again, in all of the cases involving genetic engineering scientists begin with already existing genes from already existing organisms or parts of organisms. But, even if scientists, through intelligent planning and sophisticated technology, ever produced a living organism from scratch (that is without the use of already existing organisms or parts of organisms) it would still not prove that such an event can happen by chance. Ultimately, however, life may be more than just having the right chemical framework and structure since even a dead cell, shortly before it decays, possess all of the proper and necessary chemical structures intact but, alas, has no life.

Although scientists have shown in the laboratory that some basic building blocks of life can come into existence by chance (i.e. amino acids), there are other building blocks of life that scientists have not not shown can happen by chance such as proteins. This is because in order for protein to come into existence the various amino acids which make up protein molecules would have to come together in a precise sequence just like the letters found in a sentence. This is not something that the mere laws of chemistry left to themselves can accomplish. There is no law in chemistry that amino acids have to bond or come together in a sequence. The only reason why complex molecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins can form at all in the cells of our bodies and other organisms is because of already existing or previously existing DNA/RNA and biological machinery directing the formation of more DNA, RNA, and proteins. DNA (the genetic code) and its mirror duplicate molecule RNA are sequentially constructed molecules.

DNA stays in the nucleus of the cells but RNA (its duplicate) is sent outside of the nucleus into the cytoplasm of the cell where it gives instructions for the cell on building protein molecules. Both DNA and RNA are made up of individual molecules of nucleic acids which are arranged in a precise sequence. The sequence has to be correct or otherwise these molecules will not function! Again, it requires already existing DNA, RNA, and proteins in order for more DNA, RNA, and proteins to come into existence. Thus, the billion dollar question is how did the very first life form(s) come into existence when there was no already existing DNA, RNA, and biological machinery in place. The answer obviously is that an intelligent Power or Being (yes, God!) must have organized the chaotic and random chemicals in the beginning into the initial DNA, RNA, and protein found in life.

There are four types of nucleic acids making up DNA. A single DNA molecule may contain thousands, even millions, of these four types. A good example is human language. There are twenty-six letters, for example, in the English language, but, yet, with those twenty-six letters we can write a book on any subject by arranging those letters into a precise sequence to form meaningful words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters. Of course, we would have to use each of the twenty-six letters many times. For example, in a book there may be hundreds of each letter. Similarly, the DNA molecule of a particular species may contain thousands, even millions, of the four types of nucleic acids. These nucleic acids in DNA would be arranged in a precise sequence to form the chemical words and sentences that give genetic instructions to the cells of a species to form its various traits and characteristics. The sequence of nucleic acids in DNA ultimately determine the sequence of the various amino acids which make-up the various proteins of tissues, organs, and biological structures.

It's all in the sequence! It is the difference in the sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that determines whether a cell becomes an ant, a cow, or a human being. The DNA of even the simplest form of life, such as a bacterium, has a sequential chain of three million nucleic acids. The probability of this happening by chance is equivalent to that of an unabridged dictionary coming into existence from a monkey randomly pressing the keys on a typewriter or computer keyboard. In fact, forget about one monkey. You can have a billion monkeys randomly hitting keys on a billion typewriters or computer keyboards non-stop for a billion years and you still won't get a dictionary or encyclopedia. You won't even come close! Oh, sure, you may get a word here or there typed by a monkey randomly pressing the keys but that's about it. Only an evolutionist looking at the scene would claim that an accidental word typed here or there by a monkey is irrefutable proof that dictionaries and encyclopedias can come into being by chance. How ridiculous! The one billion years which evolutionists say it took for the first life form to come into existence by chance is utterly laughable from what we know from the science of probability applied to our modern knowledge and understanding of DNA, RNA, and the protein molecules that make up the incredible complexity of the cell.

In fact, even billions times billions of years would not even begin to scratch the odds of just a single protein molecule coming into existence by chance much less the millions of protein molecules that make up even the simplest cell. And just having a partial cell will not do. As was mentioned earlier, a partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully-functioning cell membrane. You must have the whole cell with its millions of orderly and sequentially arranged parts come into existence all at once or not at all. This is just the problem for evolutionists who not too long ago put so much faith in pre-biotic soups in some pre-historic period of the earth's history. What is interesting is that all of the cell's machinery is necessary for producing even a single part. For example, you cannot get DNA without RNA and enzymes, but then you cannot get RNA and enzymes without DNA. Darwin just had no idea! He'd turn over in his grave now if he knew all this.

Just because the right conditions might exist to sustain life doesn't mean that life itself will come into existence by chance or from non-living matter. Did you know that all of the chemicals necessary to make an apple seed are found in the dust of the earth? And there's more than sufficient energy available from the sun. But, you don't see those chemicals in the earth utilizing the energy from the sun and naturally organizing themselves into apple seeds. Instead, you and I see apple seeds coming only from the apples which grow on apple trees. That's because the apples on the apple trees contain the DNA and the biological machinery necessary to convert the energy from the environment and then direct that energy into organizing the chemicals which enter into the trees from the earth to form into apple seeds. Just having enough energy and the right materials is not enough to make life or evolution happen. There has to be a biological mechanism already in place to direct and convert that energy to specific purposes and goals. In fact, science has shown that the earth contains all of the chemicals necessary to make any form of life. The second chapter of Genesis in the Bible tells us that God originally took the dust of the earth to make not only man but also all the land animals and birds. Obviously God is intelligent and powerful enough to organize the chemicals in plain ordinary dirt to make man and every other creature. God truly was the first Genetic Engineer!

If evolution is true then the DNA of a simple organism had to have somehow evolved into the DNA of more complex species, including humans. For example, the DNA of a bacterium cell is three million sequential letters long, but the DNA of a human cell is three billion sequential letters long. Evolutionists have offered no viable explanation of how this could have happened, and by chance at that! What we refer to as "genes" are actually segments of the DNA molecular chain. A single gene can comprise a sequence of thousands of nucleic acids. Human DNA, for example, has approximately one hundred thousand genes, but those one hundred thousand genes comprise a sequence of three billion nucleic acids.

Again, it is important to understand there is no inherent chemical tendency for nucleic acids to come together in a sequence to form DNA or for amino acids to come together in a sequence to form protein. The only reason for why this happens at all in living cells is because these chemicals are directed to do so by already existing chemical instructions encoded in the DNA that exists in the cells of our bodies. In other words, it takes DNA to make DNA. DNA can't come into existence any other way. Like they say, "those are the facts, folks!" DNA simply does not and cannot arise spontaneously (by chance chemistry) and no scientist has ever shown that it can. The individual nucleic acids that make up DNA can arise spontaneously (by chance), but what cannot happen by chance is for those individual nucleic acids to come together in a precise sequence, just like the letters found in a sentence, to form DNA or the genetic code. Since any nucleic acid molecule can equally combine or bond with any other nucleic acid molecule then the only rational explanation for why we find them in a sequence in DNA is because they were directed to do so by another DNA or by a genetic engineer. To put it another way, there is no law in chemistry that nucleic acids have to bond together in a certain sequence. Thus, if they do so it's only because they are directed to do so. As was mentioned earlier, in living cells the information (or the specific sequence of nucleic acids) in DNA directs the formation, synthesis, or construction of various protein molecules that make up tissues, organs, and biological structures. Also, what's interesting to note is the fact that in the real world any nucleic and amino acids formed would be quickly destroyed by the free energy in the environment. In living cells, however, the nucleic and amino acids are protected by the cell membrane from being destroyed by the outside environment. This is why any gradual evolution of the cell would have been impossible. A partially-evolved cell would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate. A partially-evolved cell simply cannot wait for millions of years to evolve into completion!

Imagine that you find a pool of magnetic letters. There are thousands of letters from A-Z. Any one letter can attract to any other letter. The next day you find the letters arranged in such a way that there is a message. Now, you know that couldn't be by chance - to find the letters together in such a sequence. Language, any language, by its nature must have sequence in the use of its characters or otherwise there can be no communication. You can't even invent a message from letters thrown together randomly because there is no sequence in the usage of the characters. You would laugh at anyone who dares tell you that the sequence of those magnetic letters was all by chance. Now, you get just a little idea of why it would be ridiculous to believe that the sequence of nucleic acids found in DNA is by chance.

In Nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won't function. There won't be any life! Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

Now, let's examine the relation of DNA to protein molecules. Protein molecules are made up of chains of amino acids that are also arranged in a sequence. The sequence of the various nucleic acids in DNA ultimately determines the sequence of the various amino acids in protein. DNA also directs its own replication (or duplication). Of course, once you have a complete, fully-functioning, and living cell the biological and chemical machinery then exists for new cells to come into being via the process of reproduction, but that does not provide us the answer to how the original DNA, RNA and protein molecules of the first cell arose when there was no such biological and chemical machinery in existence. Mere undirected laws of chemistry will never, never provide the universe with even a single protein molecule, much less an entire cell with billions of protein molecules, DNA, RNA, etc. It is not even scientific to consider such a thought! People think that if we find a planet somewhere out in space that can support life then life will just come into existence. Just because we have the conditions to support life doesn't necessarily mean that those conditions will produce or create life from non-living matter. The real scientific fact is that the very intricacy, complexity, and organizational structure of the cell points to an intelligent Power (God) for its original cause.

However, an amazing fact of biology is that every cell in your body, except for your reproductive cells, contains the complete information for the whole body. Yet not all the information in the DNA of your cells is allowed to be expressed or translated. For example, a cell from your hair also contains the complete genetic information for your eyes, brain, heart, liver, skin, and all the rest of the various organs and functions of your body (it's because of this that cloning an entire organism from any cell of the body is possible). However, in the hair cells of your body only the genetic information for your hair is allowed to be expressed, while all the other information is literally "blocked off" from being expressed or translated.

Of course, it is good for us that the cells in our bodies were designed this way; otherwise every cell in our bodies would also be everything else at the same time, which would create utter biological chaos. Truly, we may say with the Psalmist that "we are fearfully (or awesomely) and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14). Such biological precision in the cells of our bodies is still beyond the full comprehension of modern science. But the fact remains that the more we comprehend or understand the cell and how it functions, the more we must respect the wisdom behind its engineering and design.

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt that contained life into outer space that eventually could have reached Mars. An article in Newsweek magazine reported:

We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars, says (evolutionist) Kenneth Nealson. You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth. [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12]. In fact, Dr. Walt Brown in his book In The Beginning points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria.

The Origin of Species

Regarding the origin of species, all of the scientific evidence from genetics supports the possibility of only limited biological variation. For example, variations within a biological kind are possible, such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but not variations across biological kinds, such as a dog becoming a cat, or variations from simpler kinds to more complex ones. As mentioned earlier, for the most part a biological kind can be defined as a natural species. Of course, many times we have wrongly classified animals as belonging to two different species when in reality they belonged to the same species and, inversely, many times we have mistakenly classified animals as belonging to the same species when in reality they belonged to separate species all along. Because of time constraints, lack of sufficient personnel, equipment, and work force many animals, plants, and insects often get classified by scientists based solely on superficial characteristics rather than by the true scientific test for determining species which is whether or not individual organisms can be successfully crossed. That is the true demonstrable test for determining whether varieties belong to the same species. Even so, in some cases organisms belonging to the same species may not be able to be crossed because of physical reasons (i.e. huge differences in size) or because of mutational changes that have detrimentally affected the reproductive capability between the varieties involved even though they technically share the same gene pool.

However, even if two different species were successfully crossed so that a hybrid was produced which could not be crossed back with any of the original parent stock that still would not mean that true Darwinian evolution had occurred. The new hybrid species would simply be a recombination of already existing genes. In order for true Darwinian evolution to occur it would require more than just a new species coming into existence from re-combinations of already existing genes. True Darwinian macro-evolution would require the formation or generation of entirely new genes and not just modifications and/or re-combinations of already existing genes and genetic material. After all, according to Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory human beings had evolved from fish over many millions of years. This would have, indeed, required the production of entirely new genes. Evolutionists believe that such new genes came about by genetic mutations.

Darwinian evolution demands that biological variations be able to occur from simpler species to more complex ones (such as from fish to humans). Evolutionists recognizing the genetic limits to biological variation have argued that mutations in the genetic code of organisms will produce the changes demanded by Darwin's theory. However, the facts are otherwise. Genetic mutations are random changes (or accidents) in the sequential structure of the genetic code of species, and they are caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation. Since radiation is a force which cannot think or plan, when it strikes the genetic code of an organism the energy from the radiation causes random changes in the sequential structure of the code. It's much like how a magnet randomly changes the sequence of letters or characters on a computer disk. Obviously, such random changes will not improve or increase the information content on the disk. Similarly, because mutations are accidental changes in the sequence and structure of the genetic code, they are almost always harmful. Statistics from laboratory experiments demonstrate that between 99.7 and 99.9 percent of all mutations are harmful to the organism affected, not beneficial. Those mutations which are not harmful have been found to be only neutral in their effect toward organisms. Even if a good mutation did occur, for every good one there will be hundreds of bad (or harmful) ones and the net effect over time will be harmful, if not lethal, to the individual organism and for the species as a whole. Furthermore, mutations do not produce new traits or characteristics in organisms. They merely modify already existing traits or characteristics and thereby produce only further variations within a biological kind or natural species. For example, a mutation in the gene(s) for human hair may modify the gene(s) so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutation will not change the gene(s) so that new traits such as feathers or wings develop.

It should be kept in mind, however, that most of the biological variations which occur within a natural species are due to new combinations of already existing genes and not because of mutations. Thus, if a truly beneficial variation (i.e. favorable change in skin color, etc.) occurs suddenly in a population it most likely is because of previously unexpressed genes rather than because of mutations. Even if a mutation is beneficial it would not necessarily produce Darwinian evolution. It is not enough for a mutation to be simply beneficial in order for Darwinian evolution to occur. The mutation would also have to be capable of increasing the complexity of the organism or species. The nature of mutations, however, precludes this possibility from ever occurring. To say that mutations can increase the complexity of an organism or species is like saying earthquakes can increase the complexity of buildings. In any case, the point being made here is that micro-evolution (biological variations within a kind) does occur naturally in nature, but macro-evolution (biological variations across kinds) does not. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact. Macro-evolution is not!

Occasionally, mutations have been known to "trigger" the duplication of existing genes but this extra genetic material is not new genetic information since the duplicated gene still serves the same function as the gene from which it was duplicated. During the biological process known as meiosis individual genes are randomly paired together producing differences and variations in offspring (i.e. blond and red hair babies from the same parents), but this random pairing of genes does not mean that the individual genes themselves came into existence by randomness or by chance. An illustration might help to make the point here. In a school dance, for example, a couple may be randomly paired together, but this does not mean that the individual couples themselves came into existence by chance or random processes.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

Where do our bodies get the material from so that cells in our bodies can reproduce into millions and billions of more cells with each new cell being the exact same size as the original cell from which it was reproduced? The answer is simple. The material that our body uses to build new cells comes from the food that we eat. When the food is digested and broken down to the basic amino acids the different amino acids are then re-arranged, according to instructions in our DNA, or genetic code, to form the various tissues, organs, and biological structures of our bodies. Thus, the same food given to a dog will form into the various parts of a dog (i.e. snout, tail, etc.), but when eaten by humans the food will be re-arranged to form human organs and parts (i.e. fingers, toes, etc.). Thus, our food is more than just for energy. It is also the raw resource and material used for the building and manufacturing of new cells in our bodies. Before we were born, our mother's food was the material used by our DNA to build our initial tissues, organs, and various biological structures.

What about natural selection or survival of the fittest? It must be understood that natural selection or survival of the fittest is not a creative force. It does not produce any new species but can only operate within a natural species. Natural selection, after all, can only select from biological variations that are possible. Natural selection can only operate within the genetic limits and capability of a natural species. Evolutionists assume that chance mutations in the genetic code of organisms caused by environmental forces such as radiation are eventually capable of expanding the genetic information and capability of species so that macro- biological changes and variations can occur which natural selection can then act upon. However, the scientific evidence and data show that whatever mutations can actually accomplish will be very limited. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that environmental forces in nature have the capability to upgrade the genetic and sequential information in the DNA of simpler species so that more complex species can evolve via natural selection. In fact, random genetic mutations caused by radiation and other environmental forces will do just the opposite - they will cause death and eventual destruction, even, extinction of a species!

Contrary to popular public belief about how evolution is supposed to occur, it doesn't matter what the environment is like. If the genetic information for a certain trait or characteristic is not already in the DNA (or genetic code) of a species then there is nothing in the environment that is capable of putting that information there so that the species would develop that particular trait or characteristic. In other words, it doesn't matter how much a lizard may need to fly in order to be able to survive. If the genetic information for feathers and wings are not in the DNA of a lizard then that lizard will never develop feathers and wings.

When we consider the nature of mutations and the biologically limited role of natural selection there is no scientific basis or reason for believing that they will produce the macro-biological changes that are demanded by Darwinian evolutionary theory. Yet, in spite of all the contrary scientific evidence, most scientists and biology textbooks all over the world still teach macro-evolution (variation across biological "kinds" and that life evolved from non-living matter) to be valid scientific theory if not fact. Why? That's a good question. The answer to that question, however, lies not in science. Scientists are people too, and they have personal motives and belief systems just like everybody else. Many scientists, like other people, don't want to believe in God because it would mean that they would have to answer to a Higher Power and Being for how they live their lives. Even many who believe in God don't really want God to be involved too much in their lives and Darwinian evolutionary theory offers an excellent opportunity for keeping God at a distance or, at least, not taking the Bible too seriously. And, of course, there is the fact that most scientists are so brainwashed with evolutionary theory that they simply fail to see the scientific fallacies, deficiencies, and contradictions in Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Evolutionists have found a novel way of arguing for their theory. Scientists have discovered that when genes duplicate an extra set of genes are made. The first set of genes are active (expressed) while the second set of genes are inactive (unexpressed). The second set will not affect the organism.

Some evolutionists, therefore, have argued that the second set of genes may undergo numerous mutations without bringing any harm to the organism. This still does not mean, however, that numerous mutations will produce new genetic information in the second set of genes. And, when and how would the second set of genes be expressed? If anything, the results of numerous mutations in the second set of genes would be harmful, if not lethal, to the organism once expressed.

Why there is a second set of the same genes is not fully known. Maybe the Creator designed such an arrangement as a back-up precisely in case the active, or first set of genes, is destroyed by accumulative mutations. Or, perhaps, they are an "extra" set just as some are born with extra fingers or toes. And, as it has already been noted, most biological variations are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations which are rare in nature.

What about “Junk DNA”? Again, as mentioned in the Introduction, the latest science shows that "Junk DNA” isn't junk after all! It's we who were ignorant of how useful these segments of DNA really are. Recent scientific research published in scientific journals such as Nature has revealed that the "non-coding" segments of DNA are very useful, after all, and even essential in regulating gene expression and intracellular activities.

It should be realized that neither belief in creation nor evolution is necessary to the actual study of science itself. For example, one does not have to believe in evolution or creation to become a medical doctor or molecular biologist. There are evolutionists and creationists in both professions. Evolution and creation are both different philosophical interpretations and conclusions of the scientific data. The issue is which philosophical position of origins (Darwinian macro-evolution or Theistic creation) is most consistent with what we actually know from observable and measurable data (i.e. genetics, fossils, biogenesis, thermodynamics, etc.). The true reality is that believing in Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory is as scientific as believing the earth is flat! The near universal teaching of Darwinian macro-evolution as being a scientific fact in most biology textbooks is not only bad science it is an outright lie! Years of such pseudo-scientific brainwashing hinder science students and, ultimately, many scientists themselves from being truly objective and rational, at least when it comes to applying their knowledge of science to the topic of origins. Just saying that fish evolved into humans over millions of years doesn't make it so! Another reality is that many scientists would lose their grants, salaries, and positions if they ever voiced public and official disagreement with Darwinian evolutionary theory. I personally know of a chemistry professor who was denied his Ph.D. in chemistry from a major university when it was discovered that he did not believe, and refused to believe, in Darwinian evolution.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair. Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendents with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

Ultimately, however, all varieties of humans belong to one race - the human race because all varieties of humans are inter-fertile, and this biological proof that we are all descendants of a common human ancestor.

The Fossil Record

Another argument often used to support evolution is the fossil record. However, there are no actual transitional links in the fossil record to support the theory of evolution. All of the species of plants and animals along with their biological parts, traits, and characteristics are found already fully-formed or complete in the fossil record. For example, not a single fossil with part fins ... part feet has been discovered to show that fish had evolved into amphibians. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that there ever was a process of evolution going on. This is powerful evidence that living things came into being as complete and fully-formed from the very beginning which is another way of saying they were created. In regard to the fossil evidence used to support human evolution, there are diametrically different interpretations of the same evidence even among evolutionists. All of the so-called "missing links" that have been discovered have been found to be either hoaxes, nonhuman, or human. There are no actual transitional links between ape-like forms and humans, anymore than there are actual transitional links between apes and quadruped (four-legged) animals of the ground from which evolutionists claim apes have descended.

The so-called "ape-man" creatures are mostly reconstructed from a few bones and most of what has been reconstructed is from imagination. In many cases the bones themselves are in question (i.e., do all of the bones belong to the same creature or to several different ones?). And, there are cases where actual frauds were committed in the assembly of the bones and their reconstruction (i.e., The Piltdown man which had fooled the world and its authorities for forty years before it was finally discovered to be a highly sophisticated hoax). "Nebraska man was reconstructed from what was later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. This evidence was used by Clarence Darrow at the famous Scopes Trial to try to force the teaching of evolution in public schools in Tennessee in 1925" (Dr. Duane T. Gish, biochemist and researcher). Other fossils such as Neanderthal man were found to be fully human after more complete bones were discovered. In fact, Neanderthal man had a brain capacity surpassing that of modern man. But the media and many biology textbooks to this day continue to portray Neanderthal man as some sort of sub-human (half ape/half man) creature. Depending upon the angle of reconstruction an artist can draw the features of a monkey or a man from a Neanderthal skull. Well-known anthropologist E.A. Hooten has said that from a Neanderthal skull an artist can fashion the features of a chimpanzee or a philosopher and that it is wise to " ... put not your faith in reconstructions." Because of the anatomical similarities between humans and apes it is very easy for a scientist who is eagerly looking for evidence of human evolution to read into partial human bones certain ape-like qualities or to read into partial ape bones certain human-like qualities. But, now consider this. According to evolutionists the apes evolved from something like a dog. Where are all the bones showing dog-like animals becoming apes? After all, if evolution is true the apes had to evolve from somewhere.

Nowhere do we see species with partially evolved legs, eyes, skin, brain and various other tissues, organs, and biological structures as evidence that evolution is occurring. We don't have to wait millions of years. We should be seeing at least some in-between stages of macro-evolution occurring right now if Darwin's theory is correct. In any case, it would be impossible for animals to survive with incomplete (or transitional) organs, structures, and biological functions. And without any survival value there would be no opportunity for natural selection to preserve such transitional structures. If evolution is actually occurring, all of nature would be in utter disorder and confusion. There is simply no evidence of partially evolved species of animals or plants in the fossil record to indicate that evolution had occurred in the past, and there is certainly no evidence of partially evolved species of animals and plants existing today to indicate that evolution is occurring at the present. If macro-evolution really did occur there should be billions of indisputable transitional forms in the fossil record instead of one or two disputable ones that not even all evolutionists can agree upon.

An excellent and detailed analysis of the fossil record is presented in Dr. Duane T. Gish's book "Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!" Dr. Gish has his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley and he has widely debated evolutionists at secular college and university campuses as well as elsewhere. In his book Dr. Gish examines in detail the so-called "transitional" links that are commonly used by evolutionists to support their theory and he then explains how they are not true transitional links at all. He exposes the exaggerations made by evolutionists and, very importantly, Dr. Gish gives quotations with references from the world's most prominent and leading evolutionists admitting that there are no indisputable transitional links between the major types in the fossil record. Many times evolutionists argue for a link in the fossil record based merely upon which layer, position, or order a particular fossil is located even when there is absolutely no transitional evidence for claiming any link. There are many assumptions concerning the geological column. In the real world the geological layers containing fossils are not found in the neat sequence and order that we see in textbooks. The geological column found in textbooks is itself based solely on the assumption of evolution. The fossils that are discovered in the real world are made to fit into the imaginary sequence and order of the evolutionist's invented geological column and then this sequence and order in turn is used by evolutionists as proof of their theory!

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. But, again, all of the science evidence contradicts the possibility of macro-evolution occurring instantaneously or otherwise!

Argument from Homology

Another argument often used to support the theory of evolution is that of homology (the study of similarities in the biological structures between various species and forms of life). Evolutionists claim that the similarities between the various forms of life are evidence of a common biological ancestry. But this is only one interpretation. The creationists believe that the similarities between the various forms of life (including genetic similarities) are due to a common Designer rather than a common ancestor. Creationists believe that the Creator designed similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life. There is no actual evidence either from the fossil record or from genetics for a common biological ancestry. Many times evolutionists incorrectly use similarities of structures as an argument for transitional forms even when these structures are already fully-formed and complete. Also, it is common for evolutionists to disagree and debate among themselves about the status of a particular structure. Recently, it has been widely reported that fossils of dinosaurs with feathers were discovered. Upon closer examination, it was found that these structures only superficially looked like feathers but were actually formations that were part of the actual reptilian skin. In any case, there is nothing that has been discovered that is part scale and part feather showing an actual transition from one to another.

Argument from Vestigial Structures

What about vestigial organs? At one time there were supposed to be 180 organs that were regarded as useless in man. "However, as ignorance was replaced by knowledge of the use of these so-called useless organs, the number rapidly dwindled until now most evolutionists would not claim any." [Henry M. Morris, The Bible and Modern Science (Chicago: Moody Press, 1951; 1968), p.42] Some good examples of what were once considered as definite vestigial organs and structures are the appendix, the endocrine glands, and the coccyx (the so-called "tail-bone").

The coccyx, for example, has been proven to be useful, in supporting the pelvic muscles. The reason why there appears to be a "tail" in the beginning stage of the human embryo is because the early rate of growth of that part of the body is more rapid than the rest. In any case, it is not enough just for a structure to look like a tail in order to be a true tail. For example, the spinal cord during this stage of the human embryo has no bone tissue, skeletal muscle tissue, or peripheral nerve tissue, all of which would be necessary to demonstrate that this structure is a tail. Sometimes, due to abnormal growth, the coccyx extends further than normal with the result that an individual can be born with a protruded coccyx which gives the appearance to others that he or she has a tail. Even if there are genuine vestigial structures they would most likely be the results of mutational changes which, as we have mentioned, are deteriorative, and degenerative in nature. Certainly, degeneration should not be considered as evidence for evolution.

Another example of "evidence" which was once often used to support evolution are the so-called "gill slits," which evolutionists claimed to exist in the early development of the human embryo. However, these structures, or grooves, are not really true gills at all but merely the early stages in the formation of the ears, jaw, and parts of the head and neck. Most evolutionists today will admit that there are no true vestigial or embryological evidences for human evolution, although these examples are still frequently used in many modern biology textbooks.

Entropy and Evolution

Evolutionists argue that the scientific law of entropy (the tendency of matter to go towards greater disorder) does not contradict evolutionary theory because they claim the law of entropy does not apply in open systems such as our Earth, and evolutionists use examples such as a seed becoming a tree as a contradiction to the law of entropy. Evolutionists are wrong on both counts for reasons which will be fully explained.

Entropy does occur in open systems. We discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun. However, entropy applies only to spontaneous or chance processes. The spontaneous (the unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder -- not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder which exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order.

When a seed becomes a tree, for example, there is no violation to the law of entropy because the seed contains a directing genetic code and very highly complex biological mechanisms to overcome entropy so that a seed can evolve into a fully developed tree. In other words, the development of seed to tree is not a spontaneous (or chance) event. The question is how did biological life and order come into existence in the first place when there was no directing code and mechanism for overcoming entropy.

The theory of evolution teaches that matter has an innate tendency to evolve towards greater and greater complexity or order. We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that Nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, does not work the same way.

Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.

Yes, a few amino acids have been produced spontaneously but, as we previously noted, there is already a natural tendency for molecules to form into amino acids if given the right conditions. There is, however, no natural tendency for amino acids to come together spontaneously into a sequence in order to form proteins. They have to be directed to do so by the genetic code in the cells of our bodies. As mentioned earlier, even the simplest cell is made up of billions of protein molecules with the average protein molecule comprising several hundred sequentially arranged amino acids. Many are comprised of thousands of sequential units. Again, if the amino acids are not in a precise and correct sequence the protein will not function.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet. It is not rational to put faith in such odds. The one billion years evolutionists say it took for a single cell to form by chance is incredulous in the face of such odds even assuming evolutionists are right about the age of the earth. But that is another issue. Please read where scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown discusses the issue of the earth's age and universe and the assumptions used by both evolutionists and creationists.

Ultimately, however, scientists concede that the law of entropy (the process of progressive energy decay and disorder) will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left to itself, will end in total chaos (the opposite direction of evolution!). In fact, the law of entropy contradicts the Big Bang theory which teaches that the universe spontaneously went from disorder to order.

The mighty law of entropy in science simply teaches that the net direction of the universe is always downward towards greater and greater disorder and chaos -- not towards greater and greater order and complexity.

Furthermore, because of the law of entropy the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity since all the useful energy in the universe will some day become irreversibly and totally useless. The universe, therefore, cannot be eternal and requires a beginning. Since energy cannot come into existence from nothing by any natural process, the beginning of the universe must have required a Supernatural origin!

Science cannot prove that we came about by creation but neither can science prove that we came about by chance or evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, educators and students should be free to investigate and make up their own minds as to which position the scientific evidence best supports.

What about the Higgs Boson, the so called "God Particle'? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing. What it does is convert energy into mass. Again, the universe had a beginning. It is not eternal because it does not have the ability to have sustained itself eternally. All scientists believe that the universe (time, mass, and space had a beginning from nothing).

Atheistic scientists believe that the beginning of the universe came from nothing by natural processes yet to be discovered. This contradicts fundamental laws of science. 

Belief in neither evolution nor creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can study and understand the human body and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of nature or of a Supreme Designer.

Where, then, did God from? Who made God? The simple answer is that it wasn't necessary for God to have a beginning. The universe, on the other hand, required a beginning because the universe could not have sustained itself from all eternity due to the law of entropy. Unlike the universe, God is infinitely Self-sustaining.

There are those who teach that God used evolution to create all life on earth even though they have failed to prove the case for macro-evolution (variation across biological "kinds"). And, of course, if macro-evolution really did occur then any belief in God is nothing more than blind faith since the process of macro-evolution alone would be sufficient to explain the origin of all life and natural species.

The Christian Scriptures teach that the world began in a perfect and harmonious state which became imperfect and disharmonious because of the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve. This is the opposite direction from what the evolutionary theory teaches.

Some people think that because science can explain how life and the universe works or operates there is no longer any more need to believe in God. This is much like someone saying that because we can understand how airplanes work or operate there is no longer any more need to believe that someone had to design and make airplanes. Science merely explains how God's universe works or operates. Even though science cannot prove the existence of God, the evidence from science points to an intelligent power as the ultimate Source of the universe's origin and existence. The disorder in the universe can be explained as the result of chance, but the order that we find in the universe, especially the high degree of order that we find in life, can only be logically explained as the result of design and intelligence. Science is not a tool for explaining away the existence of God as many may think, but, rather, science affirms God's existence and mighty power.

Age of The Earth and Universe

There are many who are convinced that science has proved the earth and universe to be billions of years old. However, such long ages are not as scientific as many might think. For example, radiometric dating methods which are commonly used for dating rocks as being billions of years old are based upon certain unproved assumptions regarding the original quantity and rates of decay of the elements involved. Evolutionists assume in testing certain rocks that the original quantity and/or rate of decay did not change over time as a result of environmental turbulences and influences. So, what does all this mean? It means that radiometric dating is not infallibly accurate. The proof of this is in the fact that different radiometric dating methods yield different ages (even differences in billions of years) even when dating the same object! The dating of fossils, however, is not based on radiometric dating but rather it is based on the evolutionary assumption that the individual fossil layers were deposited by local floods over hundreds of millions of years instead of by one world-wide flood as recorded in the Book of Genesis. There are numerous geological evidences that support a world-wide flood that are completely ignored by evolutionists. Dating the universe to be billions of years based upon how long it would have taken for light to have reached the earth from the stars is based on the assumption that the universe was not created already mature from the beginning with the light already reaching the earth from the moment of creation. There are also many positive scientific evidences (based upon the rates of various physical processes) that support the theory of a young earth and universe, but these scientific evidences are ignored and certainly never mentioned in the textbooks published by evolutionists. Both sides, however, do have their assumptions. The issue is which assumptions are more reliable. An excellent article on the subject is Evidence for a Young World.

Obviously, what has been said so far is not comprehensive and does not address many questions and issues (i.e. dinosaurs and how they fit in with the Bible, etc.), but the fact remains that there is a good deal of scientific evidence refuting the evolutionary theory as the only rational explanation for the origin of life and the universe. Readers who are interested may obtain more comprehensive information and answers to their questions (including questions about dinosaurs, the Genesis Flood, the age of the earth, Noah's Ark, the Ice Age, and many other topics) by reading some excellent books written by well-qualified scientists who are creationists from the: Institute for Creation Research P.O. Box 2667 El Cajon, CA 92021.

The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by chance is "A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents "simple" but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which aren't mentioned or covered in Johnny's high school biology textbook or in college textbooks for that matter. This article is truly great! Dr. Gish's article may be accessed at:

An excellent, easy-to-read, and quite comprehensive book for study on this topic is: Origins - Creation or Evolution? published by Master Books, ISBN 0-89051-132-2. This book may be ordered through any bookstore. Also, Dr. Walt Brown (scientist and author) has made available on line his thorough and comprehensive book: In the Beginning: Evidence for Creation and the Flood at Other excellent resources for answers to many questions you may have on science and other issues relating to the Bible are and

An excellent creationist site that provides scientific answers and refutations to the latest evolutionary claims may be found at "Creation-Evolution Headlines" at

A Personal Word: The God of creation has made Himself known in the Person of His eternal and only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The Bible says that the Lord Jesus lived a sinless life on earth and that He died and shed His blood on the Cross to pay for our sins. He took the blame for our sins! When Christ died on the Cross He took the punishment from the God the Father that we deserve for our sins. Just as a co-signer to a loan takes upon himself the moral and legal responsibility to pay the debt on the loan should the borrower default, Jesus Christ, by prior arrangement with God the Father, took the moral and legal responsibility to pay for the sins of mankind. Because Christ paid the full penalty for our sins through His suffering and death, God the Father can be just in forgiving us of our sins when we genuinely repent and put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone to save us. God the Father raised His Son Jesus Christ from the dead as proof that He was fully satisfied with what the Lord Jesus did for us on the Cross. And, now God's promise of eternal life becomes reality to those who are in Christ. To find out more, read the Holy Bible. I recommend that you begin by reading the Gospel of John in the New Testament. The Bible says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son (Jesus Christ), that whosoever believeth in Him (Jesus Christ) should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16, KJV). May God bless you.