The most amazing thing that we can experience in life is life itself. Whether you believe in creation or evolution, that fact that you exist and can believe at all is phenomenal. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions, or programming code of all living organisms. The three billion letters that make up the human genome are stored in every cell in your body. The DNA is copied to RNA by copying machines that assemble within each cell as needed. Once the RNA is created, splicer machines are built that edit out the unnecessary parts of the RNA. A third machine is then created to use the edited RNA to create the proteins that your body needs. All these machines are created inside each cell as needed and are disposed of when their job is done and it all happens in seconds. The short video below shows this truly remarkable process happening in real-time.
The science of biology is miraculous enough for some people to conclude that life was carefully and intelligently designed by an all powerful creator (Romans 1:20), while others have developed a belief system (i.e. religion) called evolutionary biology that attempts to explain the development of living organisms without a creator. Through the words of leading biologists, I will demonstrate that there is absolutely nothing in the science of biology that is dependent on the religion of evolutionary biology.
Let me start by saying that I believe the Biblical account of creation that took place about 6000 years ago when God miraculously created each distinct kind of animal with the genetic diversity to reproduce many different species within each kind. He also created man from the dust and woman from man, uniquely in His own image, with the genetic diversity to reproduce all the people groups we have today.
And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Genesis 1:25-27).
The ‘kind’ referred to in the Bible generally fits within Family/Genus in the standard system of categorizing living things (i.e. Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species). This is important because there is no way that Adam could have named all of the species we see today in a single day as described in the Bible, but he could easily name the few thousand created kinds of livestock, beasts and birds in just a few hours. In his debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye erroneously stated that to get from the estimated 14,000 animals on Noah’s Ark to the millions of species we see today in just 4000 years, 11 new species would have to be formed every day. What Bill doesn’t understand is that the Ark only housed land dwelling, air breathing animals and most of the species we see today have come from marine animals, birds and insects that were not required to be on the Ark to survive the flood.
Evolutionary biologists believe that the first living organism in the tree of life came from a non-living organism, from which all living things have descended over millions of years and both of these things happened as a result of random undirected natural processes.
“… to involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin… that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own.”
Sir Fred Hoyle And Chandra Wickramasinghe In Evolution From Space
Theodosius Dobzhansky, a leading 20th century evolutionist famously stated that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’; however, it would be more accurately stated as ‘nothing in biology requires evolution, as some more honest evolutionists will admit.
“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”
Adam Wilkins In Introduction To Evolutionary Processes
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
Dr. Marc Kirschner, Harvard Cell Biologist In Boston Globe
At the other end of the spectrum you have evolutionists that are quite dishonest in their teaching, such as Earnst Haeckel, who provided drawings showing the remarkable similarity between the embryos of humans and many other species. But in 1874 it was determined that Haeckel fraudulently manipulated the drawings to make them look the same. The photo below shows what the embryos of the species actually look like, but the scary things is that Haeckel’s original drawings still appear in some textbooks today.
The Evolutionary Tree of Life versus the Creation Orchard
Creationists believe that all species are derived from their created kinds. For example, God created the original canid kind with all the genetic information needed to diversify into all the canine creatures that we see today, such as wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingoes and all the varieties of domesticated dogs. This explanation can be depicted as a creation orchard and is consistent with what we see in observational science today (e.g. new species of dogs being derived from other dogs, but not from cats).
This is much different from evolutionary biology, which suggests that non-life gave rise to the first life form from which all living things have descended. In this system, one kind of animal (e.g. cats) changes into another kind of animal (e.g. dogs) over millions of years, as represented by a tree of life, which reflects a believe system of historical science, rather than anything we find in today’s observational science.
The demise of the evolutionary tree of life was clearly illustrated at an open forum on the origin of life with Dr. Paul Davies and famous scientist Dr. Craig Venter, who is known for being one of the first to sequence the human genome.
CV: “I’m not so sanguine as some of my colleagues here that there is only one life form on this planet. We have a lot of different types of metabolisms, different organisms. I wouldn’t call you the same life form as the one we have that lives in pH 12 base that would dissolve your skin if we dropped you in it”
PD: “Oh we’ve got the same genetic code, we’ll have a common ancestor”
CV: “Well you don’t have the same genetic code in fact the mycoplasma use a different genetic code that would not work in your cells so there are a lot of variations”
PD: “But you’re not saying it belongs to a different tree of life from me are you?”
CV: “I think the tree of life is an artefact of some early scientific studies that aren’t really holding up…the tree, uh.. there may be a bush of life… there is not a tree of life”
Life Does Not Come From Non-Life
The first problem with evolutionary biology is that there is no observable scientific process by which life can arise from non-life, let alone through random undirected natural processes. This is something that no honest evolutionary biologist will deny.
“We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started… by some process as yet unknown.”
Richard Dawkins in The Greatest Show on Earth
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software, and where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows.”
P. Davies in New Scientist
One Kind of Organism Has Never Come From Another Kind
The second problem with evolutionary biology is there are no examples in observational science of the changes need for one kind of organism to change into another kind, like a fish growing legs, or a reptile growing feathers. Molecules-to-man evolution requires an increase in genetic information, which evolutionist suggest are a result of natural selection, mutations and lots of time. As we will see, natural selection and mutations do not have the means to do this, no matter how much time you give them.
Natural selection was actually first proposed by creationist, Edward Blyth, to explain small changes within created kinds. It was later popularized by Charles Darwin as the key mechanism of evolution for changing one kind of organism into another; however, natural selection leads to a loss of genetic information. Natural selection is the process by which organisms possessing a set of traits that confer a survival advantage in a given environment tend to leave more offspring on average that survive to reproduce in the next generation, resulting in small changes in the population in that environment over time.
For example, consider dogs that have all the genetic information to produce offspring with short hair, long hair, or medium length hair. In a very cold environment, the dogs with more long haired genes will thrive, producing more long-haired dogs and will eventually lose the genetic information required to produce short haired dogs. Once that genetic information is lost, it can never be recreated. If the climate changes to be extremely hot, the advantage that the population of dogs enjoyed as a result of natural selection would become a disadvantage. Because natural selection only leads to a loss in genetic information, it cannot account for the changes that molecules-to-man evolution demands.
A mutation is any change in the sequence of DNA base pairs in the genome of an organism. In rare cases, mutations may confer a survival advantage to an organism under certain environmental conditions, but these mutations result in a loss of genetic information and a survival disadvantage under normal conditions. For example, a mutation has caused certain beetles to lose their wings, which turned out to be an advantage on a windy island where flying beetles would be blown out to sea and drown. This gives the beetles an advantage in that environment, but under normal circumstances they would have a serious survival disadvantage when it comes to hunting for food and escaping predators. The advantage that mutations provide are akin to solving a nail biters problem by cutting off his arms and certainly do not deserve credit for producing species of increasing utility and complexity. Once again, the honest evolutionists will admit that.
“The typical mutation is very mild. It usually has no effect, but shows up as a small decrease in viability or fertility.”
James Crow, Chairman Of Genetics At U. Of Wisconsin
“It is genuinely surprising that an organism that has evolved by random mutation and selection appears to be designed. The idea is contrary to intuition. It is true, but to many it will always remain ridiculous.”
Leslie E. Orgel In The Origins Of Life
If there is no evidence in observable science for evolutionary biology, then one would think that there must at least be evidence of the needed in-between transitional forms in the extensive fossil record, supposedly formed over millions of years. Sadly for evolutionary biologists, there is not, a concession made by Charles Darwin himself.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
Charles Darwin In The Origin Of Species
“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time [Darwin had none].”
David Raup In Conflicts Between Darwin And Paleontology
“No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”
Mark Ridley, Oxford Professor In Who Doubts Evolution?
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard Professor In Natural History
“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
Stephen Jay Gould In Is A New And General Theory Of Evolution Emerging?
“…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them… Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional forms… I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
Colin Patterson Quoted In Darwin’s Enigma
The Genetics of Adam & Eve
Honest evolutionists will admit that there is no evidence for evolutionary biology, but it gets even worse, as there is actually genetic evidence for the Biblical explanation of human biology beginning with Adam and Eve. The genetic information found in the y-chromosome of men now indicates that all homosapiens recently descended from a single male ancestor, whom geneticists refer to as Y-Chromosome Adam. Further studies have shown that Mitochondrial DNA has passed unchanged through females for 1,000’s of years, indicating that all humans have the same female ancestor, whom geneticists now refer to as Mitochondrial Eve. Evolutionists then developed the molecular clock theory, which showed that Mitochondrial Eve lived about 250,000 years ago, rather than 3.5 million years ago as they expected. More recent research has shown that mutations in mitochondrial DNA occur much faster than originally thought, meaning Mitochondrial Eve may have actually lived between 6,000 and 6,500 years ago, precisely as described in Genesis.
Population Growth, The Final Blow
Being a math major, I thought I would just run the numbers to determine which history of biology made sense with population growth statistics. Note that since it has been recorded, world population has grown at about 1-2% per year. Giving evolutionists the benefit of the doubt, let’s say Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam lived only 200,000 years ago, rather than millions of years ago as some still believe. To go from a population of 2 to the 7.3 billion people we have on earth today would require an average annual growth rate of .01 of 1%. That growth rate is impossibly small, requiring that person number 3 would arrive on the scene after 3,683 years. That would have to be one old person giving birth at that age. The Biblical model, on the other hand, that begins with 8 people coming off the Ark about 4,300 years ago would require an average annual growth rate of .5%. That growth rate is about half of what we see in recent recorded history, but quite reasonable, when you consider famines and wars that have wiped out many people. By the way, an average annual growth rate of .5% would result in the next person being born about 25 years later… quite reasonable indeed.
To understand more about the science of biology and its support for the Biblical creation account, I encourage you to check out the following resources.