Creation: A Better Science

by Jon A. Covey, B.A., MT(ASCP)
Anita K. Millen, M.D., MPH, MA, editor

Why Should We Know About Evolution and Creation?

The atheist, Richard Bozarth, wrote:

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

Why should Christians study the origins controversy between creation and evolution? Is it important for pastors to teach creationism? What difference does it make if we believe in evolution or creation? Should Bozarth's remarks disturb Christians? Many evolutionists and creationists agree with Bozarth. If the story of Adam and Eve is false or allegorical, what Bozarth said is correct. During the Crossfire series on Fossil Men, I mentioned that Sir Arthur Keith, a distinguished British biologist, remained an unbeliever because he couldn't free himself from the influence of evolution. He vacillated between belief and unbelief to his death because his commitment to evolution wouldn't allow him to surrender his life to the Son of God. He shall one day bow unwillingly before the one he rejected.

The late A.E. Wilder-Smith, a creationist who earned three doctorates in science, described the results of a European poll in which 52% of the responders stated that they were atheists. For 75% of this group the theory of evolution was the reason. Darwinism, coupled with the rise of German higher criticism of the Bible in the late 1800's nearly destroyed Christianity in Europe.

Are Creationists Ignorant or Just Stupid?

When I went to college, I thought that creationists were poorly informed about science, especially evolution. Now that I am a creationist, I realize that although evolution is taught as fact, there is good evidence to support creation. The general public, including most scientists, never hears the arguments against evolution and for creation. Belief in evolution is based on faith in opinions of evolutionists who have observed only the most trivial changes that are usually preexisting genetic variations. They then apply these minor changes to the broad sweeping evolutionary concept of microbes to man.

Evolutionists use easily grasped examples of change to promote their grand theory of evolution. They almost invariably use the color changes of the English peppered moth from light to dark during the industrial revolution and the color reversion after the environmental cleanup to "prove" evolution. What this really shows is preexisting genetic variation within a created kind. Spring boarding from this, they teach that life arose from a primordial soup, evolved through many stages, and culminated in the development of man and the other higher animals. According to the theory of evolution, all living creatures descended from a common ancestor, modified by chance mutations and natural selection over vast stretches of time.

Otto Schindewolf, considered by Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould as possibly the greatest paleontologist (fossil expert) of the twentieth century, [Gould, p.ix, 1993] felt botanists, zoologists, and geneticists "know too little about fossils and the logical methods by which they are studied to appraise properly the importance of the conclusions arrived at and to fully exploit for their own discipline the rich trove of experience available to them." [Schindewolf]

Most who believe in evolution know little about the fossil record, yet still think it is irrefutable evidence for evolution. This allows them to believe a theory as "fact." For many, the mere existence of fossils proves evolution. The evolutionary establishment puts belief in creation on the same level as believing in a flat earth and labels creationists extremists. Many people mistakenly equate evolution with science, just as Bozarth did in our opening quote.

Creationists have no problem with empirical science; some even make their living by it. We do have a problem with a system of belief, which amounts to a religion and masquerades as science. The high priests of evolution have put their faith in time and chance rather than in God and His Word and have suppressed all discussion to the contrary in public schools. It seems the shoe is on the other foot now, for creationists did this many years ago. Will there ever be balance in our schools? It's up to all of us to change this.

At present, evolutionists maintain a monopoly on American public education (evolutionism or humanistic atheism, is a religious system that has been tacitly, perhaps unwittingly, established as the official religion of the United States of America since it teaches the only scientifically acceptable creation story: evolution). They jealously protect its exclusive teaching in American education. Separation of church and state is cited as sufficient reason for maintaining that monopoly. According to evolutionists, creationism is religion and evolution is science. Both are equally religious, and both use scientific evidence to defend their position, although neither is scientific in the strictest sense. It is not possible to support evolution by the scientific method of observation and testing.

Creation may be more scientific. The purpose of this introduction to the science of creation is to show this. Eminent creationists such as Drs. Duane Gish and Gary Parker have spoken to hundreds of large gatherings. Before and after their presentations polls regarding belief in creation vs. evolution were taken. Without fail, after hearing the evidence, a significant percentage of people changed their belief from evolution to creation. Evolutionists detest this kind of public exposure to creationism. Gish has debated notable evolutionists in hundreds of huge public gatherings. The evidence was so compelling for creation that evolutionary leaders warned evolutionary professors not to debate with creationists publicly. Evolutionists complain that creationists win the debates because of commanding stage presence and by unleashing a barrage of shallow, unfounded pseudoscientific arguments designed to bewilder their evolutionary opponents, a feeble excuse at best.

The most important consequence of evolutionary influence in society, of course, is spiritual. Millions have lost their souls for believing fallible men rather than an infallible God. Which is better science: creation or evolution?

Audesirk and Audesirk made this contradictory remark: "Biology [actually they mean evolution-ed.] is based on the scientific principles of natural causality, uniformity in space and time, and common perception. These principles are assumptions that cannot be directly proven, but that are validated by experience." [Audesirk] Principles that are validated by experience can be directly proven. Principles that cannot be experienced cannot be directly proven.

Evolutionists disqualify creation as an explanation for the origin of life because it cannot be observed, cannot be repeated, and is therefore not testable by the scientific method. The problem is that evolution is subject to the same limitations. If true, evolution occurs slowly, cannot be observed, and cannot be repeated. Evolutionists get around this by applying the legal-historical method of inquiry. This method uses circumstantial evidence and reasoning, such as that used in a court of law, to reconstruct what might have happened. The scientific method cannot be used to evaluate either creation or evolution, but creation has better evidence to support it.

Evolutionists continue to insist that evolution is science and creation is religion. Indeed, according to evolutionists, it is unscientific to acknowledge creation as a possibility. If creation is true, evolutionists are lying about the origin of life and the universe. Excluding a supernatural explanation from the possibilities creates an artificial environment in which to perceive truth. Scientists understand this limitation, but evolutionists habitually step outside the bounds of science to explain how we evolved.

Time Plus Chance Makes Evolution Possible

Evolutionists say time plus chance created everything, but time and chance have never produced anything other than the most trivial of ends in every field of investigation. What improvement ever resulted from a hurricane or an explosion? What happens to living creatures as they age?

The Laws of Physics and Chemistry Support Creation

It is fairly easy for us to examine a building to get a feel for how old it is by noting its degree of deterioration. It will eventually collapse unless work is done to keep it in repair. If we were to examine the universe, what conclusion could we reach? Is it in good repair, or is it wearing out?

We would have to know something about what a new universe should look like. We could guess, but that wouldn't be very scientific. Evolutionists have made some very unscientific assumptions (also known as guesses) about the initial state of the universe and have decided a big bang was responsible for creation. They say that the entire universe was contained within a super-dense, super-hot, infinitesimally small volume containing all its matter and energy. It then exploded, flinging matter in every direction, at every possible speed.

On the other hand, creationists believe that God created the universe, establishing the First Law of Thermodynamics (matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural means). He created it in its highest state of order and it has been running down ever since. It is now in the process of becoming disorganized and less energetic. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also known as the law of entropy, the universe is running down. Creation agrees with our observations of the universe, while evolution does not (see diagram below).

Evolutionists say that matter spontaneously achieves order through the magic of time plus unguided chance modified by natural selection. They say life on earth became more complex and orderly at the expense of order elsewhere. In our case, the sun is becoming more disordered as it expends energy which plants convert into a source of usable energy by photosynthesis. The order in the sun is not the same type as that found in living things. Life requires much more complex, interdependent relationships among the various components of a cell. Someone has said that if we had brains simple enough to be understood, we'd be too simple to understand them.

Eventually, all the energy in the universe will have spread out evenly and nothing will be available to do work. When this happens, it is said the universe will die a heat death and will never rise again unless there is enough gravitational mass to pull the universe back to an infinitesimal black hole to begin anew.

If the universe is the result of a big bang, it was disordered right from the beginning. If it was created by God, the presence of order is what we would expect and indeed, it is what we see. There are about 100 billion galaxies each containing about 100 billion stars, all very orderly, especially when compared to the embryonic super hot, rapidly expanding ball of hydrogen gas described by the big bang theory. It takes much more intelligence and work to build a house than it does to knock it down or tear it apart. A tornado tears things apart because it has only power, no brains.

A high degree of order in the universe implies a recent creation, whereas evidence of deterioration and disorder implies an old age (See above diagram). The most important implication is that the universe must have begun with a high degree of order. The older the universe is claimed to be, the more perfect it must have been when it started. It wouldn't do to have a trillion year old universe (suggested by plasma physicists who oppose the big bang) with a low level of entropy and disorder unless it began with breathtaking perfection that was nearly impervious to degradation.

Many evolutionists claim that there is no creator and that supernatural events are not possible. They think everything in the universe can be explained by natural laws and that life is the product of countless eons of time and an improbable series of purposeless, mindless accidents.

Logical Consequences of the Natural Laws

Duane Gish, vice president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), always asks his evolutionary opponents the following series of questions during debates:

"If the natural laws and natural processes which now govern the universe are leading inevitably to its death and destruction, and if those natural laws and processes are all there is and all there ever has been, how then did those very same natural processes create the universe in the first place? Is it possible that the very same processes which are now destroying the universe could have been responsible for its origin? What sort of tortured logic would one have to use to reach such an impossible conclusion?"

Based on all this, which view fits the science better: a supernatural creation or an evolutionary big bang universe?

Eye evolution "Absurd in the highest degree," says Darwin

Dr. Gus McCarthy (biologist at Cal State, Dominguez Hills) and Dr. Ronald Kroman (geneticist at Cal State, Long Beach) seemed shocked when I mentioned, during a short videotaped debate with them in 1992, that Darwin had admitted that the evolution of the eye seemed absurd. Darwin wrote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."  [Darwin, p. 168, emphasis mine]

Clearly, it didn't stop Darwin or his followers from believing what seemed so absurd. The perfection of the eye and other organs bothered Darwin because he was aware that such organization was evidence of intelligent design-divine creation, so he had to give what seemed, at least superficially, a plausible answer even if there was no proof, no direct observation that such evolution happened. At its very best, the evidence for evolution is purely circumstantial.

Lee Strobel, in The Case for Christ (1998), recounted a criminal case he investigated as a reporter for the Chicago Tribune in the 1970s. A man was arrested, tried, and convicted of shooting the police officer responding to the call where he was creating a disturbance. The perpetrator even confessed to the crime and the witnesses were plenty. His recently fired hand gun was found not far from the shooting. All the evidence proved he was guilty of shooting the officer. What really happened provides a good rationale for maintaining a healthy skepticism for circumstantial and eyewitness evidence. The perpetrator actually fired the weapon before the officer arrived and threw the gun away. The officer's illegal pen gun in his shirt pocket accidentally discharged as he wrestle with the man. The witnesses didn't actually see the man fire a weapon but assumed he did because they saw him fire it only a few minutes before the officer arrived. The defendant confessed to the crime, not because he was guilty but because he had cut a deal with the court for a much shorter sentence.

The arguments of philosopher David Hume prejudiced people against William Paley's watchmaker design argument as evidence for God. However, even atheists acknowledge that the high technology we take for granted was designed and created by intelligent beings. They would laugh if someone suggested a plane or computer occurred by chance. Why do many of the most intelligent people think that far more complex and intricate living things are the result of time and chance? Richard Dawkins has repeated Hume's arguments against design in The Blind Watchmaker. (Click here for Royal Truman's excellent response to Dawkins).

The basic argument against design (creation by God) is that the appearance of design in nature is only an illusion and that accidental processes can produce order and complexity (never shown). Of course, Hume never proved this. Dawkins seemed to prove it with apparently random computer images that began to form recognizable images. The images achieved by Dawkins' program were not random selections, but were chosen by Dawkins only if they approximated some desired shape. The images "survived" to reproduce and continue to evolve only if Dawkins allowed them to. Can that be considered natural selection? Hardly! The images had no other requirements for survival placed on them. They only had to resemble a shape acceptable to Dawkins as significant. If Dawkins proved anything, it was the need for an intelligent mind to direct the development of recognizable images from random computer pixels. He proved that the development of complex order requires intelligence-exactly the opposite of what he wanted to prove. What Hume and Dawkins' success shows is that people are easily persuaded to believe something contrary to common experience. Darwin's theory: mistaken assumptions and ignorance.

In 1859, Darwin established his theory of evolution based upon many lines of dubious evidence and virtually no knowledge of genetics. Gregor Mendel, the `father of genetics,' had not yet published his work on garden peas (i>Pisum sativum, 1866).

Darwin was gravely misinformed about the nature of the stratigraphical record (layers of sedimentary rock often containing fossils), as were many geologists until recently. Last century, James Hutton and Charles Lyell proposed the principle uniformitarianism: the concept that the present is the key to the past. Uniformitarians believe present geological processes have occurred with approximately the same rate and intensity throughout the past, and these processes produced the geological record. Much evidence to the contrary has finally persuaded many geologists to reinterpret their understanding of the past.

The late Derek Ager was one of many influential geologists who now teach that most of the geological record is the result of catastrophes that were nearly global, giving rise to a view which Ager called "catastrophic uniformitarianism."[Ager] He taught that most of geological history was unremarkable (uniformitarian), punctuated by great catastrophic floods that scoured continents to bedrock and left behind layers of sediment thousands of feet thick. Accordingly, a single catastrophic flood would be so extensive that its area of sediment deposition would encompass several continents. In the past, most continents were fused together as a single land mass called Pangea (see map of Triassic Period below), making multi-continental inundation and sediment deposition by a single flood understandable. Possibly, the Flood caused the rapid breakup of Pangea--see our series on Catastrophic Plate Tectonics.

Creationists envision a global Flood with floodwater movement controlled by plate tectonics. At the beginning stages of Noah's Flood, the fountains of the great deep erupted and fractured the earth's crust (Genesis 6:11). Now the earth's crust consists of plates rather than unbroken crust. Some are continental plates and others are oceanic. Volcanic eruptions and movements of the massive plates produced earthquakes and generated enormous tsunamis that had great erosive power and were able to scour and erode bedrock, transporting rocks, sand, mud, plants, and animals over great regions. As their energy waned, they deposited this debris in thick layers studied later by geologists who gave the layers names (like the Morrison Formation which contains dinosaurs) and labeled the rocks according to their "geological" period.

Until recently, geologists believed it must have taken millions of years to erode a structure like Grand Canyon based on present processes. They likewise assumed the deposition of the sedimentary layers in Grand Canyon took about 600 million years. Although the new catastrophists believe the individual layers were rapidly deposited, they assume the time between depositional events was very long. These monster-sized catastrophes erased the minor formations produced in the intervening time by uniformitarian processes.

Geological Evidence for the Flood and Creation

We will look at two separate topics: some of the evidence for the Flood and evidence the earth was created instantaneously.

I. What would the aftermath of the Flood look like?

A man told Ken Ham that Noah couldn't have gotten all the animals, including the dinosaurs aboard the ark. Ken asked the man how many animals had to go aboard the ark. The man replied that he didn't know but he knew there were too many to all fit on the ark. Ken then asked him how big the ark was. The man said he didn't know but it wasn't big enough to hold all the animals. Ken was amazed. According to this man, an ark of undetermined size couldn't hold an unknown number of animals.

In the same vein, many people don't believe the Flood covered the entire world. They really don't know what the aftermath of the Flood should have been like, but they do know it isn't recorded in the worldwide sedimentary rocks. Ken asks what we would expect to see if the Flood really happened and covered the whole world: "Billions of dead things buried in layers of rock laid down by water all over the earth." Then he asks when we look at the geological strata what do we see: "Billions of dead things buried in layers of rock laid down by water all over the earth."

Geologists before Darwin explained the major features of the fossil record as the aftermath of the Flood. The Bible says that God wanted to destroy mankind and He decided He would do it by flood. He could have chosen fire, perhaps thermonuclear chain reactions or volcanoes, or our sun could have exploded. It could have been by worldwide famine, global warming, plague, giant hail, poisoned water, radiation, or collision with the moon or a giant asteroid. Each would have had aftereffects, some more easily detected. Instead, God chose the Flood. It is notable that the defense of the Flood by use of geological facts is possible.

Most certainly, the aftermath of a global flood would not go unnoticed. Flood waters energized by tectonic upheaval moved at high speeds, vigorously scouring the continents, and deposited thousands of feet of sediment. When water reaches a speed of 30 feet/second, it produces cavitation bubbles capable of shattering cold-rolled steel bars and concrete. These bubbles implode producing explosive, trip hammer blows with forces around 440,000 pounds per square inch and able to erode solid bedrock. This happened at the Glen Canyon Dam. The 40-foot wide spillway tunnel was destroyed when water had to be released quickly to prevent the dam from bursting. Likewise, within a couple days, the catastrophic release of water from ice age Lake Missoula in Montana eroded a 50-mile-long trench 1-6 miles wide and up to 900 feet deep through solid basalt by scouring and hydraulic plucking. It is now called Grand Coulee. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, looks at many important details of how Grand Canyon resulted from the Flood and its aftereffects (Call Master Books, 800-999-3777: a gorgeous video is also available).

As another example, the region surrounding Grand Canyon area was essentially planed off by the rapid runoff of Flood waters pouring off the continent at the end of the Flood, causing sheet erosion. This occurs when too much water spread out over a wide area, moves too rapidly to cut channels. The flat topography on both sides of the canyon and the vast, flat plain surrounding it, rimmed by flat-lying Kaibab limestone, lends much support to this idea. Virtually nothing remains above the level of the flat, featureless, planed region-just scattered remnants of plateau strata such as Red Butte survive. All this was once the depositional surface on which the Flood deposited its awesome loads. The canyon itself was gouged by catastrophic releases of water from the ancient Hopi Lake to the east which covered much of northeastern Arizona (see map above) and Canyonlands Lake and Vernal Lake covering southeastern Utah and bordering states. These lakes might have been remnants of trapped inland seas left after the Flood or new basins resulting from tectonism of the Flood. Yearly precipitation accumulated in them because there were no natural outlets. Finally, after years of snow melts and annual rains, the water of Hopi Lake spilled over the Kaibab Upwarp and catastrophically broke through the natural dam provided by the upwarp. The raging rush of water excavated much of the material above the canyon, leaving a 16-18 mile wide stream bed that would later become the outer canyon.

The layers of sediment would be mute testimony of a global catastrophe--a warning to future generations concerning the wrath of God who promised to destroy the world next time by intense heat so that the elements would melt. A local flood could be ignored and wouldn't have had the same dramatic effect. All has not continued as it was from the beginning of creation (II Pet. 3:4). The Requirements for an Ice Age According to Meteorologist Michael Oard: "To produce an 'ice age,' the snow must accumulate year by year, change to ice, and advance down to 37ºN latitude in the central United States. More summer cooling than 12ºC is likely required. As a result of this temperature criterion, an ice age is extremely difficult to account for, especially when only present processes are allowed...Additionally, the ocean had to be much warmer than the average 4ºC of today."

Oard's excellent book, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, harmonizes evidence for an ice age with the effects of the Genesis Flood. (Master Books: 800-999-3777)

Oard explains how the ocean was warmed by Flood events and why a warm ocean is essential for the development of an ice age:

"Strong absorption of solar radiation by water vapor in the vapor canopy that enshrouded the earth before the Genesis Flood maintained a universally warm climate by reradiating the absorbed heat and heating the ocean."

The Genesis Flood rain released latent heat from the vapor canopy and heated the ocean. Latent heat is the heat stored in water vapor that is needed to change the state of water from a liquid to a gas. Some creationists think Noah's ark would have been dangerously overheated by this process, but the actual amount of water and heat in the vapor canopy may not have been very great. When the Flood began, the fountains of the great deep burst open adding to the 40 days and nights of rain. What were these fountains? Some creationists have done computer modeling to see what would happen if the crust of the earth ruptured at various places and the fountains of the great deep burst open. Underground aquifers ruptured, releasing huge volumes of water, and the waters of the ocean deeps were also forced out of their basins during the breakup of the crust. The basins were being filled in with magma.

When the fountains of the great deep erupted (possibly the 50,000+ known volcanoes and seamounts--submarine volcanoes), gargantuan lava flows and titanic volumes of hot water gushed out of the depths of the earth and further heating the ocean (only one during Pangea). A warm ocean (above 30ºC) would have generated enough water vapor for unusually severe winter snow storms for many years. Even if the oceans had originally been 4ºC, the average ocean temperature today, 50,000 active volcanoes would have raised their average temperature and greatly reduced the sunlight because of the ash and aerosols they expelled.

Volcanic dust and aerosols can act as an inverse greenhouse by reflecting solar radiation back to space and allowing heat to escape from the earth. The 1883 Krakatoa eruption injected about 100 million tons of dust into the stratosphere. The impact on weather was noticeable for several years afterwards. The effect from the eruption of Tambora, in 1815, was so great that 1816 was called "the year without a summer." There were massive crop failures that year due to frost.

The Necessity of a Genesis Flood for an Ice Age

Genesis Flood events supplied the necessary conditions for an ice age, producing an ocean filled with warm water and creating a plentiful source of water vapor for heavy winter storms for hundreds of years. Multiple volcanic eruptions (the fountains of the great deep mentioned in Genesis) filled the sky with volcanic dust and gaseous aerosols, yielded cooler summers by blocking out much light and heat from the sun and allowed snow packs to survive from winter to winter. The warm ocean kept the winter marine air relatively warm, so that more moisture could be transported to the cold land masses for snow storms (see graph).

Cooler Air Holds Less Moisture

Uniformitarian geologists can envision a period of cooler summers, so that snow packs can survive. L.D. Williams used a computer model to determine how much colder summers must be to preserve snow from winter to winter. [Williams, 1978] The results showed that temperatures had to be 10-12ºC lower than average. [Williams, 1979] Cooler summers, however, will have a weakening effect on winter storms. The ocean would be colder and generate less water vapor. Also, the atmosphere's water vapor carrying capacity is inversely affected by colder temperatures as the graph shows:

Colder summer temperatures alone will not preserve snow packs if the sun's radiation is not partly blocked as well, because the melting of snow results more from solar radiation than from warm air temperature, as Paterson showed in The Physics of Glaciers. Summer snow cover in northeastern Canada would cause drier conditions there, and the storm tracks would move farther south because of the concomitant expansion of the polar anticyclone--a high pressure system in which the winds blow outward. According to Ruddiman and McIntyre [Ruddiman], growth of extensive bodies of ice also implies expansion of the polar anticyclone normally positioned over ice cover in the far north. They say that the expansion of dry cold air would reinforce the normal high-Arctic aridity and slow or stop the rapid growth of ice sheets unless opposed by other parts of the climatic system--by which they mean a 1-2ºC warmer temperature for the North Atlantic Ocean, which they believe occurred during the first half of glaciation.

Without a warm ocean less snow would fall in the winter and cooler summers alone could not produce an ice age, as the above graph shows. This is why Ruddiman and McIntyre suggested that the ocean was 1-2ºC warmer at the beginning of the ice age. This might give a temporary increase in snow, but only for a short time. According to an extensive analysis of sea-surface temperatures for 120 years, Folland and Kates discovered ocean surface temperatures trailed air temperatures by only 15 years. [Folland] Subsequently, the severe decline of water vapor would produce snowless winters, which would be compounded by a cooler atmosphere unable to carry much moisture. Oard says that the lack of an abundant supply of moisture is probably the most serious difficulty for uniformitarian ice age theories.

Uniformitarian Evolutionists Proffer a Multitude of Ice Age Theories

One ice age researcher, J.K. Charlesworth remarked about 40 years ago that Pleistocene phenomena have produced an absolute riot of theories ranging from the remotely possible to the mutually contradictory and the palpably inadequate. [Charlesworth] More recently, from Winters of the World, Brian John reminisced on Charlesworth's comment, saying that things have become even more confusing since then. [John] In other words, evolutionary uniformitarians have no reasonable explanations for an ice age based on present processes. Indeed, they cannot even explain why we have our present ice sheets. Our present climate can maintain them, but it could not produce them. Oard says,

"The picture that emerges at the end of the Flood catastrophe is a barren world with no trees, plants, animals, or birds (except in the Ark). All air-breathing, land-based animals had died and were fossilized, or were in the process of being fossilized, in the sediments of the Flood. The oceans would be about 40 meters higher than today, because the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets had not yet developed. The newly formed stratosphere would contain a thick shroud of volcanic dust and aerosols, due to the extensive volcanic and tectonic activity during the Flood. It probably was a dark, depressing world. The oceans would be uniformly warm. Conditions would then be established for a second, much lesser catastrophe--a post-Flood transition to the present-day climate. This would be a post-Flood ice age."

Snowblitz: The Ice Age Starts

Oard says that a snowblitz is what would have occurred after the Flood, and it would have engulfed a far larger area than that envisioned by the most radical proponents of the snowblitz theory. He says that a snowblitz is the concept that a snow cover or an ice sheet develops over large areas all at once, instead of in local mountainous areas, from which it subsequently flows outward. Oard says that in the post-Flood snowblitz storms would often develop near the southeastern coast of the United States and move northeastward. These storms would be greatly magnified versions of present-day "northeasters" that wrack the eastern seaboard every year.

II. Evidence the earth was created instantaneously

Possibly the best evidence that the earth was created instantaneously is the presence of polonium radiohalos in rocks. Dr. Robert Gentry worked as guest scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories for about 13 years (`68 to `82), studying radiohalos before writing Creation's Tiny Mystery (Available at 800-999-3777).click here for some excerpts.

Radiohalos are spherical shells of radiation damage in rock crystals surrounding tiny inclusions of radioactive material. Uranium and thorium decay into polonium and finally to lead through a series of steps, emitting alpha particles during their decay. Alpha particles can be thought of as helium atoms missing their electrons and are, therefore, positively charged, making them react vigorously with atoms in their immediate vicinity. The discoloring radiation damage can be easily seen in mica, one of the crystalline substances composing granite. It takes 100 million alpha particles from a single isotope to make a visible halo. Each radioactive element propels an alpha particle with a specific amount of energy characteristic of the decaying isotope. This causes the alpha particle to travel a specific distance through the rock. One can measure the radius of a halo and know with reasonable certainty which isotope produced the halo. Examine the following halos. They show what each type of halo looks like in peeled mica when viewed under a microscope.

Gentry's attention focused on the sets of halos containing a series of three halos. He identified them as halos produced by three isotopes of polonium (Po): Po-218, Po-214, and Po-210. Isotopes have similar chemical properties, although they differ in mass (less neutrons or protons--or both in the case of polonium). These isotopes are part of the uranium decay series. Gentry wondered why radiohalos of these polonium isotopes should occur isolated from uranium radiocenters.

The halos piqued Gentry's curiosity because these polonium isotopes have very short half-lives: Po-218 is 3.05 minutes; Po-214 is 164 microseconds; Po-210's is 138.4 days. In six hours a pound of Po-218 would completely decay to other isotopes.

The Alka Seltzer Analogy

When you drop a tab of Alka Seltzer in water, thousands of bubbles form and rise to the surface of the water. No more bubbles form once the tab is spent and the water would have no trace of bubbles. However, if someone suddenly froze the water by putting the glass (Pyrex) in liquid nitrogen, the bubble would be locked in the ice. If the earth had ever been molten when polonium decayed, no halos would have formed. Radiohalos can form only in cool, solid rock.

Gentry began looking for telltale signs of migration from uranium radiocenters. Did water percolate through the rocks and carry polonium atoms away from the uranium radiocenters to new locations? Why just polonium and not other decay products of uranium such as radium? If migration was not by water, maybe radon gas, a uranium decay product (also radioactive) traveled through tiny cracks between mica layers and regrouped, decayed into polonium and produced this special halo series. Migration by water or as gas would have left millions of alpha recoil pits along the route. A decaying isotope produces a recoil pit when the alpha particle is violently expelled from the nucleus, causing the heavy atom to recoil and smash into the crystalline rock surrounding it, producing a pit. Few, if any, recoil pits are seen. If the transport had been by radon, the halo made by Po-210 would have been stretched or smeared about two microns wider because the radon halo would have added to it, but the Po-210 halo is sharply delineated.

After many years of research and reporting his results in appropriate scientific journals, Gentry concluded that God must have created the earth instantaneously with rocks cool enough to allow alpha decay to produce halos without erasing them. Scientists have erased the halos by heating samples containing halos for several hours above 300ºC. Therefore, the rocks containing polonium halos never rose above that temperature.

The half-lives of polonium isotopes are so short that in a few hours, even if the entire earth had been made out of polonium, it would have decayed to lead by the time the earth was cool enough to allow halo formation. By that time, there would have been no polonium left to produce the halos. God must have created the earth almost instantaneously.

Features of the Fossil Record Produced by the Flood

Is the fossil record evidence of evolution or of the destruction of the world by the Flood? A major feature of the fossil record is that nearly every fossil is the result of water transport and burial in sediments. Geologists before Darwin believed the Flood produced much of the fossil record. Charles Lyell's erroneous uniformitarian assumptions led geologists on a 100+ year detour and gave Darwin a way to explain his theory. Some geologists now reject uniformitarianism and accept the new catastrophism. This change in basic theory among geologists is still in transition.

Biological Classification Scheme: Taxonomy

To make the discussion of the fossil record more understandable, you need to know the basics of the systematic biological classification scheme used by scientists (called taxonomy). Biologists classify living things according to a hierarchy of categories called taxa (singular-taxon). The seven major taxa, highest to lowest, are: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. A kingdom contains many phyla, a phylum contains many classes, and so on. The fossil record: the way it ought to be.

Does the fossil record prove modern organisms evolved from a common ancestor? At the bottom of the geologic column (the layers of sedimentary rock) are the oldest sediments. This is where we would expect to find the beginnings of life, starting with the chemical residues that began the first living cell. According to Darwin, we should expect to find innumerable intermediate fossils showing myriads of gradual changes in characteristics from ancestor to descendants. He asked:

"...as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" [Darwin, p. 159]

"...the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory is true, such have lived upon the earth." [Darwin, p. 289]

Believing Darwin, biology textbook authors claim that the fossil collections truly contain innumerable transitional forms. Biologist William Keeton describes what he thinks paleontologists (fossil experts) see in the fossil record:

"Soon, however, the fossil record itself made this hypothesis [creation] untenable. As more and more fossils were discovered and studied, it became evident that gradual shifts in characters could be traced through time. If an investigator studied the fossils in one rock layer and then studied the fossils in a slightly more recent layer, he would often find that those in the more recent layer were very similar to the older ones but showed slight differences. If he then studied a third layer slightly more recent than the second, he would again find that slight changes in the characters of the fossil species would be detected...It was far more likely that the changes seen in the fossils were the result of accumulation of many small alterations as the generations passed. "[Keeton]

If what Keeton said about gradual shifts and slight changes in characters of the fossils were true, I wouldn't be writing this article. Keeton, however, was a biologist and not a paleontologist. He, like many other textbook writers before and after him, should have verified his remarks by submitting them to a paleontologist instead of perpetuating this myth about the fossil record. The fossil record: no transition forms found.

Darwin asked:

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of...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. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." [Darwin, pp. 287-288 ]

Without exception, paleontologists are completely aware of the shortcomings of the fossil record when it comes to Darwinism. Nevertheless, they still believe in the theory. The theory has little scientific evidence supporting it, but it is the only scientific (without God) theory that attempts to explain the origins of the species. The only alternative, creation, is unacceptable science for them, even if it is true. Consequently, they have rejected and will continue to reject creation as the explanation. Likewise, they will continue to accept Darwinism until something more plausible scientifically comes along.

George Gaylord Simpson, considered by many evolutionists as the preeminent paleontologist of the 20th century, taught that the fossil record had major gaps and a virtual lack of transition forms at the higher level taxa, e.g., phylum. [Simpson, p. 107,1965] Simpson would have liked to have been able to report the fossil record the way Keeton characterized it. He said that when the record is good, it commonly shows complete continuity in the rise of species, e.g., Eohippus through modern horse. [Simpson, p. 105,1965]

Evolutionists believe many mutations over long periods of time, guided by natural selection, account for these major transitions. On these higher levels, what Simpson calls `mega-evolution,' there are simply no transition forms. Yet, this is where there should be innumerable transition forms because it is at these points where the most radical changes took place if evolution is true.

Simpson claimed there was continuity among certain related genera (genus, singular). He said that in the higher classification groups, e.g., phyla, class, order, discontinuity becomes the major feature of the fossil record. In the larger, more encompassing groups continuous sequences are rare or virtually absent. This is what we would expect if creation is true, while evolution predicts the opposite. The lack of intermediates is a weak argument for creation because it depends on the nonexistence of something.

Simpson had a strong interest in horse evolution and wrote a book on them. Evolutionists always show Eohippus (Hyracotherium) as the first primitive horse in museums and textbooks. Evolutionists regard it as the ancestor of several other families, e.g. "...tapirs, rhinoceroses, titanotheres, and so forth." Simpson believed the sequence leading to the modern horse was "nearly continuous."

While the sequence from Eohippus to modern horse seems nearly continuous, the sequences in other orders and families do not. Perhaps the members of the nearly continuous horse sequence reveals that they are all part of the same horse kind and they simply reflect the originally created genetic variability, much like the dog kind mentioned below (p. 4). Whether Eohippus belongs to this group is questionable since some paleontologists have shown it probably belongs to the hippopotamus. What were Eohippus' ancestors? Simpson says:

"...But no where in the world has any recognizable trace been found of an animal that would close the considerable structural gap between [Eohippus] and the most likely ancestral order, the [most primitive hoofed mammals--the Condylarthra].

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals, and in most cases the break in the record is still more striking than in the case of the [hoofed mammals with odd number of toes, e.g., horse, tapir, rhinoceros -- perrisodactyls], for which a known earlier group does at least provide a good structural ancestry. The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed. Of course the orders all converge backward in time to different degrees. The earliest known members are much more alike than the latest highly diverse ungulates [hoofed mammals] did have a common ancestry; but the line making actual connection with such an ancestry is not known in even one instance.

"...This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. Among genera and species some apparent regularity of absence of transitional types is clearly a taxonomic artifact: artificial divisions between taxonomic units are for practical reasons established where random gaps exist. This does not adequately explain the systematic occurrence of gaps between larger units. In the cases of the gaps that are artifacts, the effect of discovery has been to reveal their random nature and has tended to fill in now one, now another--now from the ancestral, and now from the descendent side. In most cases discoveries relating to the major breaks have produced a more or less tenuous extension backward of the descendent groups, leaving the probable contact with the ancestry a sharp boundary. None of these large breaks has actually been filled by real, continuous sequences of fossils, although many of them can be exactly located and the transitions described by inference from the improved record on both sides." [Simpson, p. 106-108,1965]

After nearly 120 years of searching for missing links, gaps in the fossil record forced some paleontologists to propose the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis. [Eldredge 1972; Eldredge,1977] According to punctuated equilibrium, if the links existed at all, it was for a very brief time in rapidly evolving, small, peripheral populations isolated from the "parent" population. Thus, there was no opportunity for their fossilization. This hypothesis attempts to explain the main features of the fossil record: Absence of transitional forms Abrupt appearance of new, fully evolved organisms with no obvious ancestry. Stasis, fossils remain essentially unchanged from first appearance in the fossil record until they become extinct. Stasis is another word for "no evolution." Sudden, worldwide extinctions followed by rapid diversification. The Genesis Flood caused what paleontologists perceive as five major periods of extinction punctuating the fossil record, e.g., the end of the dinosaurs and other organisms (late Cretaceous). They believe global catastrophes, such as an asteroid impact, caused these extinctions.

Stephen Jay Gould, biology professor and paleontologist at Harvard, offers these cogent remarks:

"The extreme rarity of transition forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological [shape] change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."[Gould, 1977]

The reason for this is the Flood buried everything, including all variants within species. What paleontologists see in the fossil record is not a long history of evolution, but the aftermath of a global flood that wiped everything out in less than a year. Sharks, cockroaches, scorpions, fishes, jelly fish, snails, and many, many other animals and plants appear abruptly in the fossil record. They appear much the same now as when they first appeared in the record (stasis, no evolution!), supposedly 250-570 million years ago for most of them. In the evolutionary framework, geologists relate age to depth in the geologic column. In the Flood perspective, depth in the column is related to Flood stages.

The Cambrian Explosion

Evolutionists remain puzzled by what they call the "Cambrian Explosion." This explosion is characterized by the abrupt appearance of a wide variety of multicellular organisms (metazoa) in the fossil record with no hint of appropriate ancestors in earlier sedimentary rocks (Precambrian). What was the ancestral lineage (or lineages) that produced them? Precambrian stromatolites, composed mainly of finely layered (laminated) calcium carbonate structures that allegedly accumulated under the influence of blue-green algae, do not seem the proper ancestors of the complex organisms found in Cambrian rocks alleged to be 570 million years old. These organisms include trilobites, mollusks, brachiopods, and sponges.

There are also many reports of fossil bacteria, assumed to be 3.5 billion years old. If bacteria and stromatolites can be fossilized, why not the hordes of precursors to the Cambrian organisms that must have existed if evolution is true? Evolutionists claim that all the Cambrian ancestors were soft-bodied and they did not leave fossils, but is there anything softer than a single-celled bacterium? Do blue-green algae produce stromatolite mats? Austin explains that the only evidence of organic binding of the calcium carbonate laminations is the laminated structure. [Austin] He says that microscopic examination rarely reveals any trace of microscopic organisms, and that numerous laminated structures are known to form without biological activity. For example, some formations are in caves where there was no light for algal growth. Magnesium nodules develop on the sea floor as laminated spheres, and certain processes in soil formation produce laminated structures. In other words, Precambrian stromatolites, considered a product of blue-green algae by evolutionists, have other explanations for their origin. More recently, Grotzinger and Rothman provide an abiotic model for stromatolite formation. [Grotzinger]

Creationists believe that the "Cambrian Explosion" is an artifact of the Flood and that the Flood created much of the fossil record. This was the position of geologists before Darwin. Did the Flood produce this seeming "explosion" by burying these fully developed organisms together in the way that they now appear in the fossil record? Qualified geologists who are creationists think it did. If so, how did it fairly consistently bury characteristic groups of organisms together (index fossil assemblages belonging to specific geological periods, e.g., Jurassic) throughout the world? Part of the answer clearly must be that organisms living in the same ecological community would tend to get buried together. Hydrological sorting would tend to separate creatures based on size, shape, and density. Random tectonic movement creating tsunamis would complicate the picture further. From an evolutionary point of view, the sudden appearance of the wide variety of complex organisms in the Cambrian strata seems like an "explosion. "Flood geologists see this as clear evidence for the Flood. The Flood would have rapidly transported and buried fully developed animals and plants which would give the impression of "sudden appearance" evolutionarily. Modern descendants of these organisms seem essentially unchanged, giving the impression of stasis.

The Fossil Record Is Complete

It now appears the fossil record is essentially complete and the gaps are real. Norman Newell, a paleontologist of the American Museum of Natural History, informs his readers that, "Many of the discontinuities [in the fossil record] tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting." [Newell] This negates the suggestion by some evolutionists, that there have not been enough samples found. Colbert feels the record is complete:

"In spite of the relative youth of paleontology as a science, an impressive amount of fossil material has been gathered together and studied by paleontologists all over the world. Consequently it can be said that our knowledge of the history of life as based upon the fossil record is now reasonably complete, and this is as true for the vertebrates as for other groups of organisms." [Colbert]

Colbert assumes the many remaining gaps can be filled by new discoveries because he believes in evolution and in Darwin's belief that there must be innumerable transitional forms. Regarding the sudden appearance of new phyla, classes, etc., Simpson said:

"The process by which such radical events occur in evolution is the subject of one of the most serious remaining disputes among qualified professional students of evolution. The question is whether such major events take place instantaneously, by some process essentially unlike those involved in lesser or more gradual evolutionary changes, it is explained by the same principles and processes throughout, their results being greater or less according to the time involved, the relative intensity of selection, and other material variables in any given situation.

"Possibility for such dispute exists because transitions between major grades of organization are seldom well recorded by fossils. There is in this respect a tendency toward systematic deficiency in the record of the history of life. It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition but by sudden leaps in evolution". [Simpson, 1949]

Simpson further explains that the gaps among known species are sporadic and often small; the gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and usually large. [Simpson, 1960]

This is what we would expect if God created all the kinds within the creation week which the Flood buried. Gaps would be small among species belonging to the same genus (wolf, dog, coyote, jackal, the dog kind) or even the same family in some cases. However, the gaps are always large among the higher taxa. The species within a genus are all part of the same created kind.

What paleontologists do not often tell the public is that only teeth represent the majority of fossil mammals. Evolutionists identified the tooth of an extinct peccary as Nebraska Man at the time of the Scopes trial. Evolutionists feel they have a solid case for a transitional series from reptiles to mammals with the mammal-like reptiles. They base this on what they perceive as the transformation of reptile jaw bones to the mammalian hammer and anvil of the inner ear.

Edgar Allen shows a group of drawings depicting apparent intergradings of structural similarities in the mammal-like reptiles leading to the mammalian condition. In his caption for these drawings he says:

"Two of the figures (15, 17) are hypothetical; the rest are based on actual specimens which, while not necessarily in true ancestor-descendant relationship, represent structural grades. For clarity, unknown or undescribed structures and details are reconstructed in some instances." [Allen]

How do you reconstruct unknown structures? The "reconstructions" are simply the imagination of the artist whose drawings favor the alleged transitions. Isn't this suspicious? There is a virtual lack of transitions between the bacteria and the Cambrian invertebrates and between invertebrates and the fishes, as well as among other higher taxa. Two drawings in Allin's paper are completely hypothetical to help fill in missing links. Nearly all the remaining 14 figures have imaginary structures drawn in to show the assumed evolution. Evolutionists are so intent on proving their theory that they have lost objectivity and are willing to fabricate hypothetical creatures and structures to prove the "fact" of evolution.

There is much more that could be said about the mammal-like reptiles and other alleged transitional forms. Evolution: the Fossils STILL Say No! by Dr. Duane Gish (391 pages) thoroughly explains the fossil record as presented by the world's leading paleontologists but with a creationist's explanation. Call 800-350-3232 to order (Visa, MC).

Parting comment

The evolutionary establishment ridicules creationists and has successfully excluded discussion of creation from the public forum. About 50% of Americans believe in creation and reject evolution. This publication is our attempt to raise public awareness about creationism.

Time is the Magic Wand of Evolutionists

Frog + kiss = prince (fairy tale)

Frog + time = prince (science?)

The Bible says the universe was created perfect. The Law of Entropy says the universe will run down and become more disorganized with time. Big bang proponents must explain where order came from in a universe that had no order to start. They say an increase in order in one part of the universe was achieved by a decrease in order elsewhere. This is poor reasoning because this assumes that there was order somewhere in the universe to begin with after the chaotic big bang. In other words, they are really assuming that order spontaneously develops out of chaos. What is the evidence that order and integrated complexity could arise from a highly disordered state?

References

Ager, Derek, 1993, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 73.

Allen, Edgar, "Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear," Journal of Morphology, 147:431.

Audesirk, Gerald, Teresa Audesirk, 1989, Biology: Life On Earth, 2nd ed., Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, p. 19.

Austin: Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, 1994, Steve Austin, editor, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, CA 92071, pp. 134-135. This is an excellent book on Flood geology written by several creationary biologists and geologists. It can be ordered by calling 1-800-999-3777, Master and Visa cards accepted.

Bozarth, G.R. 1978, The American Atheist, September, p. 30.

Charlesworth, J.K., 1957, The Quaternary Era, Edward Arnold, London.

Colbert, Edwin H., 1991, Evolution of the Vertebrates, 4th edition, Wiley-Liss, Inc., New York, p. 2.

Darwin, Charles, 1958, The Origin of Species, Mentor, New York.

Eldredge, Niles, and Stephen Jay Gould, 1972, "Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism," Models in Paleobiology, T.J.M. Schopt, ed., Freeman, Cooper and Co., San Francisco, pp. 82-115.

Eldredge, Niles, and Stephen Jay Gould, 1977, "Punctuated Equilibria: the Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered," Paleobiology, 3:115-151.

Folland, C. and F. Kates, 1984, "Changes in Decadally Averaged Sea Surface Temperature over the World 1861-1980,in Milankovitch and Climate,A. Berger, ed., D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 721-727.

Gould, Stephen Jay, 1977, Natural History, 86(5):13.

Gould, Stephen Jay, 1993, forward in Schindewolf, Otto H., Basic Questions in Paleontology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Grotzinger, J.P., and Rothman, D.H., "An abiotic model for stromatolite morphogenesis." Nature 383:423-425, 1996.

John, B., 1979, "Ice Ages: A Search for Reasons," in Winters of the World, B.S. John, ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 1782-1791.

Keeton, William T., 1972, 2nd ed. Biological Science, Norton, New York, p. 9.

Newell, N.E., Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., April 1959, p. 267

Ruddiman, W.F. and A. McIntyre, 1979, "Warmth of the Subpolar North Atlantic Ocean During Northern Hemisphere Ice-Sheet Growth," Science 204:173-175.

Schindewolf, Otto H.,1993, Basic Questions in Paleontology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. xv.

Simpson, George Gaylord, 1944, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, Hafner Publishing Co., New York.

Simpson, George Gaylord, 1949, The Meaning of Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven, p.231.

Simpson, George Gaylord, 1960, The Evolution of Life, Sol Tax, ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 149.

Williams, L.D., 1978, "Ice-sheet Initiation and Climatic Influences of Expanded Snow Cover in Arctic Canada, Quaternary Research, 10, pp. 141-149.

Williams, L.D., 1979, "An Energy Balance Model of Potential Glacierization of Northern Canada," Arctic and Alpine Research,11, pp. 443-456.