I am a chemical engineer turned freelance technical author. For details of my career, see my technical writing home page. I am used to dealing with complex systems that have been designed and assembled in some way, and I normally assume that any system with multiple inter-related parts must be a consequence of design. I also expect to deal with things that can be observed and measured, and in all my time studying science and technology I have never been asked to accept any theory that is not supported by empirical evidence, except by one group of people - the evolutionists. They describe a series of events that cannot happen, and did not happen, and present them to our schoolchildren as fact, unwilling to admit that their belief in evolution is just an act of faith.
For thousands of years, particularly in places that are influenced by the three major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, people have believed that God created the world. In other polytheistic and pagan religions, the notion of Creation is rather vague and sometimes there is a gradualism that almost borders on evolution. Nevertheless, the Greeks at Athens knew enough about Creation to enable Paul to use it as a starting point for his sermon. He found a pagan altar at Mars Hill, with the inscription "To The Unknown God", and began preaching as follows:
"God that made the world and all things therein ..." (Acts 17:24)
The Flood has also been known throughout the world, for thousands of years, and exists in the history and culture of many nations independently of the Bible, but in the time of the Apostles there was a prophecy about a time coming when people would try to deny the Flood:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7)
In 1830, Charles Lyell fulfilled this prophecy by publishing his "Principles of Geology", promoting the idea of uniformitarianism, which means that the earth's history is seen as a process of gradual change over long periods of time, and there are no catastrophic events.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" which was re-named "On the Origin of Species". He studied a wide variety of animals and made the proposal that there was a gradual process of evolution from the lower to the higher species, through natural selection and survival of the fittest. He admitted that the range of specimens available to him was not homogeneous, and they were divided into distinct groups with large gaps between them, but he published the theory anyway in the hope that, in time, the gaps would be filled in (a hope that has still not been achieved). Lyell's concept of uniformitarianism provided the timescale required for evolution, and paved the way for Darwin's work.
In 1863, Thomas Henry Huxley published "Man's Place in Nature" describing the similarities between humans and apes. He suggested that humans evolved from apes, and we are therefore nothing more than the highest animal in the process of evolution.
The church reluctantly tolerated the work of Lyell and Darwin, but when Huxley came along they were furious. The church had always taught that man is a "living soul", created in the image of God, and not just a higher animal. There was the famous Oxford debate between Wilberforce and Huxley, and although there was no record taken and no vote, the press reported it as as a victory for Huxley, in spite of the fact that two journalists present thought that Huxley had not done particularly well. Whatever happened, the nation was persuaded that evolution had triumphed over creation, and the consequences were as follows:
Since the time of Huxley, many Christians have continued to oppose evolution and have followed a discipline called Creation Science. However, it is still virtually impossible to publish Creationist articles in mainstream journals, so Creationists have their own peer-reviewed journals, for example the Creation Technical Journal published by Answers in Genesis. Many advances have been made in Creation Science, but it's still an uphill struggle against a tide of evolution propaganda that is continually being presented to the public by the mainstream media.
Since the days of Darwin and Huxley, the theory of evolution has been promoted, not by presentation of facts, but by creating elaborate reconstructions and even deliberate hoaxes. The gaps in Darwin's fossil record were never filled in, and to satisfy their desire for atheistic humanism, people have given in to temptations to fabricate their own "evidence".
The most notable evolution hoax was the Piltdown Man, made up of a prehistoric cranium fitted with the half-jaw of a female orang-outang and a canine tooth, carefully filed down to look human. For 40 years from 1913 until 1953, books and articles were written, and reputations were built, on the basis that Piltdown Man represented the missing link between apes and humans. When the hoax was exposed, a motion was tabled in the House of Commons expressing "no confidence in the Trustees of the British Museum".
On 24th June 1922, while the world was still under the deception of Piltdown Man, the London Evening News published a full-page picture of Nebraska Man, reconstructed from a single tooth, which subsequently turned out to be the tooth of a pig.
Another missing link called "Java Man" was reconstructed from a giant gibbon's skull cap and a human leg bone. There have been many pictures of Java Man, the latest appearing in Origins in 1977.
For details of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man and other reconstructions such as Pekin Man and Ramapithecus, see Creation Science Movement pamphlets 151 and 314.
In 1921, a genuine complete skull known as "Rhodesian Man" was found, and was classified as belonging to "homo erectus", the supposed predecessor of homo sapiens. This skull had straight features, unlike the other samples of homo erectus which had been reconstructed from skull fragments and all had protruding jawbones. Rather than accepting that the supposed "homo erectus" was no different from homo sapiens, a skeleton was built with a reconstructed pelvis, making him stoop down like an ape. So he became the "Stooping Rhodesian Man". For details see CSM pamphlet 307.
Evolution has always been propagated by elaborate reconstructions, with high quality artwork and modelling, rather than the presentation of facts. The film and TV industries have used this technique very effectively, by coming out with the stock phrase "millions of years ago" and then entertaining us with high-quality animated models and graphics. The most recent offender has been the BBC TV series "Walking with Dinosaurs", in which the complete lifestyles of dinosaur species were presented, complete with mating habits, even though no-one has ever seen a living dinosaur. It was like a David Attenborough wildlife program, but with no living animals.
Does all of this convince anyone? Yes, unfortunately it does, but only if people don't think too hard about it. The most effective way of brainwashing people is to repeat the same old stock phrases over and over again, and make it as entertaining as possible, and people will believe it. They don't need to be convinced by argument. They only need to be convinced that everyone else believes it, and they will believe it too.
Here in the UK, evolution is not taught in school very well. It is presented, rather than taught, in much the same way as the TV presentations, but without the elaborate graphics and animations. It normally comes packaged in a genetics module within the GCSE biology course. This means that students who drop biology at an early stage might miss out on evolution altogether, although it might catch up with them in general studies if the school decides they should know about it.
When I was at school during the 1960's, we did GCE "O" levels rather than GCSE, and I was one of the students who dropped biology. Then in the sixth form I did maths, physics and chemistry. We had a biology teacher who was a fervent believer in evolution, and he decided that he wanted to teach a special course in evolution to all sixth-form students who had missed out on it. During the first lesson, he declared his belief in evolution and said how he was going to teach evolution from genetics. Then for the next few weeks he simply taught genetics, with hardly any reference to evolution at all. I could not see how his genetics teaching supported evolution, but some of the students thought that because the genetics was good, evolution must be true. It's a case of the "king's new clothes". People will believe what they want to believe, and if they can't see something they will not want to admit it.
That was back in the 1960's, but the method of presenting evolution in school is much the same today. It comes as part of genetics, but it not taught in any systematic way.
My wife, Fiona, knows much more about biology than I do. She studied biochemistry at Birmingham University, then she did an M.Phil (split between London Southbank Polytechnic and Leeds Polytechnic because her supervisor moved). Her research was an attempt to identify toxins in blighted potatoes, which might be related to Spina Bifida. Whenever I write something about biology I ask her to review it. When I look through her biology textbooks I find fleeting references to evolution, but it never becomes a major issue. If the references to evolution were cut out, the textbooks would still be fully complete and intact. She tells me that during all her time studying biology and biochemistry, she never felt under pressure to believe in evolution, and in fact she became more and more convinced that everything was created by special design.
Putting all this together, it appears that throughout the entire educational system, evolution is the accepted mainstream view, although there is no systematic attempt to prove it. Students are not expected to believe it, but most of them do believe it because it's easier to go with the flow than to go against it, and so it becomes a subtle form of brainwashing.
See also: Creation Science Education in Britain.
The subtle brainwashing in the schools, and the not-so-subtle brainwashing in the media, has left us with a population that believes in evolution although they do not know why. You can go into any school in the UK, and almost anywhere in the Western World, and ask the kids how long ago the dinosaurs were on the Earth and they will all say "millions of years", although none of them will be able to prove it. The brainwashing of society has some very serious consequences. For many people, it has destroyed their belief in God as Creator, and promoted the belief that we are a law unto ourselves, in control of our own destiny, and not responsible to any higher power. In particular, the theory of advancement of the species by natural selection has been used to promote extreme political positions as follows:
Although the majority of evolutionists do not subscribe to any of these extreme positions, they have unwittingly offered to the world a theory that has been seized upon by malicious people who have used it for their own purposes. However, it is not enough just to point the finger at Hitler and other dictators. The malaise of evolution has pervaded the whole of our society, causing a general and systematic decline in moral values. Even among criminals, there used to be a code of ethics, that you don't attack old people and children, but now no-one is safe. Children are turning to crime because no absolute values are given to them, from their families, their schools, or the church.
In the next few sections of this article, I will go into some of the arguments in favour of Creation, and point out some of the specific weaknesses of evolution.
The principal argument for Creation is the evidence of design in all of nature. An object is normally considered to have been designed if it consists of a number of component parts which are meaningless in isolation, but together they perform a useful function. For example, a piston is meaningless unless it is fitted to an engine. An engine is meaningless unless it is fitted to a car. When we see a car being driven along the road, we are aware that it has been designed and manufactured by somebody with intelligence. If someone suggested to us that a pile of dust fell off the side of a mountain and assembled itself into a car, we would laugh at them. Yet this is the type of scenario that evolutionists expect us to believe. They know that it can't happen all at once, so instead they say that it happened bit by bit, over millions of years, unwilling to accept that however long it took, there are many things that could never have happened at all without design.
Here is just one example. All living creatures are equipped with a means of observing the world around them. The most common instrument is the eye, consisting of four main components:
If just one of these components is missing, the eye will not work at all and is absolutely useless. If a species has to rely on mutations to get all these components, it can only expect to get them one at a time. If it is lucky enough to get two lens-shaped spots on it's head, it will have to stagger around blind for millions of years waiting for the remaining three mutations to occur. For advancement of the species there has to be a process of natural selection, but in this case there is no selection. All the animals are equally blind and they all fall into the pit together.
Current research has revealed that there are ten different designs of eye, with no obvious mechanisms for evolution from one to the other. So the problem of evolution of the eye, if not difficult enough already, is exacerbated further by ten separate evolutions that have to occur in parallel. For details see Creation Science Movement brochure 269.
The human knee joint is another good example of the evidence of design. It is a four-bar hinge joint with a moving point of rotation and at least 16 critical characteristics which must all be present to enable it to work at all. It must have been created as a complete assembly, and could not have evolved. For details see the article entitled Critical Characteristics and the Irreducible Knee Joint in the True.Origin Archive.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are used by engineers to define a physical quantity called Entropy, which is a measure of randomness or progress towards equilibrium. It can be defined thermally or statistically, and the two methods complement each other. Thermal entropy is a measure of the unavailability of the energy within a system for conversion into work. Statistical entropy is a measure of the number of random states of a system. The Laws of Thermodynamics are as follows:
The change in entropy between any two thermodynamic states is derived from the first two laws. The third law provides a datum value of zero (for calculation purposes) at a temperature of absolute zero.
The equations of thermal entropy can be reviewed from any textbook on thermodynamics. Suffice it to say that natural (spontaneous) processes take place in a direction such that the entropy of an adiabatic (thermally closed) system tends to increase. For example, when heat is being transferred from a hot body to a cold body within an insulated box so that they both eventually reach the same temperature, the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Unnatural processes tend to decrease entropy. For example, if one body is heated and the other is cooled in a system where there is no overall change in energy, the entropy of the system decreases. This type of process is called "unnatural" because some intervention is required to heat and cool the system.
The statistical approach to entropy is based on the number of states in which something can exist at random. For example, if a number of marbles are placed in the corner of a box, they will initially be in the same state, but they will soon become distributed at random around the box. The same approach can be applied to molecules that exist in different quantum states. Thermal and molecular entropy come together at a temperature of absolute zero, because substances tend to assume a single, crystalline state.
The consequences of increasing entropy, in natural processes, can be seen around us all the time. Heat is transferred from hot objects to cold objects until they are all at the same temperature. When the world's fuel resources are used up, there will be no more conversion of heat into work and everything will stop. Even solar power and wind power will fail when the Sun burns out. Everything that we carefully construct might look good at the time, but eventually it comes to nothing. For example, buildings stand for a while, but eventually they fall over so that all the bricks are randomly distributed in a heap on the ground.
The natural descent into disorder and chaos applies to the whole universe, not just to our immediate surroundings. Entropy is increasing throughout the universe, so that eventually everything will be totally lifeless.
Evolution is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics and the natural process of increasing entropy, because it suggests that order develops out of chaos, all of it's own accord.
There is only one way that order can exist in this world or anywhere in the universe. Order exists only when someone or something with intelligence has created it. Humans are the most intelligent of all creatures, and we are very creative, but we see other creatures also being creative. For example, birds build their nests, rabbits dig their holes, and squirrels gather nuts and store them up for the winter. Although this might run contrary to our popular thinking, a squirrel gathering nuts is actually doing something "unnatural" as far as the laws of entropy are concerned.
Since order cannot be created even on a small scale without intelligence, it follows that the universe as we know it must have been created by an intelligence that is beyond anything we can possibly imagine - the Great Designer who has made one planet among many other planets that is populated by millions of other little designers.
For a more detailed discussion, see see The Laws of Thermodynamics, an appendix in my book: Impossible Theology: The Christian Evolutionist Dilemma.
The honest answer to this question, if we approach it entirely from our own observations of nature, is that nobody knows the age of the Earth, and the best we can do is make a rough guess at the order of magnitude. Is the earth thousands of years old, or is it millions or billions?
Evolutionists favour a long timescale because they need a lot of time to support their theory. One of the arguments is the so-called geological timescale, which assumes that stratified layers of rock take millions of years to form, as different types of sediment are deposited very slowly in different climatic conditions.
However, there is observable evidence that stratified layers of rock can be formed in very short times, for example during the eruption of volcanoes. It is also possible to demonstrate in the laboratory that a mixture of large and small pebbles will form stratified layers when poured out into a heap. Millions of years are not required for the formation of stratified layers of rock. All you need is a worldwide flood, like in the days of Noah.
In recent years there has been a curious development in popular thinking, not about the age of the Earth, but about how long it can survive in a hostile universe full of asteroids. People are concerned that the Earth might be hit by an asteroid, and are trying to find ways to deflect it from it's path, perhaps by exploding a nuclear weapon in space. This is not just fantasy, but is a very real concern based on known scientific data. We know that planets are regularly impacted by objects from space. The moon, which has no atmosphere, is covered in craters from meteorite impacts, and we have seen in our own time what happened to Jupiter when it was hit by the comet Schumaker-Levy. Such an impact, if it had hit the earth, would have destroyed all life.
Now the question arises, if we are so concerned about what might happen to the Earth during our own lifetime, or the lifetime of our descendants, how can we believe that the Earth has been preserved for the millions of years that are required by the theory of evolution. Not only does evolution itself require a considerable amount of faith, but you also need faith to believe that the Earth survived long enough for it to happen.
Considering that the Earth has done quite well to survive just the thousands of years of known history, I would favour a timescale of thousands of years rather than millions. If you want to go for the Genesis story, you actually have a date for the creation of the Earth, calculated from the genealogy of the patriarchs. Adam was created in 4004 BC and the Earth is six thousand years old. If you prefer not to use the Bible, there are other accounts that tell much the same story, so that alongside Creation Science we also have Creation History.
There is, of course, a spiritual dimension to the age of the Earth. If you believe that the Earth has existed for millions of years, you are likely to believe that it will continue to exist for millions of years. In other words, there is no Final Judgement and we can continue to do whatever we like without fearing God.
The animal world is divided into "kinds" which are subdivided into species and then further subdivided into varieties. The division into kinds is very distinct, so that members of different kinds are unable to mate with each other and produce offspring. For example, dogs are a kind and cats are a kind. Different types of dog can mate with each other and produce cross-breeds. Different types of cat can also mate with each other. But a dog cannot mate with a cat because they are a different kind. The sub-division into species and varieties is rather more arbitrary. For example, a horse and an ass might be considered different species, but they can mate with each other to produce a mule (although a mule is likely to be sterile and unable to produce offspring of its own).
The division into kinds is a major obstacle to the theory of evolution, because the gradual development of the various kinds would lead to many transition animals that can mate with members of two different kinds that are unable to mate with each other. For example, birds are supposed to have evolved from reptiles, but they are different kinds and are unable to mate with each other. During the process of evolution, there should have been transition animals that can mate with both bird and reptile, but no such animals exist today. Similarly, if humans have evolved from apes, we should be able to find the so-called "missing link", half-way between man and ape, and capable of mating with both of them. No such link has been found, and not for want of trying.
Not only is there a complete absence of transition animals between reptiles and birds, and between apes and humans, but there are no transition animals at all, between any two kinds that are supposed to have evolved from each other. If transition animals ever existed at all, why did they all die off? An animal that is half-reptile and half-bird should be just as capable of survival as a reptile or a bird, and if it wasn't, how could it survive for the millions of years required to become a bird?
There is a simple explanation for the absence of transition animals. The Great Designer made all the animals "after their kind" (Genesis 1:21).
If you want to get an evolutionist really annoyed, ask him to provide a mechanism for so-called "chemical evolution", which means the formation of primitive single-cell organisms from simple chemicals in the primeval soup. Starting with amino acids, this involves the formation of proteins, DNA and RNA and arranging the molecules in a way that constitutes a living cell. The problem is, after years of research, no-one knows how to do it, not even theoretically. They can't even get past the first hurdle, which is the formation of proteins.
Proteins are polymers, made up of a combination of amino acids in chains, so that the amine (NH2) group of one molecule is bonded to the carboxyl (COOH) group of another. The resulting bond is called a peptide bond (NHCO) and a molecule of water is given off. The formation of a peptide bond requires a transfer enzyme, at least one other enzyme and a cofactor called guanosine triphosphate. An enzyme is a protein which is capable of catalysing a reaction. Since a protein is required to make a protein, there appears to be no mechanism for the formation of the first protein in the primeval soup.
To make a protein with the amino acids arranged in the correct order to form a genetic code, you need ribonucleic acid (RNA) working together with deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to create the sequence. You also need enzymes to join the amino acids together, so we are still in the same position. Proteins are still needed to make proteins.
If the formation of proteins from simple chemicals is difficult, the formation of DNA is even worse. You need a small amount of DNA to start with, to prime the reaction, and you also need the enzyme polymerase. Since you need proteins to make proteins, and you need both DNA and protein to make DNA, it's double trouble. There appears to be no feasible mechanism for the formation of either protein or DNA in the primeval soup. The formation of RNA is equally problematic, with no known mechanism for synthesis from simple chemicals.
These large molecules, DNA, RNA and proteins, are the building blocks for the formation of cells, which are vastly complicated assemblies of components, made up of complex sub-assemblies. To take just one example of a sub-assembly, consider the ATP synthase motor. This has a rotating wheel and it exists in the mitochondria to supply energy to the cell, by converting adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and phosphoric acid to adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Normally we assume that engineers are needed to make motors with rotating parts, and this might present some problems for evolutionists, but it's no problem for Creationists because we know the Great Engineer.
For a discussion of DNA replication and the transfer of genetic information from DNA to proteins, (causing even more problems for evolutionists) see The Impossibility of Chemical Evolution, an appendix in my book: Impossible Theology: The Christian Evolutionist Dilemma.
The problems of chemical evolution are so great that some theistic evolutionists, in an attempt to reconcile evolution with Christianity, have suggested that God made the first living cells, then left them to develop into higher life-forms and eventually man, over millions of years. The problem with this is that it denounces the fundamental nature of God, who makes things according to his own design, as described in Genesis 1, and declares them to be "good". What sort of God would create a primitive life-form and then expect it to endure millions of years of death and decay, struggling against the forces of natural selection? This is not the God that the Bible tells us about.
People believe in evolution because they live in a culture that demands it, as a matter of political correctness. The culture has a momentum of its own, built up over the last 150 years, and has become like the Titanic that is unable to slow down or change direction when the signal has been given that there is an iceberg ahead.
Modern science, especially the latest developments in our understanding of the living cell, has given the signal that there is something wrong, but the ship can't change course in an instant because it takes time for people to change their minds. They might be shocked at first, and then when the shock subsides they have to try and re-evaluate things. Even after they have turned themselves round as individuals, it still takes time to change the established practices of the media and the education system that indoctrinated them in the first place.
There are some people who are so indoctrinated they won't turn around, whatever you tell them. They close their eyes and plug their ears, and then they open their mouths and pour out abuse against creationists. If you want to know what I mean, try posting a message in one of the unmoderated creation/evolution internet forums and see what comes back. The participants of these forums are not evolutionists in the usual sense of the word, they are just anti-creationists. Give them some creationist articles and they will read them, not because they want to learn something, but in the hope that they can find something they can criticise. When they think they have found something, they make a big issue of it, even trying to make personal abuse against the authors.
I have found that the best way to deal with these people up is to ask them to prove evolution. They might come up with a few arguments about variations within a species, but it amounts to nothing more than micro-evolution, that creationists believe in anyway. They can't give any examples of macro-evolution, where one species changes into another. Then I ask them to tell me how the first strand of DNA evolved without any protein, and how the first protein evolved without DNA. Then I ask them how the first living cell evolved, including the ATP synthase motor. I have made them feel so frustrated, they have said to me "Stop asking us to prove evolution". After that it's best just to leave them alone and concentrate on the people who are not so far gone.
I have found there are plenty of people who are prepared to read good quality creationist literature, but to make a real impact, we need to get it into the schools. When this happens, it will no longer be possible to teach evolution as a fact, to the exclusion of everything else. The children should be given both sides of the argument, long before they reach their teenage years. If they are only given evolution, it will be harder to turn them round later, because they have become indoctrinated.
We need to support the schoolteachers, whether they are convinced creationists or simply not convinced about evolution. They need the self-confidence to teach what they actually believe, or at least say what's wrong with what they are expected to believe.
For those of us who know the Creator, evolution should be a non-issue, except insofar as it has deceived those around us and prevented them from coming to Christ, and it has even deceived some of our fellow-believers who have fallen into compromise positions.
God has created us to have fellowship with Him. The reason we do not know Him is because we have sinned. We need to repent of our sins, including the sin of compromising with God's Word through evolution. Then we need to accept the free gift of salvation, which Jesus Christ bought for us when he died for our sins on the cross and rose again to conquer death.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:23)
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom. 6:23)
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom. 5:8)
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)
... if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Rom. 10:9)
... Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
By believing in Christ, you enter into a new relationship with God. Then you can grow in the faith by studying God's Word and by meeting with other believers. You should also be baptised, as a public confession of your faith.
Evolution is basically a position of antagonism against God. With the antagonism gone, your whole life will be different, although not necessarily easier. There will be many struggles, including the struggle against evolution in an unbelieving world.
This article is just a brief summary of the reasons why, from a scientific point of view, creation is more feasible than evolution. There is much more that can be said about this subject. See for example Neville's article which tells you how the dinosaurs have been in existence for the last six thousand years and are mentioned in the book of Job, and how they are the fire-breathing dragons of ancient history. See also the Creation Gospel and the websites on the links page.
Updated January 2003
Mike Gascoigne, BSc, MS, CEng, MIChemE, MISTC
Send a mail message