Introduction:

'No teacher should be dismayed at efforts to present creation as an alternative to evolution in biology courses; indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution. Not only is this worth mentioning, but a comparison of the two alternatives can be an excellent exercise in logic and reason. Our primary goal as educators should be to teach students to think and such a comparison..may accomplish that purpose better than most others'. (R.D. Alexander (Professor of Zoology at the University of Michigan, and an evolutionist), IN: "Evolution verses Creationism: The Public Education Controversy". J.P. Zetterberg, ed., Oryx Press, Phoenix, 1983, p. 91)

I. Both contain miracles:

Some reject creationism because of the miraculous/supernatural elements in it. But evolution contains miracles too. A miracle is something that happens that is contrary to natural law (the physical laws that govern this world). Eventually evolution must concede that life arose from non-life (spontaneous generation), and that is contrary to the physical laws that govern this universe, which would be a miracle. In the classic work on evolution, "Implications of Evolution", by Dr. G.A. Kerkut (an evolutionist); the author mentioned seven assumptions that evolution rests upon, the first two are: (a) Non-living things gave rise to living material-spontaneous generation occured, and (b) Occurred only once. (The Implications of Evolution. G.A. Kerkut. Pergamon, London. 1960, p. 7)

II. What is Science?

Science means knowledge not speculative philosophy. The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, and repeatability. A hypothesis must, at least in principle be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truly scientific. Neither evolution nor creation are scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested, for the simple reason that we cannot repeat history. Dr. Kerkut further stated concerning the assumptions that serve as the foundation for evolution: "The first point that I should like to make is that these seven assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification' (Ibid., p. 7)

In the foreward to the 1971 edition of "Darwins Origin of the Species", Harrison L. Matthews on p. x said: 'Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof'.

III. Both are 'faiths, religions, beliefs':

It is often assumed that evolution is 'science/fact' and creation is 'faith'. In reality only three modern religions are 'creationist'-Orthodox Islam, Judaism and Christianity. In contrast, the following religions hold evolutionary views: Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Mysticism, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity, Humanism, liberal Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

Some think that science and creationism are incompatable. The following great scientists were creationists: In Physics-Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin. Chemistry-Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay. Biology-Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur. Geology-Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz. Astronomy-Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder.

"Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I strong suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time". (Isaac Asimov. "An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible". Free Inquiry. Vol. 2, Spring 1982, p. 9) Obviously, if he doesn't have the 'proof' that God doesn't exist, then neither does he have the 'proof' that evolution is true. His atheism is a 'faith'.

IV. The Evolution under discussion:

Some think that evolution has been proved by the examples of the peppered moth, fruitflies subject to radiation, shetland ponies compared to the huge Clydesdales, miniature Chihuahuas as opposed to the Great Dane, etc.. But such is not the 'evolution' that is opposed to creationism. All the previous examples prove that there is a great variety within the various plant and animal 'kinds', and yet peppered moths are still moths, Chihuahuas are still dogs, and fruitflies that don't have wings or legs, etc..are still fruitflies. The evolution under discussion is the 'non-life to man' evolution.

V. Where do the facts fit?

Since neither evolution nor creation can be proved scientifically, we must ask ourselves, of the science that we know, of the facts available, of the scientific laws that have been verified, do they fit evolution or do they fit creation?

A. The Fossil Record:

The theory of evolution would predict that the fossil record (the fossils found in the earth) would be full of examples of transitional forms (one species evolving into another), and that this would be true in all forms of life. Creation would predict that the fossil record would contain the same gaps that exist between species today,such as dogs have remained dogs, and so on.

The Fossil Evidence as stated by Evolutionists:

"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 change is usually limited and directionless" (Harvard's top Evolutionist. Stephen Jay Gloud)

"Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave no legible fossil record" (Macroevolution and the Fossil Record. "Evolution". Vol. 36, No. 3 (1982), p. 460)

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontogy (the study of fossils) does not provide them". (Evolution. Vol. 28 (Sept. 1974), p. 467)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms: transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" (Dr. S.J. Gloud. Natural History. June-July, 1977. p. 24)

Evolution would predict that the fossil record would show a slow, gradual transition from primitive forms of life to higher forms of life. Creation would predict that the fossil record would reveal a sudden burst of all forms of life. What does the evidence say?

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontogist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences". (George Gaylord Simpson. The Major Features of Evolution. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), p. 360)

B. The Laws of Thermodynamics:

The two most universal laws of science. The First Law, also known as the law of Conservation and Decay, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of Mass/Energy. The Universe is operating with the energy given it at it's beginning point. The Second Law states that the while mass/energy cannot be destroyed, energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease. Simply stated, everything is running down, growing old, and wearing out. Evolution claims an upward cycle, the simple evolving toward the complex, disorder evolving into order. Unfortunately the most fundamental laws of science have everything going in the opposite direction of evolution.

"One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, no more order" ('A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity'. Science. Vol. 217 (Sept. 24, 1982) p. 1239, Roger Lewin) "But the answer can readily be given to the question, 'Has the second law of thermodynamics been circumvented?' Not yet". (American Laboratory, Oct. 1982, p. 88)

Creation would agree with both laws. That 'creation' has ceased ( no new material is being introduced into the universe-Genesis 2:1-3). And that the creation itself is gradually wearing out (Hebrews 1:10-12).

C. Mutations:

Mutations are hereditary changes caused by alterations of the original genetic material. Evolution would predict that mutations are the ultimate raw materials for one kind evolving into another kind.

"It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the ONLY new material available for natural selection (nature) to work on" (Ernst Mayr. 'Populations, Species and Evolution'. p. 102 (Cambridge. Mass. : Harvard University Press. 1970)

It cannot be overstressed that the only known mechanism of evolution today (as argued by evolutionists) is natural selection plus genetic mutations. We are told that "nature" has "selected" beneficial mutations and incorporated them into various organisms, eventually causing those organisms to change from one kind to another. If mutations are the ultimate and only raw materials for evolution, then we need to take a seriously look at mutations.

Good mutations are very, very rare:

"Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99% are harmful in some way, as to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences". (American Scientist. Jan. 1950. p. 35 H.J. Muller (Nobel Laureate in Genetics).

"The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a "load" or "genetic burden", into the pool (gene).." (Christopher Wills. "Genetic Load". Scientific American. Vol. 222 (March 1970), p. 98)

"Dr. Simpson admitted that if there was an effective breeding population of 100 million individuals, and they produced a new generation daily, the likelihood of obtaining good evolutionary results from mutations could be expected only about ONCE in about 274 billion years. He was forced to conclude that 'unless there is an unknown factor tremendously increasing the chance of simultaneous mutations, such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." (The Major Features of Evolution. Simon/Schuster. New York, 1953 p. 96)

Creationism would predict the above concerning 'mutations'. Creation would argue that what exists was designed and that any deviation in the "genetic material/gene pool" of a organism (i.e. the DNA coded blueprint for that living thing); would for the most part, be harmful.

D. What keeps 'kinds' apart: DNA

DNA poses a difficult problem for evolution. Higher organisms are composed of a tremendous number of specialized cells, and within each cell is an intricate complex of specialized protein molecules. Each protein molecule is a particularly organized structure composed of about twenty different amino acids, and each amino acid is made up of the four elements hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon. These complex systems are all, in the case of every known organism, reproduced and assembled on the basis of the "instructions" built into the DNA molecular system. The DNA molecule not only has the information required for the systhesis of the specific protein molecules needed by the cell, but also that needed for its OWN REPRODUCTION. DNA can only be reproduced with the specific help of certain protein molecules, which in turn, can only be produced at the direction of DNA. The point is you cannot have DNA, without pre-existing DNA. Even evolutionists see this problem:

"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemcial genetics are still unanswered. The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication (reproduction) of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time, the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA ITSELF, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery". (American Scientist. Vol. 59 (May-June 1971) p. 305)

DNA is a strong support for creation, for creation argues that all living things reproduce 'after their kind'. And the discovery of DNA tells us why.

E. Natural Selection:

As previously noted, over 99% of all mutations are harmful and even lethal (no one hopes that their unborn child might havebirth defects). So what is there for 'nature' to 'select'? Evolution argues that 'nature' will 'select' the beneficial mutations and reject the bad. But what if 'nature' can't find anything to 'select'? All of this is a very good argument for creation. Since over 99% of all mutations are bad, nature will reject over 99% of them. This will ensure that organisms will remain in the same 'kind'.

F. Evolution and Time:

"The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event (obviously this evolutionist didn't consider evolution to be an established fact)..given enough time it will almost certainly happen once..time is in fact the hero of the plot, given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible, probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait. Time itself performs miracles" (George Wald. "The Origin of Life". IN: The Physics and Chemistry of Life. 1952 p. 12)

How scientific did that last quote sound? Is it true that given enough time anything is possible? Given enough time, will 2+2 ever equal anything but 4? Given enough time, will a frog turn into a prince? Given enough time can straw be spun into gold?

G. The Age of the Earth:

Often we hear of great ages being assigned to the universe, the earth and mankind. Note what the following evolutionists honestly reveal about 'dating methods'.

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock." (The Science of Evolution. New York. Macmillan. 1977, p. 84, William D. Stansfield)

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. It should be no surprize, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted". (Radiocarbon, Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada. Vol. 19. No. 3 (1981) p. 9)

Something that is often overlooked in this debate is that there are over 75 scientific methods which indicate that the earth is relatively young.

H. The Dinosaurs:

When we consider the origins of the dinosaurs, creation wins hands down.

"Although many pages have been written discussing the mystery of the extinction of the dinosaurs, almost as much uncertainty surrounds their origin or origins". (Barry Cox. Nature. 264:314 (1976)

Evolution would predict that the fossil record would contain many examples of transitional forms leading up to these giant reptiles. Creation would predict that the fossil record would contain no transitional forms and that the fossils of dinosaurs would be fully formed from the start. Here creation wins. In not a single case can the required transitional forms be found.

I. Missing Links..or Just Plain Missing?

The Evolutionary theory currently taught suggests that man and the apes were both derived from a common ancestor that existed between 5 and 20 million years ago. The line leading to man, resulted in true man about 1 to 3 million years ago.

1. First things first: Evolutionists believe that primates evolved from an insectivorous ancestor. But when we come to the fossil record we find: "the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. Clearly, the fossil documentation of the emergence of the Old World monkeys could provide key insights into the general evolutionary picture of the primates, but, in fact, this record simply does not exist". (A.J. Kelso. Physical Anthropology. 2nd Edition., 1974 p. 142,151)

2. Links that are falling off the chain:

A. RAMAPITHECUS: Found by G.E. Lewis in 1932, Ramapithecus was judged to be 'sub-human' solely on the basis of a few teeth and a few fragments of a jaw. Robert B. Eckhardt, an evolutionist, said concerning this 'link', "They themselves seem to have been apes morphologically, ecologically and behaviourally". (Population Genetics and Human Origins: Scientific American. Vol 226 (January 1972) p. 101)

B. AUSTRALOPITHECUS: The first find of these creatures was by Raymond Dart in 1924. The name means 'southern ape'. Also assigned to this category are fossils found in East Africa by Louis Leakey and others. This category includes Zinjanthropus ('East-Africa man').

All of the finds in this group possessed small brains, the cranial capacity averaging 500 c.c. or less, which is in the range of the gorilla, and about one-third that of man. The teeth were similar to Ramapithecus, and their skulls and jaws were also ape-like. For 15 years a research team headed by Solly Lord Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, studied the anatomical features of man, monkeys, apes, and the above fossils, the conclusion being:

"But I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure" (S. Zuckerman. Beyond the Ivory Tower. 1970 p. 77)

Dr. Charles Oxnard, Director of Graduate Studies and Professor of Anatomy at the USC Medical School stated: "To the extent that resemblances exist with living forms, they tend to be with the orangutan". (University of Chicago Magazine. Winter 1974 pp. 11-12)

3. JAVA MAN: Finally declared (after many evolutionists were convinced of its man-like status), to be a giant gibbon.

4. NEBRASKA MAN: Finally declared to be an extinct peccary (pig).

5. PILTDOWN MAN: A HOAX (Which fooled most 'authorities' in this century). But the same type of 'hoaxes' have happened recently also. A UPI press release published May 14, 1984 revealed that a skull fragment which had been hailed by experts one year earlier as the oldest living fossil ever found in Europe (already called "Orce man") had turned out to be the skull fragment from a four-month old donkey.

6. NEANDERTHAL MAN: For more than a hundred years he has been pictured as a stooped over brute. The individual skeleton on whom this assessment was made had been crippled with arthritis. It is now known that Neanderthal man was fully man, his brain size exceeds that of modern man. Today he is classified by Homo Sapiens-i.e. fully human.

'No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have had parents or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution' (Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin. In an interview with Tom Bethel, published in Harpers magazine entitled, 'Agnostic Evolutionists'. February 1985. p. 61)

My question to the above 'evidence' is, ' How so?' Note what this geneticist admits. All living things have come from living parent stock. And there are no expections to this rule. The above evolutionist is saying, 'Life comes from life and that after it's kind'. And friend, that's the message of the Book of Genesis. (Genesis 1:12,21,24) Here evolution fails to harmonize with the evidence. At some point in the process of evolution, life came from non-life (no parent stock). Science has found that all life comes from pre-existing life, period! Evolution contradicts this. Remember the first assumption that evolution is based upon: Non-living things gave rise to living material-i.e. spontaneous generation occurred. In contrast creation has all life ultimately coming from the source of life, i.e. God. (Acts 17:25).