| Myths 'n Facts #1 by Steve
For even though they knew God they did not honor Him as God,
or give thanks; but became futile in their speculations...
Caution: Don't read this article if you prefer to believe in myth.
Myth: It is scientific to believe that man evolved from lower forms by natural processes.
Probably one of the most widely held ideas regarding origins today is that all living things evolved
naturally from lower forms of life into higher more complex forms. This part of the theory of
evolution is called macroevolution. Since science has been traditionally defined as knowledge
which can be known by repeatable observation and testing, it should trouble today's evolutionists
that their beliefs are not supported by those methods, but rather are based only upon assumptions.
In order for any theory to be considered a scientific theory it must be possible for a scientist
somewhere on the face of the Earth to conceive of an experiment to test that theory (such that if the
experiment were to fail, the theory could be seen as wrong). When that is not possible, the theory
is said to be untestable. No experiment, however, can be conceived to test something that is not
happening today. Evolutionism, therefore, cannot be properly called a scientific theory. It is,
rather, a belief system. It should also be obvious to any observer that all well-designed complex
things in our world have a natural tendency toward decay. This is dictated by a known law of
Physics called the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and it is one of several reasons why
evolutionary processes cannot occur today, and in fact, have not been observed in all of recorded
One may then ask, if evolution can't be proven with scientific experiments, then perhaps it can be
verified by other means, such as a careful study of the fossil record? Darwin once stated that "if
evolution is true, the best evidence for it should be in the fossil record." In Darwin's day the fossil
record had not yet been well studied. Today, however, about 150 years later, that is no longer true.
The fossil record has been well characterized. So the critical question should now be, what does it
There are, of course, two possibilities, and only one will fit the fossil evidence:
1. The Creation Model. If this model is correct then we should expect that the fossils of all created
kinds appear fully formed in the fossil record with obvious gaps between the different clearly
distinct kinds and with no transitional forms or links between them.
2. The Evolutionary Model. If this model is correct then we should expect that there should be
multitudes of gradual variations of fossils with connecting links and transitional forms between
various types that continuously changed by natural processes over time.
We can now compare the fossil record for the major categories of life forms against the
predictions of the two models. Quoting from Dr. Michael Denton's book, "*Evolution: A Theory in
"It is still overwhelmingly true, as it was in Darwin's day, that the first representatives of
all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of
their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This
phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record....
The story is the same for plants. Again, the first representatives of each major group
appear in the fossil record already highly specialized and characteristic of the group to
which they belong.... Like the sudden appearance of the first animal groups in the
Cambrian rocks, the sudden appearance of the angiosperms is a persistent anomaly
which has resisted all attempts at explanation since Darwin's time....
The same pattern is true of the vertebrate fossil record. The first members of each major
group appear abruptly, unlinked to other groups, by transitional or intermediate forms.
The pattern repeats itself in the emergence of the amphibia.... Again, however, each
group is distinct and isolated at its first appearance and no group can be construed as
being the ancestor of any other group....
The virtual complete absence of intermediate and ancestral forms from the fossil record
today is recognized widely by many leading paleontologists as one of its most striking
characteristics,... The fossils have not only failed to yield the host of transitional forms
demanded by the evolutionary theory, but nearly all extinct species and groups revealed
by paleontology are quite distinct as they burst into the record,...
It would be pointless to continue citing examples to illustrate the discontinuous nature of
the fossil record. Anyone who doubts the reality of the gaps may either take the word of
leading paleontologists or simply open one of the standard works on paleontology such
as Romer's Vertibrate Paleontology, or Schrock and Twenhofel's Invertibrate
Paleontology.... Even a cursory glance clearly shows that profound and undoubted
discontinuities do in fact exist.
There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil record provides a tremendous
challenge to the notion of organic evolution...."
Well there you have it. The evidence clearly agrees with the Creation model and is hostile to the
Evolutionary model. One wonders how such an unscientific belief system has taken over in our
contemporary society. One of the best kept secrets of evolutionism is that the belief system is
faith-based, and that its assumptions are unprovable. That in itself does not prove it wrong, but
neither does it conform to the laws of physics, probability, or what Darwin thought would be the
best evidence - the fossil record.
Your questions and comments welcome,
* Quotes from Chap 8, The Fossil Record. Dr. Michael Denton is an Australian medical doctor and scientist
who has lived in London and Toronto and is currently doing biological research in Sidney. He is not a
| Myths 'n Facts #2 by Steve
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by
sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Caution: Myth in America's Christian high schools
Myth: There were millions of years of death and suffering before man appeared.
The following is an email excerpt from one of Linda's readers:
I cannot even begin to describe how overwhelming it is for me to attend a Christian high
school, and yet be educated in the "theory" of evolution as though it is indeed factual!
When I voiced my opinions to many of my friends on the creation, they nearly went into
shock, then bombarded me with questions as to how I could refuse to believe
something when the "facts" are clearly there in front of my face. I couldn't, and still can't,
believe that they could refuse to recognize the lack of facts supporting their decision.
One of the questions I get the most: "Well, if you don't believe in evolution, how do you
explain dinosaurs?" How do those topics even relate?! That I may never understand.
Anyway, I was beginning to think that no one besides my family didn't believe in
I am sorry to hear that your Christian high school is compromising on the book of Genesis. I highly
commend you for taking a Biblically correct stand. When the Sadducees (who said there was no
resurrection) questioned Christ, He told them that they did not understand the Scriptures nor the
power of God. The same is true today of those who teach the scriptures but, deny that God created
all things by supernatural means that are not occurring today (remember God ceased from His
creative work on the seventh day).
Evolutionists typically say that the process that produced the different kinds of living things was by
mutations that were filtered by survival of the fittest (death of the unfit) which had been going on for
millions of years before Adam evolved. A Christian school should know that Romans 5:12 says
there was no death before man disobeyed his Creator, that death came by Adam's sin. If so, how
can Christians teach millions of years of death before Adam showed up? And remember, God
said several times in Genesis, "and behold everything that He had made was very good." Does
that sound like millions of years of death and suffering? Is that the way a God of love would make
animals and man? Only the Bible has the reason for the presence of death and suffering in a fallen
world. It is the result of man's sin and rebellion. This rebellion is demonstrated by man failing to
keep precious in his heart a love for the truth.
Consider the foundational premise for the notion of organic evolution:
The order and complexity present in living things can be explained by random
naturalistic processes without the need for any intelligent supernatural intervention.
Two things should be obvious about this statement. The first is that it is only an assumption, you
either accept it or you don't. The second is that there is nothing inherently scientific about it.
Remember the definition of science: Information that can be known by repeatable observation and
testing. This premise cannot be verified by any scientific experiment conceivable by man.
Consider, however, what this statement implies about the Creator who is revealed to us in nature,
in our God-given consciences, and in the Bible:
1. Either God does not exist, or,
2. If He does exist, He was not involved in the creation of living things.
How can a theory that implies such be taught as fact in a Christian school?
You also said your fellow students mentioned dinosaurs as a "proof" of evolution. Your statement
about relevance was correct --The past existence of those extinct creatures is no more an
evidence of evolution than elephants or alligators or any of a number of well-designed creatures
that are lacking a host of fossil linkages demanded as evidence of an evolutionary origin.
When the students at your school say the "facts are staring you in the face," ask them if they can
recognize the difference between facts and speculations. Make them have to think. Ask them if
there is any one single thing that they know about evolution that is true? Ask them why the
Cambrian rock strata (the lowest strata with fossils) shows billions fossils of highly complex life
forms with no signs of gradual development from lower forms. Ask why evolutionists for many
decades included the false idea of Embryonic Recapitulation (as well as Ernst Haeckel's doctored
sketches) in school textbooks. Ask why Dr. Debois, the discoverer of the Java Man skull cap and
femur, concealed for thirty years the fact that he found human skulls at the same level. Ask why
evolutionists were fooled for forty years by a college student hoax played upon their professor that
the "experts" called Piltdown man, and how could Nebraska man have turned out to be nothing
more than a pig's tooth? Ask them about the circular reasoning used in dating: fossils are dated
by the rock layers they're found in, rocks are dated by the fossils they contain. Ask if they know
what assumptions are used for radiometric dating? Ask if the atmospheric concentration of carbon
14 in the past was constant, greater, or less? Ask if they know the maximum number of years
carbon 14 dating can be dependably used for? Ask them why evolution never happens today? Ask
them why they do not have all sorts of deformities that may randomly and accidentally become
something useful in another 5000 years?
If your fellow students say that evolution is happening today--but just very slowly, tell them that they
are confusing genetic variation for evolution (You can hardly blame the students for this confusion
because evolutionists incorrectly call it "microevolution."). God said His creatures would produce
after their kind--not produce carbon copies. All creationists should believe in genetic variation.
Why are we not identical to our parents? Why does a family with fourteen children have none that
are alike? Why was Essau so different than Jacob? Why are there different races (or more
correctly--ethnicities)? We know that foxes and beagles, wolves and great Danes, all came from
one created dog kind. That is genetic variation, and it demonstrates the tremendous range of
information that our Creator placed in the DNA molecules of all the created kinds (much more
information than would be needed just to make carbon copies). Evolutionists, however, will tell you
that those small changes lead to big changes that make new organs and structures. Not so,
because variation (sometimes punctuated by: survival of the fittest, environmental pressures,
selective breeding) has no way to put new information into the genes which was not already
present in the original kind. In fact, as was demonstrated by Mendel's work in genetics around the
year 1850, selective breeding tends to reduce information, because selective breeding can
permanently eliminate information that was once present in the gene pool of the created kind.
Evolutionists have been telling our students that all change is evolution--this is a great error.
A note of encouragement:
"For since by man came death, by man came also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor 15:21-22
Your questions and comments welcome,