A Theory of Biblical Creation

trueorigins.com ^ | 2000 | Timothy Wallace

[DannyTN]

Home | Feedback | Links | Books

A Theory of Creation

A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace.  All Rights Reserved.  [Last Modified:  14 October 2002]

A popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”^[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.”  They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity!  Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.

Feigned(?) Ignorance

A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives.  There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.”^[2]  Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community^[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism.  Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts.  Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone.  These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature.  They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying.  Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration.  Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.

What is a Scientific Theory?

Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is.  As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined.  This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation).  Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:

theo·ry n.  a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:

sci·ence n.   1 the state or fact of knowledge   2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached.  This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:

nat·u·ral·ism n. philos.   the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is.  The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism.  It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God.  While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God.  “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.”  Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world.  This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it.  There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy:  The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists.  [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions.  But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism.  The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.”  [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!”  What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists!  A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:

The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic	Creation Hypothesis	Evolution Hypothesis
Primary approach to scientific methodology	Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.	Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Predominant religious/philosophical belief system	Biblical Christianity	Humanistic Naturalism
Primary means of demonstrating system’s positive empirical support	Citation of empirical data	Citation of empirical data
Primary means of criticizing counterpart system	Citation of empirical data	A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1.  Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.

The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:

“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories.  As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture.  But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:

“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”

What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.

What then is the Theory of Creation?

Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm.  To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison.  This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.

Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition	Creation Hypothesis	Evolution Hypothesis
Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]	As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past	Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Predominant approach to the Bible[5]	The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data	The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]	God Created...	Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]	Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection	Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]	Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation	Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]	Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms	Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]	Global Flood & aftermath	Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
The Ice Age[11]	Post-Flood climate compensation	Unknown
Empirically Falsifiable?	No	No
Empirically Falsified?	No	No
Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]	Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation	Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]	General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected	Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex”; variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes
Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]	Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood	Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators
Empirically Falsifiable?	Yes	Yes
Empirically Falsified?	No	Yes

Table 2.  The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.

Where is the Theory of Creation documented?

Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions].  Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons:  Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same.  So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it.  This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms.  [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins.  All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists.  The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2] (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985) Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987) Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8] (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968) Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676] (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987) Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2] (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4] (Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998) Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993) Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996) Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9] (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999) Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9] (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999) Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2] (Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at http://trueorigin.org/books.asp, while two much more extensive bibliographies are http://trueorigin.org/booklist.asp and http://trueorigin.org/imp-269a.asp.

Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community.  Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists.  Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications.  The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

The Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (CENTJ)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/Technical.asp

The Question of “How?”

Some advocates of evolutionism have also assumed a right to reject the creationary paradigm because it does not explain in detail exactly how (in scientific terms comprehensible to the mind of man) the Creator performed the act of creation.  The argument goes something like: “It’s not a valid theory unless you can explain exactly how the so-called act of creation took place!”  But the speaker has failed to recognize at least two things as he seeks to impose this demand:

• The very nature of the creationary paradigm precludes man, as a created being, from any right or entitlement to exhaustive knowledge of the Creator’s ways or means.  It is an act of arrogance for the creature to claim entitlement from the Creator for more information than the Creator has chosen to reveal (as if he had the capability to comprehend it in the first place).  The creationist thus can and will claim to “know” no more about the act of creation than what the Creator has chosen to reveal.

• By demanding a “how” explanation, the evolutionist has invoked a double standard, since the evolutionary hypothesis ultimately fails to produce an empirically substantiated explanation as to “how” everything “happened” all by itself, with no apparent cause or purpose.  Unable to explain exactly “how” matter and energy appeared where previously there was nothing, and unable to explain exactly “how” genetic information appeared in massive amounts where previously there was none, the evolutionist is scarcely entitled to demand to know “how” it was done by the Creator.

Demanding the right to know “how” the omniscient, omnipotent Creator has done something is a rather self-important and presumptuous posture to be assumed by a creature incapable of suggesting exactly “how” the thing might have happen all by itself via any other means.

Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart.  It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly “explained” by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information.  They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite “straw-man” caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done.  (Don’t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model.  They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific—if not outright deceptive—tactics to disparage their worst nightmare:  the truth.

Timothy Wallace            

---

Notes

[1] The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” (as of 25 April 2000), apparently authored by Andy Peters, Onar Aam, Jim Acker, Wesley Elsberry, Mark Isaak, Bill Jefferys, Jim Loats, Thomas Marlowe, Paul Neubacher, Tero Sand, Thomas Scharle, Paul Schinder, Chris Stassen, Brett Vickers, and Kurt vonRoeschlaub. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[2] ibid. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[3] Two extensive online book lists are A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography by Henry M. Morris and Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography by Eric Blievernicht.  Periodicals include the peer-reviewed Creation Research Society Quarterly and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, and the popular-level Creation Ex Nihilo Magazine. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[4] Such fundamental assumptions are strictly religious/philosophical in both models, and therefore incapable of empirical falsification. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[5] Although much external evidence (e.g., ancient records and archaeological research) points to the accuracy of the Bible (as properly understood), this evidence does not necessarily render the reliability of the Bible an empirically falsifiable postulate—particularly to the mind and will predisposed to resist the moral implications inherent in the Bible’s message.  Some links for serious inquirers might be The Textual Reliability of the New Testament.   [RETURN TO TEXT]

[6] The creationary postulate that the ultimate Primal Cause of time, space, and matter/energy was the Creator-God of the Bible is not empirically falsifiable, although evidence does point to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy.  The evolutionary postulate that time, space, and matter/energy are either self-created or eternal in nature is empirically falsified, in that empirical evidence (i.e., the principle of entropy) points to a beginning of time, space, and matter/energy, and no unequivocal empirical evidence exists that time, space, and/or matter/energy can spontaneously exist via natural processes where none existed previously.  Serious inquirers might be interested in reading Sarfati’s “If God Created the Universe, then Who Created God?,” “How to Think About God,” by Mortimer J. Adler (New York, 1980: Macmillan).  (Adler was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Dir of the Institute of Philosophical Research, and Honorary Trustee of the Aspen Institute for Hamanistic Studies.  A self-described pagan, he nevertheless formulated a rationalistic argument for the existence of God “either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of reasons for that conclusion over reasons against it.”  His argument hinges on causation.     [RETURN TO TEXT]

[7] The creationary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems are potentially inherent and complete in original populations as created and manifested over time through genetic variation and natural selection would be falsified by the demonstration that natural processes alone are unequivocally capable of producing these phenomena, were such a demonstration possible.  The evolutionary postulate that complexity, variety and adaptability in living organisms and ecological systems have increased over time, starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, on the other hand, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data indicating that natural processes alone are unequivocally incapable of producing these phenomena. [RETURN TO TEXT]

[8] The creationary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information were inherent and complete in the original populations as created, and that the sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation would be falsified by the demonstration of an unequivocal, empirically verifiable increase in new genetic information over time.  The evolutionary postulate that massive amounts of coded genetic information have increased over time starting from zero, via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years, is becoming falsified by a growing body of empirical data pointing only to a net decrease in available genetic code, and the emergence of no unequivocally new genetic information.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[9] It has not been demonstrated empirically and unequivocally that similarities, ranging from genetic to morphological, between various organisms are either indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar/identical structures and information sequences for similar functions in different organisms, or that they are residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors.  Falsification for either interpretation therefore remains impossible.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[10] The creationary postulate that the fossil record, comprised of billions of organisms quickly buried in sedimentary rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, is a product of the biblical global Flood and its immediate aftermath has not been falsified.  The evolutionary postulate that the same fossil record is a product of millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial likewise has not been falsified per se, though no empirically observed similar uniformitarian process can be demonstrated to support the claim.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[11] If the Ice Age could be shown unequivocally to conflict with the creationary paradigm, it would serve as a form of falsification.  But the Ice Age is essentially predictable in the aftermath of a high-energy catastrophic Flood as postulated in the creation model, whereas the evolutionary model offers no firm and unambiguous explanation for the Ice Age.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[12] The Entropy Law, as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, finds no disagreement with the creation model, which points to a space/time/matter beginning, followed closely by constant degradation—otherwise creation could be easily falsified via a demonstration that it violates the Entropy Law.  The evolution model, on the other hand, requires a mechanism-free and consistent increase in order, complexity, and new genetic information, which amounts to an outright contradiction to the Entropy Law.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[13] The loose and distinctly variable stratigraphic sequence in the fossil record, with its many exceptions, presents a pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations, which fits the creation/flood model well, whereas a highly consistent and strictly uniform record would only serve to falsify it.  The evolution model calls for a fairly strict and uniform stratigraphic sequence, but ends up with many problematic and unpredicted (i.e., “out-of-order”) anomalies which essentially falsify it.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[14] This aspect of the creation model would easily be falsified if uniformitarian “dating” methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate.  Instead, they vary wildly, spanning a range from little or no apparent age to “billions” of years, strongly suggesting that they are unreliable as a rule, and that the various processes measured to produce them are likely residual effects of the high-energy, catastrophic processes and conditions of the flood.  The evolutionary model seeks confirmation in carefully selected samples of carefully selected methods of uniformitarian “dating” but is falsified by the remaining—and equally legitimate—“dates” obtained from the many other processes available for determining unformitarian “dates.”  [RETURN TO TEXT]

---

Bibliography

Austin, Steven A., Grand Canyon -- Monument to Catastrophe (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1994). 

Behe, Michael J., Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).

Bergman, Jerry, The Criterion (Richfield, MN: Onesimus Publishing, 1984).

Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (St. Joseph, MO: Creation Research Society Books, 1990). 

Cooper, Bill, After the Flood (Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1995). 

Denton, Michael J., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler, 1986; originally published in England in 1985). 

Gange, Robert, Origins and Destiny (Dallas: Word, 1986). 

Gentry, R. V., Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, TN: Earth Science Associates, 1986).

Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design (El Cajon: Institute for Creation Research, 1992).

Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995; an enlargement of Dr. Gish's The Challenge of the Fossil Record, and before it, Evolution: The Fossils Say NO!). 

Ham, Ken, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, The Answers Book (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1991). 

Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1987). 

Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1994). 

Johnson, Phillip E., Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991).

Johnson, Phillip E., Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).

Johnson, Phillip E., Reason in the Balance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995). 

Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970). 

Lubenow, Marvin, Bones of Contention (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992). 

Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984). 

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism 2d ed. (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985).

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? Rev. ed. (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987).

Morris, John D., The Young Earth (Colorado Springs, CO: Master Books, 1994). 

Oard, Michael, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990). 

Schaeffer, Francis, No Final Conflict (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1975). 

Slusher, Harold, S. and Stephen J. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1982).

Slusher, Harold S., Origin of the Universe (San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1980).

Spetner, Lee, Not By Chance! (New York: Judaica Press, 1996). 

Thaxton, Charles B., Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Dallas: Lewis & Stanley, 1992; originally published by Philosophical Library, 1984).

Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1995). 

Vardiman, Larry, Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

Vardiman, Larry, Sea-Floor Sediment and the Age of the Earth (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964). 

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968). 

Williams, Emmett L., ed., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order (Norcross, GA: Creation Research Society Books, 1981).

Wieland, Carl, Stones and Bones: Powerful Evidence Against Evolution (Acacia Ridge, Australia: Creation Science Foundation, 1994). 

Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996).

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993).

---

Home | Feedback | Links | Books | Back to Top

This site has received over

visits since November 1997

© TrueOrigin Archive.  All Rights Reserved.
 

powered by Lone Star Web Works
 

[DannyTN]

"Yes, the same Tim Wallace who has published several books for the Creationists to buy."

Does that mean I can disregard the writings of any evolutionist who ever published a book for evolutionists to buy or who took government grant money to pursue evolutionary research?

[DannyTN]

"And all this proves just what, exactly?"

That all of the evolutionist claims that ID and/or Creation is not valid science and evolution is. When compared side by side, ID and creation have as much of a scientific basis as evolution, complete with predictions and falsifiability.

[BikerNYC]

You had 2000 years prior to the flood.

2000 years? Are you saying it only took 2000 years to build up the rock layers we see between fossils?

You show me a dinosaur fossil in the same geological layer as a human fossil and that would go a long way to disproving evolution.

Apart from something like that, I have no more reason to believe your creation story than I have to believe the one about Marduk and Tiamat.

[muleskinner]

Flood and Geology

Ten misconceptions about the geologic column

Assessing Creationist Stratigraphy with Evidence from the Gulf of Mexico

Publish this "research" in a peer reviewed journal. Oh wait, this wouldn't get past the editor. Why? A waste of time.

[G32]

The notion of entropy used in this is completely insane. Entropy rises even when lifeforms get more complex. They generate more waste products in their lifetimes and the amount of energy it took to produce them.

[RobRoy]

"A Theory of Biblical Creation"

I am a creationist, but I have a hard time taking that phrase seriously. 8^>

[free_european]

I suppose you believe in a flat-earth as well since the Bible mentions that too:

"I saw a tree of great height at the center of the world. It was large and strong, with its top touching the heavens, and it could be seen from the ends of the earth." Daniel 4:7-8

"The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain and displayed before him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence...." Matthew 4:8

Neither of these passages could be true if the earth were a globe.

[RaceBannon]

Great Stuff!

[mr2trucker]

I you were to inspect the area around Mt St Helen you would notice that the organisms are found in different layers even though the exact date of their burial is known. How is it possible that they were buried on the same day yet are in different layers? Why the differentiation?

[RaceBannon]

Nothing is more important to a persons understanding of life and living than his own answers to the three great questions: where am I from? who am I?; where am I going? This is an important issue for the last 100 years, for a system of belief, known as evolution has permeated our society and way of thinking. I believe in creation, not evolution. I believe either system must be accepted by faith, for neither fits the scientific model. For either to be a theory, they must be repeatable events, observable events. God and His angels only observed Creation as taught in the Bible. Evolution by definition, happened when no one was around, and then continued so slowly that no one would be able to discern that evolution occurred, therefore it is also a non-observable event. I believe that whichever belief you hold, when completely understood, will guide your thinking and behavior and ultimately determine your destiny.

When speaking of creation, I define creation as the definite and deliberate act of God causing the beginning of life and material existence of all things in the universe having taken place in a literal six-day period. Evolution I define as the random gathering of individual molecules and elements that by random, chance accumulation formed the material world, and through random, chance events governed by natural laws eventually caused a collection of molecules to become a living organism which in turn progressed through another series of random, chance events expressed over hundreds of millions of years governed by survival of the fittest to eventually appear as life as we know it.

" Where did I come from" starts the argument. If created by God, then we are here for a purpose, a part of a divine plan that God has for all souls in the universe. Our original ancestors disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and became separated from God because of their sins. God instituted the idea of sacrificing an innocent animal to take the place of death for the persons who sinned. The death of an innocent savior, Jesus Christ, fulfilled this need for reconciliation toward God.

If we evolved, then we are here by chance and for no other reason. This means that there is no divine plan for mankind along with no moral absolutes. If the evolutionist believes in God, it can't be a very powerful God if he had no hand in our very beginning and probably has no idea what our future holds.

" Who am I? ", deals with today. With faith in a creator God, I recognize that I owe my very existence to him along with my eternal destiny. In times past, God spoke to us through his prophets until the time of the Bible actually being written and then compiled as we have it today. Many times it is written that God's word is eternal, not conditional, and therefore is applicable to life today.

If evolution is true, then there is no objective standard to follow at any time. Morals become relative and, humanity becomes hypocritical when it comes to obeying laws. A new moral standard will arise someday and put out the old out-molded one. Mankind will be on one big ego trip psychologically, thinking itself to be better and smarter and more in touch with reality than any previous generations. Life itself would lose all-important meaning with only instant gratification the driving force. Any logic-based system of morality would have no feet to stand on, for it would be based only on argument, not divine revelation.

" Where am I going? ", is the final argument. God told us that the only way to be with him at death is to base our salvation on the fact that Jesus Christ died in our place on the cross, taking the penalty for our sins, a penalty that we honestly deserve, dying for us so that we may live with him. Not in our good works, but whether we put our trust in the sacrifice that God provided for us by sending his son to die in our place. Adam brought sin in the world, Christ died for those sins. If creation is true, then so is the fall in the Garden of Eden. If that is true, then we must need a savior.

If evolution is true, then where are we going? Existence of God is brought to a level of superstition, and along with that the need of a savior becomes ridiculous. With no Adam and Eve, and therefore no sin in the Garden of Eden who needs atonement? Often is heard how primitive life survived in a primordial soup, a kind of slime. From slime to man means, in time, man will evolve into a God-like state, having a superior mind and intellect. This divine man is as far ahead of us on the evolutionary scale as we are from the worm. Do worms go to heaven? Will this divine man wink at our beliefs in an afterlife?

As a child, we are told to obey authority figures like our parents and policemen. When we started school, those authority figures became our teachers and our principals. When we questioned the teachers and our textbooks, the final authority became the textbook author and the scientist; the all-knowing, objective human beings who would never steer us wrong because they had studied all the facts before coming up with their conclusions. After studying science myself for a few years, along with writings from scientists that refute another's work, I have arrived at my own conclusion: that as a society, we have become too willing to accept as fact what someone says about a certain subject because of that persons credentials and too willing to ignore our own doubts about these statements that are made because of our own lack of education in these areas.

One of these areas most affected by our easy acceptance of 'scientific fact' is evolution, and specifically, human evolution. Many scientists and farmers are aware that when two animals of the same species mate, their offspring will carry characteristics of both parents, yet be unique in it's own way. Scientists in the 19th century took this line of thinking further and reasoned that these inherited characteristics would make the animal more able or less able to survive, with the weaker characteristics eventually causing the demise of the offspring that carried the weaker traits, and the survival of the offspring that carried the stronger characteristics of the parents. Herbert Spencer, the founder of 'Social Darwinism', took these observed events and applied this logic to humans. Since the European race, (white), was obviously more superior to the African race, (black), in areas of speech, culture, and intelligence, Spencer thought evolution had to be the cause and used his brand of evolutionary thinking to influence many Europeans.

These evolutionary descriptions of cultural growth influenced Europe up to the time of Adolph Hitler, who used evolution to explain the differences and abnormalities of the 'inferior' races such as Jews, Gypsies, and Negroes. This type of thinking was also present in the United States where it was concentrated in the area of perpetuating our own apartheid system in the south. It is also the driving force behind Margaret Sangers push for abortion and forced sterilization of American Blacks in the early 1900's.

These events happened because people listened to the authority figures instead of their own conscience. What was worse, these `facts' of evolution were introduced into the public school system and taught as fact instead of as theory. Up until this time, creation was taught according to the Bible account in the United States, yet when 'science' stepped forward and said different, the die was cast. The Genesis account was put in doubt, and since no house can stand without a foundation, the historical accuracy of the Bible became questionable, along with its importance in one's life.

Almost all evidence for human evolution is extremely questionable. Scientists theorize that we evolved from quadrepedal ape like creatures, (hominoids), into bi-pedal erect walking ape like creatures, (hominids), to eventually become ourselves. Many fossils have been found that are claimed to represent the various stages of evolution from quadruped to biped, yet there are 'missing links' between these forms.

Evolution demands that these missing links are authentic, for they would represent the transition from one group into a higher group. What does Charles Darwin say about missing links? " The main cause of innumerate intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the place of and supplant their parent forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so much the number of intermediate varieties, which formally existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geologic formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geologic record." (The Origin Of The Species, chap. 10).

Here, Darwin states that if evolution is true, then there must be numberless intermediate links between species. Yet, Darwin himself admits that there are NO finely graduated links between these species that have been discovered. He then goes on to say that the geologic record is hiding these transitional forms from us. How could a belief system, based on unobserved events with no proof to back it up, become so prevalent in society? In the 100 years that have passed since Darwin, we have more than quadrupled the number of fossil species that we have found and these links still have yet to be announced. Why was Darwin's theory accepted at all when by education he was not a scientist, but a theologian?

If these links were found, how would science know where to classify these fossils? Darwinian evolutionary change happens so slow that the changes would be so minute that it would be impossible to distinguish one species from another, let alone when one species became another.

Modern science has proven through the archaeological record that the geologic column does not contain these missing links or any evidence for gradual change via evolution. Do the evolutionists give up? Nope, they just change their theories.

Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has introduced his theory to explain the gaps between species. 'Punctuated Equilibrium ' is the new theory that species remain the same for long periods of time, and then through sudden, short bursts of evolutionary lightning lasting maybe 500,000 years or so, then reappear as new, different species. This theory explains the gaps in fossil record because there wouldn't be enough time for significant fossils to be formed in order for us to find them 5 million years later!

Darwin said his fossils were there but we didn't find them yet. Stephen Jay Gould says the fossils aren't there, that's why there are gaps in the fossil record. If I told you I did my homework, but the dog ate it, would you believe me? Once again, the proof, is that there is no proof. Evolution is such a fun theory, you can think up any zany idea from microbes on meteors to aliens with a mission to populate the universe and 'science' will back you up; but what happens if you say, " In the beginning, God......

1.) Neither creation or evolution has ever been witnessed by man. Both beliefs must be accepted by faith. Yet, in order to know which belief is to be held, all evidence must be weighed from one belief against the other.

A literal 6 day creation cannot be proved exactly, but a sudden appearance of life forms on earth, as evidenced by the fossil record, would provide fuel in any debate against an evolutionist as to whether life evolved slowly over millions of years, or appeared suddenly.

Evolution, whether sudden,(punctuational),or gradual,(Darwinian), would require an appearance of life from non-life forms. Yet, is this possible? Spontaneous generation has never been observed. This was proved by Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister in the 1800's when we discovered germs. Life only appears when life already existed. This is called the Law of Biogenesis.

2.) Another way to approach this argument is to refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Lord Kelvin stated it this way: " There is no natural process, the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this means that energy will turn to a state of entropy, one of less complexity and greater disorder along with a lack of usefulness unless acted on by an outside force that is directing this energy by means of an ordered arrangement that controls this energy in a useful way. Therefore, the amount of useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately, the amount of energy available would be zero. Due to this fact, it must be understood that the natural state of any natural system is one of disorder unless acted upon by an outside force in an intelligent, constructive manner. Any system left to itself will begin to degenerate. If you clean your room, it will get dirty again. Any life form alive today will eventually die. Chemical compounds left to themselves will break down into their parent atoms. Energy that is directed into these systems in an intelligent manner can cause greater complexity in the organism, yet when the intelligent influx of energy is removed, the system will begin to deteriorate immediately.

Evolution would require that through random, chance processes, inorganic materials would gather in such a way to create organic materials capable of replicating themselves. This process would require immense amounts of time in order to occur, and not only time, but protection against destructive forces acting on the material that was to become life.

This process is the reverse of what we know as fact as far as the 2nd law of thermodynamics is concerned. Naturalistic evolution requires that through known, proven physical laws atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial ordered arrangements all by chance, and all without intelligent ordering of energy or information causing the change. Over the long periods of time necessary for evolution to occur, these early chance chemical combinations would be bombarded by cosmic rays, radioactive enough to destroy whatever is exposed. This raw energy is absolutely useless to these early chemicals because they have no means to process this energy in any meaningful way. Photosynthesis may be how plants process sunlight, but we're talking about a time before even the first cell; after all, plants have genetic information that programs certain cells in them in how to process this incoming light. Our first primordial cell would have no such mechanism built in yet to process ultraviolet radiation. Therefore, evolution cannot have occurred.

3.) If by chance this pre-organic material formed on the surface of the earth, it would still find it impossible to become a life form for two reasons. Before the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere, cosmic rays would destroy all life forms on the planet, for it is oxygen that is Ozone, O3. If there was an oxygen atmosphere, which might produce ozone, then oxidation would occur and destroy whatever is floating around. These forces would be the most important factors on whether life would evolve here.

4.) If a life form did evolve, it would have to evolve with many existing functions the first time. A life form needs a mouth, a digestive system, a method of locomotion, and reproductive organs. Just examining the extreme complexity of these mechanisms should stop the argument here, but lets keep going.

5.) With who would this life form mate? This first living form would need to be asexual or have a mate, which was it? What is the proof of either? Asexuality itself demands a complex system of operation, a complex series of commands to initiate. Since we are talking about the first life form, it had to be asexual unless you also want to believe that not only did a life form evolve from inorganic material, but it's mate simultaneously evolved right alongside, right at the same time, in the same conditions, with completely compatible organic operation.

6.) What did it eat? Think, not only did this life form need a mechanism of ingesting material to be processed as energy, but that material had to be nearby. How could all these internal organs evolve by chance? Think, not only the internal organs evolved, but so did the nerve system that controls these organs along with the organism's brain along with the intelligence to operate these organs in a manner that allowed the organism to survive. If you don't believe that was necessary, then you must also believe that some chemical process happened by chance that processed whatever came down the life form's `mouth' in a manner that was compatible with the organism. What happens to this energy while being digested? We call this excess material waste, and it is poisonous. How was this waste removed from the organism? How did this organism not only evolve with a mouth, but also with a method of releasing waste?

7.) How did it survive in it's primitive surroundings? How did any intelligent information get to these important functional systems in a manner that was beneficial to the organism? What type of brain and nervous system evolves by chance? How did something as complex as the eye happen by chance? If the organism didn't have eyes, how did it know when to open it's mouth when it was time to eat? How did hunger pains evolve?

8.) All of these things speak of intelligence. Without designed and coded information, a life form is useless. The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by intelligent information and commands that do not reside in the atoms and molecules of these chemicals. A dead body is dead; WHY? It has all the chemicals necessary to support life already existing in a complete form with nothing missing, right?

9.) Let's suppose this life did survive. Mendels' law of genetics prove that variation can occur within a species, but cannot create a new species across phylum boundaries. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, such as the large muscles of a weightlifter to his son. Natural selection cannot create new genes, it can only select from existing gene information nation. Dogs remain dogs, and cats remain cats.

10.) Mutations are now the only possible explanation for evolution, yet rarely has any mutation been Proven to be beneficial to any organism in its natural environment. Almost all observed mutations are harmful and many are fatal.. There is no known mutation that has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than any of its ancestors.

Over 80 years of fruit fly experiments involving 3000 consecutive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.

What causes variation and change in life? DNA. DNA stores enough information to fill 1000 books, each with 500 pages of fine print. Even the DNA of a small bacterium is composed of 3 million units all aligned in a very precise meaningful sequence. It is a mathematical impossibility for a random chance arrangement of molecules to arrange itself in the form of a DNA helix.

According to Dr. John Grebe, "The 15000 or more atoms of the individual sub-assemblies of a single DNA molecule, if left to chance as required by the evolutionary theory, would go together in any of the 10^87, (10 followed by 87 zeroes), different ways. It is like throwing 15000 pairs of dice at one time to determine what specific molecule to make; and to test each one for the survival of the fittest until the one out of 10^87 different possibilities is proven by survival of the fittest is proven to be the right one."

Evolutionists claim the universe is 10 to 20 Billion years old. There is less than 10^17 seconds in 20 billion years. Even by a trial and error combination occurring every second from the beginning of time till now, there is still no hope.

Mathematician I. L. Cohen says, "At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between evolutionists and creationists should have come to a screeching halt. Mathematically speaking, based on probability concepts, there is no possibility that evolution was the mechanism that created the approximately 6,000,000 species of plants and animals we recognize today."

Evolutionist Michael Denton: "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle agrees with creationists on this point. He said the odds that a cell is formed by chance is equal to the odds that a tornado going through a junkyard would create a working 747 with all instruments working. Science has discovered no proof that animals or plants can evolve. The best established facts of genetics, biology, and botany studies indicate evolution is physically impossible.

11.) Let's turn to the origin of man, and specifically, the fossil record of `Man'. Many people believe we have `proof' of evolution through the fossil record, yet is this true? What is the facts surrounding fossils that are presumed to portray man?

Ramapithicus, often pictured as walking erect, has been degrade to the status of extinct ape. It's teeth and dental characteristics are similar to the gelada gibbon.(Richard Leaky/Roger Lewin Origins P.68). It has also been declared to be part of orangutan lineage.(Science News Vol 121 #5 Jan 30, 1982 P.84)

12.) Australopithecine: Not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. "The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)

13.) Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz:( Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, "Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40

14.) Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, "Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)

15.) Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's. Evidence included skulls and a few limb bones, but were lost during W.W.II. Clear evidence at the same site showed true man along with a 30 ft. deep ash pile and a limestone mine. All of the skulls of Sianthropus were broken in the same manner as those of monkeys who are eaten for their brains.(Ian Taylor, "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the World Order", Toronto Canada, TFE pub. 1984 p. 234-241

16.) Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap and a femur that was dug up a year later and 50 feet away. The finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted the skull cap was from a gibbon like ape.(Eugene Dubois, "On the gibbon like appearance of Pithecanthropus Erectus", Koniklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Vol 38 Amsterdam Koninklijke Akademie 1935 P.578)

17.) Nebraska Man was a local fossil, the entire evidence consisting of a single tooth. Nebraska Man was pictured on the front page of Life magazine in a hunter-gatherer mode. During the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, Nebraska Man was labeled a genuine missing link. The tooth turned out to be a tooth of a pig. (Henry Fairfield Osborne, Hesperopithicus Haroldcookii, the first anthropoid primate found in North America, Science Vol 60 #1427 May 3, 1922 P.463)(William K. Gregory, "Hesperopithecus apparently not ape or man" Science Vol 66 #17209 Dec 16, 1927)

18.) Piltdown Man, a deliberate hoax some blame on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, had people fooled for years and even had its picture on Life Magazine.(Joseph Wiener "The Piltdown Forgery" London Oxford U. Press)

19.) Other hoaxes have occurred in the evolutionary tree, consider this one: Science News , Week of Jan. 15, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 3 All mixed up over birds and dinosaurs By R. Monastersky. Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery from China. The "feathered dinosaur"specimen that they recently unveiled to much fanfare apparently combines the tail of a dinosaur with the body of a bird, they say. "It's the craziest thing I've ever been involved with in my career," says paleontologist Philip J. Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Drumheller,Alberta.

20.) The fossil, named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis, comes from the northeastern province of Liaoning, where local farmers have been unearthing many new dinosaur species, some showing evidence of downlike coats and feathers. Currie, Stephen Czerkas of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, and Xing Xu of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing announced the discovery of Archaeoraptor at a press conference in Washington, D.C., at the National Geographic Society last October (SN: 11/20/99, p. 328). At the time, they called it a missing link between birds and dinosaurs because it manifested the long bony tail of dromaeosaurid dinosaurs and the specialized shoulders and chest of birds. The scientists couldn't be sure of the fossil's history because they had not excavated it. Spirited out of China, the specimen attracted Czerkas' attention when he saw it for sale in Utah. His museum arranged its purchase by a benefactor. Recently, while examining a dromaeosaurid dinosaur in a private collection in China, Xu decided that the Archaeoraptor fossil is a chimera [A chimera is a mix of parts from different critters - Mar.]. The tail of that dinosaur is identical to the Archaeoraptor tail, he told Science News. The two tails are mirror images of each other, derived from the same individual, says Xu. When rocks containing fossils are split, they often break into two fossils.

Currie suspects that someone sought to enhance the value of Archaeoraptor by pasting one part of the dinosaur's tail to a bird fossil. Czerkas is reserving judgement until he can view both fossils together. "I've got all this other evidence suggesting the tail does belong with the [Archaeoraptor] fossil," he says. The paleontologists already had concerns about the tail because the bones connecting it to the body are missing and the slab shows signs of reworking. They had convinced themselves, however, that the two parts belonged together. Other scientists criticize the team and the National Geographic Society for unveiling the fossil before any detailed article had appeared in a scientific journal. "There probably has never been a fossil with a sadder history than this one," says Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C.

21.) While on the subject of birds, here is another 'finding', questioning the normal, accepted theory that Birds came from dinosaurs: June 14, 1999 - No. 386 By DAVID WILLIAMSON UNC-CH News Services ****** CHAPEL HILL - Working together on fossilized remains, Chinese and U.S. researchers have discovered a previously unknown species of primitive bird, a finding that offers new evidence that early bird evolution was considerably more complex than previously believed. In the process, the scientists have identified on its nearly complete skeleton, the world1s oldest surviving horny beak, part of a fossil dating back some 130 million years. They also say they1ve added more weight to the argument that birds descended not from dinosaurs, but rather from unknown earlier reptile ancestors. "One of the really interesting things about these discoveries is that they unexpectedly and vividly show that birds had already diversified by the late Jurassic-early Cretaceous period," said Dr. Alan Feduccia, chair of biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.... (from out of nowhere, apparently!!) A report on the discovery appears in the June 17 issue of Nature, a British science journal. Besides Feduccia, authors are Drs. Lianhai Hou and Fucheng Zhang of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing and Larry D. Martin and Zhonghe Zhou of the University of Kansas in Lawrence.

The researchers have named the new species Confuciusornis dui in honor of Wenya Du, the man who collected the specimen near the edge of a lake in northeast China1s Liaoning Province and donated it to the Beijing institute. It is a smaller but close relative of Confuciusornis sanctus, another crow-like bird of the same age the researchers found and reported in Nature in 1995. Because hundreds of specimens of C. sanctus now have been found in the same area, volcanic eruptions likely killed them along the lakeshore instantaneously and froze them in time, Feduccia said. The new species was an unexpected but pleasant surprise. "This bird was more advanced than Archaeopteryx in that it had a beak but was less advanced in that it had two small openings in the rear of its skull very similar to the reptile progenitors of birds," he said. "This is a mosaic pattern we see very much in vertebrate evolution - in other words, various lineages showing both primitive and advanced features at the same time. What this really shows is that early bird evolution was not linear, as many people have depicted it, but rather a far more complicated Obush1 with many extinct lines."... (More advanced! Less advanced! Forward and reverse, all in the same bird! Chinese firedrill on evolutionary chronology, everybody!)

Neither of the two cousin species likely were ancestors of modern birds, Feduccia said. Instead, they were side "twigs" that disappeared from their family tree -- or bush -- millions of years ago. Males of both species bore two long tail plumes indicating the sexes differed significantly from each other. Like its cousin, the new bird C. dui also grew asymmetric wing feathers characteristic of all modern flying birds. Ostriches and other birds that can1t fly well sprout nearly symmetric feathers incapable of creating an airfoil and hence lift. "These birds also have highly curved foot claws and reversed big toes showing they were clearly tree-dwelling creatures," the scientist said. "Together, these and other characteristics -- and the fact that the birds lived in complex social colonies - show that they were pretty well developed. "It seems to us that this was a tree-dwelling bird, not an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur as people advocating a dinosaur origin of birds have said."

In 1979, Feduccia made international news by publishing a paper proving that the oldest known bird, Archaeopteryx, could fly because its wing feathers were asymmetric. Barbs on one side of its wing feather quills clearly grew longer than barbs on the other side. "Some other scientists had speculated that Confusciusornis was a ground-living predator whose beak may have been hooked like a hawk, and this restoration was recently featured as a cover of Scientific American," Martin said. "The new fossil shows something very different. The beak is pointed and turned up at the tip very much like the cartoon bird Woody Woodpecker." Combining modern and ancient features in the same skull was surprising, he said.... (Not if you reject the evolutionary chronology.) Dui, the new specimen, also shows that the half-moon shaped bone in the wrist that1s been used to support a dinosaurian ancestry for birds is the same in Confusciusornis and Archaeopteryx as in modern birds, but is a different bone in dinosaurs, Martin said. "It no longer can be one of the main supports for a dinosaurian origin of birds," he said.

Bird-dinosaur claims have many setbacks. Consider this critique of the fossils found:
A Closer look at Dino-BirdsBy G.S. Paul (excerpted from DinoData website)DINO-BIRDS Sinosauropteryx Scipionyx Protachaeopteryx Caudipteryx and Confuciusornis- by G.S. PAUL - Direct examination confirms that the "croc-septum" described by Ruben et al. 1997 consists entirely of breakage and glue. Where all three arrows in their paper point, there is major damage. The ventral flakage is especially hard to see in photos, the dorsal breakage is patently obvious. The central crack was filled with cement colored to match the sediment. The breakage occurred when the slab was broken into numerous pieces during its initial removal by a local farmer, as a result the damage is symmetrical on the two slabs. The repair work was also done by the collector. So Ruben et al. mistook incompetent collection and repair work by an amateur for soft tissue anatomy. What is the dark material? In Scipionyx the probable liver sits well forward in the chest (as in birds), directly above the juncture of the anterior gastralia and what must have been the posterior end of the cartilage portion of the sternum. The authors of the Nature paper have confirmed to me that the liver does not extend dorsally in Scipionyx, contrary to certain claims made at Dinofest. In Dinosauropteryx the anterior end of the gastralia is well forward of the dark material.

Ergo, the liver very probably was not preserved. The dark material is in the same location - the posterior half of the body cavity from dorsal vertebra 8 or 9 back - as the well preserved intestines of Scipionyx, so it too probably represents the contents of the gut. There is no soft tissue evidence for the presence of a croc-like liver, septum, or fore- and-aft partitioning of the body cavity in any theropod. It was suggested at Dinofest that the "body outline" (visible in the photo in July Natl Geo) of the largest Sinosauropteryx lies outside and contains the "internal fibers".

The "outline" is actually the preservative applied after the completion of prep work. In some places on the sediment the sealant is thick enough to glisten (in most areas the coat was so thin that it absorbed into the sediment with a flat sheen), there are some thick circular drip bead marks, the brush work can be seen in some places, in some places there was a shallow shelf of sediment where the brush did not carry the sealant into the base of the shelf, etc. The sealant was applied to preserve the loose feathers on the slab as well (as you can see in the Natl Geo photograph). In the Natl Geo photo, there appears to be an small array of feathers at the tip of the tail of the large Sinosauropteryx. However, the slab was - as true of all of these specimens - badly shattered, and the feathers lie on a separate slab. At first glance there seems to be a couple of distal vertebrae on the feathered slab. However, examination under magnification with a flashlight revealed that no bone is present, the vertebrae are illusions created by breakage of the sediment.

The last few tail vertebrae are missing because they were lost along with the slab that really belongs there. Nor do the feathers have any connection with the vertebrae (unlike the tail feathers of Protarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx). They are just some loose feathers on a slab that the farmer decided looked good at the end of the tail. The "tail flipper" that some seem to think surrounds the supposed tail feathers is of course just more brushed on sealant. From what I gathered some who examined the specimens still belive that the sealant is a body outline and that the tail flipper is real. Mistaking damage and prep work is not, of course science, and one can only hope these nonsensical notions will not see the light of publication.

22.) Back to the mistakes of 'Ape-Men"...

Neanderthal Man was found in Neanderthal Valley in West Germany. Long accepted as a missing link, Neanderthal man has been proven to be human, very similar to Europeans today, yet with proven diseases such as rickets, syphilis, and arthritis.(Carl Hodge "Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told" The Arizona Republic Vol 99 #186 P. B-5)

23.) There is no proof that man evolved from an ape like creature. In fact, many fossils of man have been found, dated to coincide with the ages of these extinct apes:

24.) Petralona Man, found in a stalagmite 700 thousand years old.(Current Anthropology Vol 22 #3 June 1981 P.287)

25.) Human Jawbone found in China in Yangtze River dated 2 million years old.(Java Man is only 500 thousand)(Mesa Tribune Mesa Arizona Nov 20 1988)

Also, there are some findings that contradict all known science:

26.) Human skeleton found 1. 6 million years old, by Richard Leaky( Wash. Post Oct 19, 1984)

27.) Human footprints, dated 3.75 million years old at Latolil (Nature Vol28 #5702 Mar 22.1979, P.317-323)

28.) THE OLDEST MAN: "[African footprints]... they belonged to the genus Homo (or true man), rather than to man-apes (like Australopithecus, who was once thought to be the forerunner of Man but is now regarded as a possible evolutionary dead end)... they were 3.35 to 3.75 million years old... they would, in Mary Leakey's words, be people 'not unlike ourselves'" TIME, Nov. 10, 1975, p.93

29.) TOO HUMAN TOO OLD: Russell H Tuttle, Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Affiliate Scientist, Primate Research Center, Emory University, "In sum, the 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern Humans... If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus... in any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy's kind..." NATURAL HISTORY, March 1990, p. 64


Evolutionists themselves disagree on just what the fossils mean and just how old they are. Consider the following:

30.) RUINED FAMILY TREE: "either we toss out this [skull 11470] or we toss out our theories of early man," asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey of this 2.8 million year old fossil, which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus. "It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings." The author, son of famed anthropologist Louis S.B. Leakey, believes that the skull's surprisingly large braincase "leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged to an orderly sequence of evolutionary change." NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, June 1973, p.819

31.) HUMAN BRAIN: "Leakey further describes the whole shape of the brain case [skull 11470] as remarkably reminiscent of modern man, lacking the heavy and protruding eyebrow ridges and thick bone characteristics of Homo Erectus." SCIENCE NEWS, April 3, 1972, p. 324

32.) "OLD" MODERN MAN: Louis Leakey, "In 1933 I published on a small fragment of jaw we call Homo Kanamens 1s, and I said categorically that this is not a near-man or ape, this is a true member of genus Homo. There were stone tools with it too. The age was probably around 2.5 to 3 million years. It was promptly put upon a shelf by my colleagues, except for two of them. The rest said it must be placed in a "suspense account". Now, 36 years later, we have proved I was right." Quoted in Bones of Contention, p.156

33.) MODERN AND TALL: Richard Leakey, "... the boy from Tukana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age... he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo Erectus to contradict a long held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia," NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, Nov. 1985, p. 629

34.) MAN EVEN BEFORE "LUCY": Charles E. Oxnard, Dean, Grad School, Professor Biology and Anatomy, USC, "...earlier finds, for instance, at Kanapoi, existed at the same time as, and probably even earlier than, the original gracile Australopithecines... almost indistinguishable in shape from that of modern Humans at four and a half million years..." AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, Vol. 41, May 1979, p.274

35.) HENRY M. MCHENRY, U of C, DAVIS, "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo Sapiens..." SCIENCE, Vol. 190, p.28

36.) WILLIAM HOWELLS, HARVARD, "With a date of about 4.4 million years, [KP 2711] could not be distinguished from Homo Sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson or myself in 1967 (or by much searching analysis by others since then). We suggested that it might represent Australopithecus because at the time, time allocation to Homo seemed preposterous, although it would be the correct one without the time element." HOMO ERECTUS, 1981, pp. 79-80

What do evolutionists and other well respected scientists say about evolution? Evolutionists themselves disagree, and those with scientific backgrounds often deny the evidence of evolution. Consider these sources:


The Dissidents:
37.) No less an authority than the world-renowned paleontologist (with Dr. Colin Patterson) for the British Museum of Natural History, Dr. N. Etheridge, has remarked: "Nine tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, their is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (quoted by Lindsay Gordon, Evolution - The Incredible Hoax, 1977)

38.) Sir Ernest Chain, 1945 Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin, in D.T. Rosevear's Scientists critical of Evolution, July 1980, p.4: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts."

39.) Dr. Werner von Braun, one of the leading scientists in NASA's Apollo project (many of you interested in space exploration know the name), wrote the following in a letter to the California State Board of Education, September 14, 1972: "To be forced to believe only one conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?... We in NASA were often asked what the real reason was for the amazing string of successes we had with our Apollo flights to the Moon. I think the only honest answer we could give was that we tried to never overlook anything. It is in that same sense of scientific honesty that I endorse the presentation of alternative theories for the origin of the universe, life, and man in the science classroom, It would be an error to overlook the possibility that the universe was planned rather than happened by chance."

40.) Dr. Pierre P. Grasse, editor of the twenty-eight volumes of "Traite de Zoologie" and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences is considered to be the most distinguished of French zoologists. His conclusions? "The explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an in-depth criticism." (The Evolution of Living Organisms)

41.) P. Lemoine, a president of the Geologic Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, has concluded: "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach; but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate.... It results from this summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible." (Introduction: De L'Evolution? in 5 Encyclopedie Francaise)

42.) Dr. Hubert P. Yockey, A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis bt Information Theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1977, Vol. 67, p.398: "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

43.) Dr. Derek V. Ager, Geologist, Imperial College, London, Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, 1976, pp.132 - 133: "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student... have now been debunked."

44.) Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, evolutionist, concludes his 1986 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, thus: "Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.... The truth is that despite the prestige of evolutionary theory and the tremendous intellectual effort directed towards reducing living systems to the confines of Darwinian thought, nature refuses to be imprisoned. The "mystery of mysteries" - the origin of new beings on earth - is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the Beagle".

45.) Finally, the aforementioned Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum, remarked in a 1981 lecture at the American Museum of Natural History: "Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing... that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not be taught in high school."


Have there been any strange findings that disagree with evolutionary thought about how old mankind is?

46.) Gold Chains found in coal.(Morrisonville Times, Morrisonville M Jun 11 1891)

47.) Metal bell shaped vessel found in solid rock.(Scientific American Vol7 June 1851 P 298-299)

48.) Another important topic is the age of the earth. Is the earth billions of years old? The earth's magnetic field was measured accurately since 1835. Since 1835 the earth's magnetic field has decreased by 6%. Physicist Dr. Thomas Bames concluded that the half life for the magnetic field was 830 to 1400 years. That means that 830 to 1400 years ago, the magnetic field was twice as strong as it is today. Another 831 to 1400 years before that, it was 4 times as strong.

According to Dr. Bames," If we went back about 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would have been as strong as the field in a magnetic star. A magnetic star is like our sun: it has a nuclear power source. Surely our Earth never had a nuclear power source like the sun. Surely our earth never had a magnetic field stronger than a star. That would limit the age of the earth to 10,000 years. Science could definitely say, from the greatest physical evidence,(the kind of evidence and physics that we design radar sets with, and communication sets with), that the earth's magnetic field cannot be more than about 6 to 15 thousand years old." Thomas Bames, The Earth a young Planet? Films for Christ Assoc.)

Another topic would be population growth. There have been estimates of population growth as high as 2% per year. Assuming that population grows at only .5% per year, it would take only 4000 years to achieve today's population beginning from a single couple. Many creationists feel that Noah's flood was about 4000 years ago, so this fits creation theory quite nicely. If the Earth is as old as evolutionists claim, and the population grew at .5%, in a million years there would be lOE2100 people! Even if it took a million years to get at our present population, there would have been about 3,000,000,000,000 people before us! Where is the fossil evidence? Where is the cultural evidence?

Another topic is space dust, or debris left over from creation or impacts of meteors or comets. If the Earth or the Moon were as old as evolutionists say, there should be plentiful amounts of dust on the Moon that could have been, measured when we landed there. NASA even put large saucer shaped pads on the LEM so that it would not sink into the soil.


49.) Some say that creation is a religious belief. Only Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe in special creation. Do any religions believe in evolution? How about Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confusionism, Buddism, American Indian Native Religions, Secular Humanism, and Satanism.

To assume that a belief in a creator God would disqualify someone from being a real scientist, consider this list:

JOSEPH LISTER- ANTISEPTIC SURGERY
LOUIS PASTEUR- BACTERIOLOGY
ISAAC NEWTON- CALCULUS
JOHANNA KEEPER- CELESTIAL MECHANICS
ROBERT BOIL- CHEMISTRY
JAMES CLERK MAXWELL-ELECTRODYNAMICS
MICHAEL FARADAY-ELECTROMAGNETICS
AMBROSE FLEMING-ELECTRONICS
LORD KELVIN-ENERGETICS
WILLIAM HERSCHEL-GALACTIC ASTRONOMY
GREGOR MENDEL-GENETICS
DAVINCI-HYDRAULICS
BLAISE PASCAL-HYDROSTATICS
JAMES JOULE-REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS
CHARLES BABBAGE-ACTUARIAL TABLES
JOSEPH HENRY-ELECTRIC MOTOR
SAMUEL F. B. MORSE-TELEGRAPH

I GUESS THE BIBLE'S TRUE AFTER ALL!

[HitmanLV]

Why is any of this so important?

[balrog666]

Why didn't you post this idiocy to the Mythology Religion Forum?

[mr2trucker]

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Perhaps one should read the all of bible before quoting part of it.

[balrog666]

I'm happy to look at both sides of this debate. Don't expect the lockbox brained darwin zealots to reasonably consider your efforts. Shrill insults make them feel safe from new ideas.

That you again, Ted?

[tfecw]

perhaps thats the problem with the bible.
It's full of contradictions

[RobRoy]

>>Creation science and naturalistic evolution are both shams, perpetrated mostly by people with an ideological agenda.<<

That pretty much sums up my feelings (and thoughts).

[tfecw]

then again everyone knows that circles are a 2 dimensional object which makes them flat

[RobRoy]

>>Nice cut and paste job. Nice cut and paste job from the great and famous Tim Wallace's "Trueorigins.com" website. Yes, the same Tim Wallace who has published several books for the Creationists to buy.

Snake oil of the highest order.<<

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

[free_european]

So your position is that the Bible contradicts itself and one has to just read the "right parts". I don't remember learning *that* in church. By the way, your quote doesn't exactly scream globe to me ... the earth is a big circle with a tent of sky over it eh? Doesn't much look like that from satellite photos.

[elbucko]

That all of the evolutionist claims that ID and/or Creation is not valid science and evolution is.

I agree with them on the point that ID/Creation is not science, it is religion. No matter how wrong Darwin may be, it is only a theory. "In the beginning", is faith. I see no conflict between the two.