08: Part 2 (Scientific Evidences for Creation)

Science and the Bible - Part 2 The Scientific Evidences for Creation

Having studied "Science and the Bible" in a previous lesson, we will specifically examine how the Biblical account of origins, as contained in the book of Genesis, measures up to legitimate science. This is obviously important if we want to defend the faith, for if the Bible is scientifically inaccurate in Genesis, how do we know that it is theologically accurate in Genesis or any other portion? Thus, in this lesson we will examine the scientific evidences that support special creation as opposed to the Darwinian theory of evolution. First, however, we will examine two different philosophies regarding the current creation/evolution debate.

First, there is the humanistic philosophy which states "Evolution is science, but creation is religion." This statement has been used over and over again by the evolutionary establishment, but unfortunately for them it can easily be shown that creation is at least as scientific as evolution and evolution is at least as religious as creation. Note the definition of science as given in the Oxford Dictionary: A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.

Evolution cannot be "demonstrated", "observed" or tested by the scientific method; therefore, it cannot properly be called a science. Note the following admissions from a non-creationist and an evolutionist. By its very nature, evolution cannot be substantiated in the way that is usual in science by experiment and direct observation. Neither Darwin or any subsequent biologist has ever witnessed the evolution of one new species as it actually occurs. [1] Our theory of evolution has become as Popper [Sir Karl Popper, one of the world’s leading philosophers of science] described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus `outside of empirical science’ but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. [2]

Note the use of the word "dogma" in describing evolution. Does this sound like science or religion? One of the tests of a good scientific theory is potential falsifiability, for if it is impossible to falsify it, then it is also impossible to confirm it. In other words, a good scientific theory will be one in which experiments can be conceived to test the validity of the theory. This simply cannot be done with the general concepts of creation or evolution. Both are non-falsifiable theories since the events associated with origins were unique and unrepeatable. There were no human witnesses to these events and they cannot be simulated in the laboratory.

Evolution can be defined as a belief about the past based on the words of scientists who don’t know everything, who were not there, and who are trying to explain how the evidence, which only exists in the present, got there. (Ken Ham, Creation Scientist) In addition both concepts can be modified to accommodate new facts. Therefore, it is simply folly to assert that evolution is more scientific than creation. The only basis for this statement is that creation must evoke the supernatural and is, therefore, outside the boundaries of legitimate science. This argument, however, is simply begging the question because it makes an a priori assumption that there is no God or supernatural. This does indeed rule out creation from a pre-conceived philosophical viewpoint, but certainly not from a scientific one! This brings us to our next point, namely the religious nature of evolution. Consider the following quotes from evolutionists. The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. [3]

It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held and holds men’s minds...The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers, imperfect in scientific faith. [4] As further proof, consider the first two affirmations of the Humanist Manifesto:

1. "Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."

2. "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process." [5]

Evolution is obviously a vital part of the religion of humanism. Likewise, the rapidly growing New Age Movement, a man-centered religion, rests upon the evolutionary foundation. Therefore, to argue that evolution is pure science without religious implications is also pure folly.

Now let us consider the creationist philosophy with regards to the creation/evolution debate. This philosophy states that the creation model and the evolution model should be compared scientifically to determine which offers the best explanations of origins. As mentioned earlier, both theories can be modified to accommodate new facts and neither can be proven by the scientific method. However, both theories, before modification, do postulate certain evidences that should be observable in our world today, and these evidences are radically different (for instance abundant intermediate links in the fossil record versus no intermediate links in the fossil record). Therefore, we can weigh the current scientific evidence and determine which theory is more plausible based on the facts, not pre-conceived philosophy.

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact. [6]

Neither of the 2 fundamental axioms of Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory-the concept of continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process-have been validated by one empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859. [7]

Let us now examine some of the scientific evidence favoring the creation model of origins over the evolution model of origins.

Evidence from Thermodynamics [The First and Second Laws] The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are two of the most established and Fundamental Laws of science. The First Law (Law of conservation of energy) states that the total quantity of energy in the universe is always constant - it can neither be created or destroyed. The Second Law states that the amount of unavailable energy or "entropy" is always increasing. In other words, the universe is running down and constantly becoming more disorderly. Famous evolutionist Isaac Asimov stated: As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of running down. [8]

We can see the Second Law all around us today. A room left to itself will become dusty and dingy. A car that is not properly maintained will eventually run down. Scientists tell us that even our sun will eventually run down. The Second Law contradicts evolutionary cosmogonies (theories of origins) because matter does not naturally become more orderly. In fact, the universe is running down. In addition, since the universe is not dead yet, it must have had a beginning. Therefore, the Second Law proves that the universe must have been created. The first law stipulates that it could not have created itself. Therefore, there must have been a creator (Genesis 1:1)! All evolutionary cosmogonies, however, including the Big-Bang theory, break the First and Second laws. The Big-Bang theory postulates that in unobservable time matter/energy evolved out of nothing into an organized "cosmic egg" before the beginning of our present order. For some unknown reason this "cosmic egg" exploded, eventually resulting in our present universe. The biological theory of evolution also violates the Second Law because it requires organic matter to become more complex and organized without the intervention of any outside intelligence. This applies to both open and closed systems.

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems...there is somehow associated with the field of far from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the 2nd law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not propagate itself. [9]

Contrary to what many evolutionists postulate, an outside energy source in an open system, such as the sun, does not solve this problem. Such an energy source is a necessary condition to break the Second Law, but it is certainly not a sufficient one. Raw unconverted energy from the sun, like a bull in a china shop, would do much more harm than good. Some type of conversion system, such as photosynthesis, must first be in place in order to convert the raw energy into useful energy. Secondly a control system must be in place to direct the energy in a progressive, constructive direction (such as the genetic code on a DNA molecule). Intelligence is the key to increasing complexity, not energy!

Evidence from Microbiology [The Impossibility of Spontaneous Generation and The Complexity of Life] The statistical impossibility of the spontaneous generation of life has always represented one of the greatest problems for the theory of evolution. Evolutionists have traditionally taught that organic molecules, such as amino acids, arose from a "primordial soup" of complex chemicals. These organic molecules subsequently evolved into simple proteins which eventually evolved into organisms capable of reproduction. However, as one well-known scientist has stated: The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that `a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.’ [10] The reason for a statement such as this is simply the incredible complexity of life at the microbiological level. For example, Michael Denton, a non-Christian molecular biologist, writes: Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man in the presence of twentieth-century technology. [11] A Boeing 747 is a collection of 4.5 million non-flying parts, arranged in an intricate design such that it can fly. A typical cell contains several billion non-living molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA all arranged in intricate design. According to Denton a typical cell contains ten million million atoms. Its life depends on the integrated activity of ten or even hundreds of thousands of different proteins. In addition, the genetic code found in the DNA molecule is unbelievably complex. The DNA molecule, which is the molecule of heredity, is necessary to code for proteins, the molecules of structure and function. Amino acids must be arranged in certain exact sequences, just like letters in a sentence, to form protein molecules. Without DNA molecules to provide instructions, amino acids would never join together to form proteins. However, the opposite is also true. DNA is not built without protein machinery (specifically enzymes). Therefore our dilemma is which came first, the DNA or the proteins? Both are necessary for reproduction and an organism not capable of reproduction would obviously not survive. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress. [12] Statistically, spontaneous generation is impossible. For example:

Dr. Duane Gish (Ph.D. in Biochemistry from Cal. Berkeley) states that the probability of a protein of only 50 amino acids forming (The simplest "living" organism would have at least 400 amino acids [13]) would be 1 in 1065. [14] Sir Fred Hoyle states:

Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trials assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 1040,000. [15] As a result of such calculations as these, Hoyle and some other evolutionary scientists (including Francis Crick, who shared a Noble Prize for the discovery of DNA’s structure) have felt it necessary to postulate that life must have arisen somewhere in space and was subsequently translated to earth! Let us remember once again that even the simplest of cells contains billions of proteins, DNA, RNA, and other complex structures all arranged in an intricate design. Yet the evolutionist will insist that it takes faith to believe in creation! Evolutionist Richard Dawkins states: The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer. [16] Evidence from Biology [The Improbability/Impossibility of Evolution by Random Mutations and Natural Selection]

Another of the many problems for the evolutionist is the mechanism of the theory of biological evolution. In other words, how does it work? The standard answer is random mutations and natural selection. But is this standard answer a legitimate answer? To answer this question we must first distinguish between microevolution, which is an established fact of science, and macroevolution, which is an untestable and unverifiable theory (albeit referred to as fact by nearly every major science periodical and museum in the world). Microevolution refers to change within a given "kind" (i.e., Genesis 1:12; 21; 24-25) while macroevolution (i.e., Darwinism) refers to a change from one "kind" to another. We see the evidences of microevolution all round us. For instance, consider the many different types and varieties of dogs and cats (canines and felines if you prefer) in the world today. It is significant, however, that we see no "dats", "cogs", or any other transitionary forms in our world today, for if we did we would evidence an example of macroevolution. It has long been known that natural selection (i.e., the survival of the fittest) can account for changes within a species. For instance consider the oft-cited example of the peppered moth of England. The dark colored moths were able to survive in the smoke-filled environments of the industrial revolution far better than the light ones. Although the number of dark-colored moths as opposed to light-colored moths increased drastically, the moths were, nonetheless, still peppered moths. Therefore, microevolutional changes within a species should not be used as a proof of macroevolutional changes from one species to another. Unfortunately, this is what many evolutionists do. Darwin, himself, was influenced greatly by microevolutional changes evidenced in the varieties of finches he observed on the Galapagos Islands. Honest evolutionists, however, will admit that microevolutional changes are irrelevant when it comes to evidence for macroevolution. For instance, Marjorie Grene, a leading philosopher and historian of science at the University of California, Davis, states: That the color of moths and snails or the bloom on the castor bean steam are `explained’ by mutation and natural selection is very likely; but how from single-celled (and for that matter from inanimate) ancestors there came to be castor beans and moths and snails, and how from these there emerged llamas and hedgehogs and lions and apes and men that is a question which neo-Darwinian theory simply leaves unasked. [17]

Furthermore, natural selection itself is nothing more than a tautology (a circular argument in which the conclusion restates the premise). Natural selection is in essence "the survival of the fittest". If one were to ask, "What survives?", the answer would be "The fittest survive." However, when one asks, "What are the fittest?", the answer is "Those who produce the most offspring." In other words, "Those who survive." Therefore, natural selection tells us nothing more than "survivors survive." [18]

Obviously natural selection cannot be used to explain the mechanism of biological evolution. Honest evolutionists will admit this:

Natural Selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and, you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring, and there is nothing more to it than that. The whole real guts of evolution - which is how do you come to have horses and tigers and things - is outside the mathematical theory. [19]

Natural selection is actually a conserving mechanism. It can’t create more information. It simply preserves what is already there. Varieties within species today actually represent a loss of genetic information, and macroevolution requires an increase.

If natural selection can’t create more information, what does? The argument that mutations are the mechanism for evolution is equally void of scientific evidence. First of all mutations are relatively rare and, more importantly, when they do occur they are almost always harmful to the organism, not beneficial. Famous French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grasse puts it this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder... [20] The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. [21] Information theory teaches us that when information is transmitted it either stays the same or gets more random.

Illustrations: Randomly changing the letters of a book or repeatedly copying an audio tape.

Besides all this, the incredible complexity of life leaves evolution by natural selection and random mutations statistically impossible. Michael Denton writes:

Evolution by natural selection is therefore, in essence, strictly analogous to problem solving by trial and error, and it leads to the immense claim that all the design in the biosphere is ultimately the fortuitous outcome of an entirely blind random process - a giant lottery. [22] The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of skepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always been a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. [23]

It is simply unthinkable to assume that blind chance formed the human brain with its 12 billion brain cells and its 10^15 connections, which according to Isaac Asimov was the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. [24] Darwin himself realized that complex organs such as the eye presented tremendous difficulties to his theory. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. [25] The eye, like so many other complex organs is an integrated system that functions as a whole. Five percent of an eye does not equal 5% vision, it equals 0% vision. What good would a hole in front of the eye which allows light to pass through do, if there are no cells in the back of the eye to receive the light. What use is a lens that forms an image if there is no nervous system to interpret the image. How could a visual nervous system have evolved without an eye to give it information.

Finally, we see no examples of new forms evolving in our world today as a result of natural selection and random mutations. We do see many varieties being formed within existing species both naturally and artificially, but again this is due to a loss of genetic information (For example when a small percentage of a parent population is isolated from the original population). Clearly, however, we see no examples of transitionary forms in our world today. The only logical alternative to evolution by natural selection and random mutations is, of course, special creation.

Evidence from Paleontology [The Fossil Record]

Since biology shows us no examples of transitionary forms today we must look at the fossil record (the history of life in the past) to see if there are any transitionary forms or "missing links" in man’s "family tree". As we examine the fossil record, however, we discover that the missing links are still missing! Although the evolutionists are reluctant to admit this, in moments of honesty they will confess that the fossil record is full of gaps.

All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little way in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. [26] The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. [27] In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. [28] For instance, one of the most distressing problems the fossil record poses for the evolutionist is the "Cambrian Explosion" of life. Fossils of such complex forms as sponges, trilobites, jellyfish, sea worms, etc. appear suddenly in the Cambrian rocks without any traces of their evolutionary ancestors. Yet there should be an incredible number of intermediary forms between single-celled organisms (now said to be found in Pre-Cambrian rocks) and these creatures. In addition there is no trace of the evolutionary links between the invertebrates and the vertebrates (i.e., fishes). Again, there should be multiple intermediate forms. Neither is their any fossil evidence for the evolution from fish to amphibians. For instance, no forms with part feet and part fins have ever been found (except, of course, for artists’ renderings found in text books and museums all over the world!)

Since the fossil record provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from fish to tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs and aerial breathing evolved... [29] The next step in man’s evolutionary development should be from reptile to mammal. Once again, we find no missing links in the fossil record.

Because of the nature of the fossil evidence, paleontologists have been forced to reconstruct the first two-thirds of mammalian history in great part on the basis of tooth morphology. [30] From small mammals primates supposedly evolved but we have no trace of this development either.

...the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transitions is by inference from living forms. [31]

Finally, in the evolutionary scheme we have the transition from ape to man. Let’s look at the fossil evidence for a few of the well-known hominids [32] (a pre-human form in the line leading to man), beginning with two that the evolutionists would like to forget because they illustrate the obvious bias and pre-conceived notions involved with evolutionary anthropology and paleontology.

1. Piltdown Man was nothing more than a deliberate hoax. Someone took the jaw of an ape, filed the teeth down to resemble those of a human, added a human skull, chemically treated them to give the appearance of age and then buried them in a gravel bed where it was discovered by a team of anthropologists. The sad part was not that someone would pull a stunt like that, but that it fooled the world’s greatest experts in anthropology and paleontology for 41 years!

2. The famous Nebraska man, used as evidence in the Scopes Trial, was constructed from a single tooth! From this one tooth pictures were drawn of an ape-man, family and all. In addition, the 13th Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica recognized it as a legitimate human fossil. [33] As it turned out, further study revealed the tooth came from an extinct pig!

Now lets look at some more of the well-known "hominids."

Cro-Magnon Man: essentially identical to modern man with an average brain capacity that is actually greater than the average for modern man.

Neanderthal Man: today universally classified as fully human. In the past, however, these men were pictured as stooped over, semi-erect, sub-human cave men. This was due to the fact that the first specimen found was crippled with arthritis, and therefore evolutionists assumed that the stooped over appearance of the fossil was normal. Furthermore it has been discovered that these people suffered from rickets which causes bone softening and malformation. Today, however, it is known that these people walked fully erect and had an average brain capacity greater than modern man. [34]

Java Man: An ape-like skull cap was found in 1891 by Dutch physician Eugene Dubois in a gravel bed. A year later and 50 feet away he found an essentially human femur. He also added a few teeth to the collection and announced to the world that he had found the missing link. Before he died, however, he admitted that he had also found human skulls (the Wadjak skulls) nearby at approximately the same level, meaning that Java Man could not have been man’s ancestor.

Ramapithecus: originally judged to be a hominid on the basis of a few teeth and a few fragments of a jaw. Yet, once again, this conclusion was based on insufficient and misinterpreted information, and has now been rejected based on more complete fossil fragments. Modern conclusions are that Ramapithecus was only an ape.

Australopithecus: These creatures are currently the best candidate for man’s ancestor in evolutionary circles. They are associated with the work of the Leakey family and Donald Johanson (the discoverer of "Lucy"; the best specimen but still only 40% complete) in Africa. These fossils are very ape-like with a cranial capacity in the range of a modern gorilla, yet the Leakey’s and Johanson insist that they walked upright based on very limited pelvic and limb fossils. However, even if these creatures did walk upright (and scientists by no means agree that they did [35]), this is not relevant since the modern pygmy chimpanzee (the "bonobo") spends much of its time walking upright. As a matter of fact, the pygmy chimp appears to be strikingly similar to "Lucy" in appearance and size as well. [36]

Most significantly, creationists believe that these creatures are simply extinct apes, while evolutionary anthropologists and paleontologists are by no means in agreement as to their identity. Two notable evolutionary scientists who have thoroughly studied the Australopithecine fossils and concluded that they are not missing links are Lord Solly Zuckerman (famous British anatomist), and Dr. Charles Oxnard (former Professor of Anatomy and Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, now Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia). Zuckerman concludes that they were apes, Oxnard, an extinct species that resembles an orangutan more than any other living form. [37]

Even more revealing than the truth about the individual "hominids", is a glance at a composite fossil chart showing all the supposed hominid fossils and their corresponding evolutionary ages (creationists do not accept these evolutionary dates due to many flaws, inconsistencies, and presuppositions involved in evolutionary dating methods). [38]

Such a chart will reveal that according to the evolutionists’ dates, modern Homo Sapien fossil material (indistinguishable from modern humans) appears in the fossil record before the Australopithecines and the "hominids" in the genus Homo (Neanderthals, archaic Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, and Homo habilis). Australopithecine authority Charles Oxnard writes: The genus Homo may, in fact, be so ancient as to parallel entirely the genus Australopithecus, thus denying the latter a direct place in the human lineage. [39] Not only do true humans appear in the fossil record before any of the "hominids" but they are contemporary with them throughout their history! Obviously these "hominids" had nothing to do with human origins. It is significant that composite fossil charts will not be found in evolutionary journals and/or text books. It is simply too revealing! Furthermore, a thorough study of the different fossils in the genus Homo will reveal that according to evolutionary dating methods Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus all lived as contemporaries and none of them show any evidence of evolving from one form to another. (Many believe that Homo Habilis is a flawed taxon and that each of the fossils ascribed to it should be ascribed to other taxons. Regardless of the classification, these fossils are still contemporary with other Homo fossils.) In addition, it is significant to note that human fossils are often found in the same location and at the same level that, according to their morphology, should be in different evolutionary categories. [40] This obviously prohibits the possibility that one of these forms involved into another. The fossil record definitely seems to indicate that the Australopithecines were apes, and that Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo Erectus were all different varieties of humans, capable of inter-breeding and living contemporaneously. What, then, can we conclude about the missing-links in man’s family tree? One evolutionist states: The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! [41] Not to worry, however, evolutionists will continue to come up with new candidates for missing links as the former ones are discredited. In the 1980’s, for instance, both a dolphin’s rib and a donkey’s skull were mistaken for hominid fossils! [42] The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. [43] The punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution which tries to explain the absence of intermediate links by the explanation that evolution occurred in "spurts" is unconvincing since it is only an argument from silence. It starts with the assumption that evolution has occurred and then interprets the fossil record in light of that initial assumption.

Evidence from Geology [Evidences for the "Genesis Flood"]

Just as there is a creation versus evolution debate in biology, there is a catastrophism versus uniformitarianism debate in modern geology. Uniformitarianism, which must be true if evolution is true, was founded in the 18th Century by men such as Charles Lyell (a lawyer) and James Hutton (an agriculturist with medical training). Their theory can be defined as the belief that the present is the key to the past. In other words, uniformitarians believe that geological processes we see today operate in the same manner and at the same rate as past geological processes. In contrast, catastrophism, which must be true if the book of Genesis (see chapters 6- 8) is true, postulates that past processes were different than present processes, and therefore, the past cannot be explained by the present. Catastrophists will generally accept the Biblical account of the Genesis flood as found in Genesis 6-8 as scientifically and historically accurate. For this reason catastrophism can be referred to as "flood geology". Although neither "flood geology" or "uniformitarianism" (like creation and evolution) can be proven correct by the scientific method, the geological evidence we see today is explained far better by the "flood model". There are, in fact, several scientific evidences that point to catastrophism over uniformitarianism. As a matter of fact these evidences have led many geologists who wouldn’t dare hold to catastrophism to adopt a neo-catastrophism that assumes geological features were formed in "spurts". In order to understand some of these evidences we must first comment briefly on the geologic column. The column, which is only a trend in the first place, is seldom, if ever, found as it is pictured in text books. Two-thirds of the world’s land surface has five or fewer of the 12 major geologic systems represented and one-fifth of the world’s land surface has three or fewer systems represented. In light of this, what are some evidences for catastrophism within the supposed geologic column?

Most of the earth’s surface being covered by sedimentary rocks. These rocks, by definition, have been formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water. It is obvious that all of the earth’s present land surface has at one time or another been covered by water because of the worldwide presence of these fossil-bearing, water-deposited rocks. Furthermore, fossils of marine creatures are found world-wide, once again indicating that water once covered what is now the land surfaces of the earth.

There is no worldwide unconformity in the entire geological column except at its very base. (Henry Morris defines an unconformity as "an erosion surface interfacing between two formations whose strata are not conformable with one another. It, therefore, represents a gap in time of unknown duration, between the deposition of the formations below and above." [44]) Since unconformities represent time gaps between the geological layers, there is no worldwide time gap in the geologic column. Therefore, the whole geologic column, by deduction, represents a single, continuous depositional process. Such a process could only be explained by a worldwide hydraulic catastrophe. The existence of fossil graveyards. Vast fossil beds of fish, dinosaurs, mammoths, and other creatures have been found all over the world. In order for any fossil to form, the organism must be rapidly buried and subsequently turned to rock. In addition, the size of many of these graveyards and the vast variety of fossil remains within them requires a catastrophe of immense scale. The existence of polystrate fossils. These are fossils of large plants or animals, especially trees, that extend through several sedimentary layers (each layer should represent a vast period of time to the uniformitarian geologist). These sedimentary layers were obviously deposited rapidly. The existence of great coal deposits (one of the "fossil fuels"). These deposits were formed by enormous masses of vegetation that were swept together, buried, and subsequently carbonized by heat and pressure. We see no such coal formation going on today, so we can deduce that the coal beds were formed by some sort of past cataclysm. Furthermore, the fact that coal has been formed in the laboratory proves that long periods of time are not necessary for its formation. Further proof of this fact is the discovery of fossilized human artifacts and even a fossilized human skull in coal beds. [45] The numerous examples when the geologic column (which is only a "trend" in the first place) is out of order. In other words "older" rocks are on top of "younger" rocks and "older" fossils are on top of "younger" fossils.

Other Evidences include: [46]

1. The presence of short-term surface features such as ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary layers.

2. The deficiency of bioturbation (evidence of living communities and thus significant periods of time) in sedimentary layers.

3. The lack of soil layers in the geologic column.

4. Soft-sediment deformation (sediments that were bent or broken while still in a soft, unconsolidated condition). But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth’s igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially) .

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is not absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock". The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists... [47] As proof of the unreliability of the radiometric methods consider the fact that in nearly every case dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. One example is the rocks from the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801. These rocks were dated by a variety of different methods. Of 12 dates reported the youngest was 140 million years and the oldest was 2.96 billion years. The dates average 1.41 billion years. [48] A few of the many evidences for a young earth outside the field of geology are:

1. The C-14/C-12 ratio in the earth system.

2. The decay of the earth’s magnetic field.

3. The amount of atmospheric helium.

4. "Radio halos"

5. Short-period comets. [49] In addition, consider what famous evolutionist and Harvard professor Steven J. Gould has said about uniformitarianism.

Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs ever published by an advocate...Lyell relied upon two bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian view as the only true geology...The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. [50]

We see then that the geological theory of uniformitarianism has as little scientific evidence to support it as does the biological theory of evolution.

Conclusion: In conclusion, let us consider the possibility of a compromise solution to this debate between creationists and evolutionists. Is it possible that both are right? Could God have used the vehicle of evolution in order to form the world? To answer this let us refer to the Scriptures themselves, which contain the only purely non-evolutionary cosmogony in existence, the book of Genesis. Scripture makes it very clear, in Genesis and throughout the Bible, that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Death and bloodshed came about as a result of man’s sin (Romans 5:12; I Corinthians 15:21-22). This is the very reason Christ had to die on the cross; to pay the penalty for our sins (Romans 5:8; I Corinthians 15:3). If, however, death, bloodshed and the survival of the fittest came before sin as evolution, theistic evolution, the day-age theory, and the gap theory teach then death is simply a normal "fact of life" and Christ’s death becomes meaningless. Unfortunately, many evolutionists recognize this better than some "Christians".

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing. [51]

Although other theological arguments could be advanced against theistic evolution, time and space prohibit us from entering into further detail. Furthermore, the scientific evidence, as we have seen, points overwhelmingly towards creation and not evolution. What can we conclude from this? A non-Christian scientist who has honestly examined the evidence draws the following conclusion. Referring to the "design hypothesis" as opposed to the evolution hypothesis he states: On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions. [52]

These "religious implications" are something that we must all come to grips with. If there is a Creator, then we are all accountable to Him. Furthermore, the only place we can find out about such a creator God should logically be the one and only book which describes His creation with scientific and historic accuracy-The Bible.