1. Grand Apologetic
Compiled by Bruce Wood, BA, BS, MA – Theological Studies
Table of Contents
(Clicking on the hyperlinked headings below will take you directly to that subject)
Page
What is Science?.........................................................................................................................................3
Definitions (according to Webster's New World Dictionary):........................................................................4
Models......................................................................................................................................................... 6
The Scientific Method (and major potential problems with it):......................................................................7
The Inefficiency of Evolution......................................................................................................................10
Persecution and Bias.................................................................................................................................13
Past and Present Creation Scientists.........................................................................................................14
Creation Education....................................................................................................................................14
Benefits...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Morality...................................................................................................................................................... 17
Theological Viewpoints..............................................................................................................................18
Concluding Remarks..................................................................................................................................22

2. 2
Preface
On a personal note, I was raised by parents who held positions in science – Sr. electronic engineering
development and management (father) and laboratory research in pathology (mother); both were
evolutionists. I was "brainwashed" with the religion of evolution in the Los Angeles public school system,
being taught that creation was a myth, at best.
I remained a diehard evolutionist for twenty-six years. However, a serious study of creation and evolution
convinced me that evolution had no scientific support. Coming to this conclusion was the result of using
correct scientific procedures and critical thinking to challenge evolution, an option not allowed by
secular/evolution indoctrination.
I served in three capacities while a staff member at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) for nine and
a half years: Field Administrators – traveling nationwide to over 100 ICR-participating venues; giving tours
in the ICR creation museum in San Diego; responder to incoming questions about creation science,
evolution, and theology.
I was trained by the very best creation scientists for four years while at Christian Heritage College (CHC),
now San Diego Christian College. The CHC campus was also home to ICR. I developed my science
apologetic education while under the tutelage of ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris, his two sons, ICR VP
(and creation “Bulldog”) VP, Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. Gary Parker, Dr. Steve Austin, Dr. Richard Bliss, Dr. Ken
Cummings, and other leading scientists.
I was also given an excellent theological education under noted theologians at both CHC and Northwest
Baptist Seminary (Tacoma, WA). Practical application of both scientific and theological evidences came
by way of participation in numerous evangelistic campaigns and visitations, teaching theological and
scientific apologetics at two colleges, pastoring in two churches, and engaging in thousands of
conversations with those in my personal and professional endeavors. Overall, I have accumulated over
40 years of researched knowledge, and consider myself qualified to deliver an adequate apologetic in the
defense of a literal, six-day creation, according to the first book of Genesis.
As mentioned above, I gave (about 3,000) tours over sixteen (16) years at ICR’s Creation & Earth History
Museum (8 as a volunteer before becoming an ICR employee). In them, I discussed our creation views
with literally thousands of evolutionists, including “crevolutionists” (Christians who believe God used some
form of evolution). I was able to answer the majority of scientific questions, not being a scientist – or
having a science degree for that matter.
I once had a running debate with Dr. William Thwaits (who twice-debated Sr. VP Duane Gish, PhD.
[biochemistry, UC Berkeley]). He occasionally brought groups of SDSU students to our museum to show
what he considered flaws with our position. Our debate lasted 3 ¼ hours, and during our discussion
through the museum, I heard NO evidence for evolution – not ONE!
In truth, you do not need a research scientist to answer most creation and origin questions. What you
need is a basic knowledge of evolution and creation science. Good science should be able to verify either
creation science or evolution. Both are faith-based theories and seek to interpret history, and neither can
repeat the origins of either creation or evolution cosmologies. Both sides look at the same evidences, but
interpret them from biased viewpoints (e.g. God or no God).
Both cosmologies can be divided into two primary camps: pure evolution (absolutely no God or deity in
the construct of our universe) or a literal, six-day Genesis creation, without ANY evolutionary process.
Whether the Biblical God could have used any form of evolution (e. g., Theistic, Day-Age, Progressive
evolution, Gap Theory, etc.) will be examined below.
Evolutionists who reject any notion of creation science would find out that – with an objective attitude –
good science would reject evolution outright. They would realize all too soon that trying to produce a
working mechanism for evolution would be as successful as trying to nail a fresh pan of Jell-O to the wall.

3. 3
Students intuitively know that a kissed frog turning into a prince is called a fairy tale. However, when
millions of years are added to a frog to produce a prince, well, this is called science, according to the
evolution theory! Following are the facts:
What is Science?
Let science be good science, free from all things non-science, free from bias, free from philosophical
views, free from religion, and free from pride. Students of any religious or non-religious institution must
KNOW good science if they are to launch rockets, cure diseases, validate a correct cosmology, or
improve junk food.
However, both creation scientists and evolutionists are biased. Both have views about the existence or
non-existence of God. But in truth, creation scientists are more objective than evolutionists; they include
the possibility of God, whereas atheist-evolutionists outright reject the possibility of God. Having taken
God out of a scientific equation blinds them to objectivity and truth.
Those (including long-age/old earth Christians) who accept macro-evolution (e.g. kind to higher kind)
regard young earth creationists as anti-intellectual, narrow-minded religious fanatics. Such views
sometimes include charges (and fears) that conservative Christians want to teach the Bible in public
schools. These accusations are unfounded, based on the fact that the legal barriers are impenetrable. (It
should be noted that the American education system was originally founded by Christians to teach
literacy, for the primary purpose for all to read and understand the Bible and apply its truths to daily
living.)
Creation science education advocates a desire that good science be taught in public and other evolution-
centered schools. Too, cosmologies are faith-based theories, interpreting theories of origins that cannot
be repeated. Both sides look at the same evidences, but interpret them from biased views (e.g. God or no
God). Objectively taught science is required. Ultimately, good science will ultimately verify either creation
science or evolution. Secular teachers who believe in evolution cannot be trusted to discuss Bible
theology accurately. Accurately portraying the Creator’s science in what, when, and why He created all
things would be prone to have many inaccuracies.
Creation science rejects evolution because of the abundant scientific evidence that refutes it, as will be
discussed below. Science will show that evolution is a religion. In an ICR article (December 2001) ICR
President, Dr. John Morris quotes Richard Lewontin, leading evolutionist from Harvard, who said,
We are forced by our a priori adherence to material (i.e., natural, ed.) causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter
how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism
is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, in New York
Review of Books, January 9, 1997.)
Dr. Morris goes on to quote Will Provine's (Cornell University) admission that:
[The] belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view
that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism."
(Will Provine, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999, p. 123.)
Objective scientific studies have brought many evolutionists to conclude that there is a Creator God who
made the universe and everything in it in six literal days, according to Exodus 20:11. A good example is
ICR staff scientist, Dr. Gary Parker, who used to teach evolution at the college level. His testimony of how
he became a creation scientist can be read in From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony.

4. 4
Definitions (according to Webster's New World Dictionary):
Webster's New World Dictionary (1998) defines “science” as a "systematized knowledge derived from
observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what
is being studied." This is exactly what ICR scientists have done. A good overview of ICR’s definitions and
models can be found in the article entitled The Principles of Creationism.
The Webster Dictionary includes the following definitions:
• Adaptation: "A change in structure, function, or form that improves the chance of survival for an
animal or plant within a given environment."
• Biblical creation*: "The doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to an act of
creation by God, specifically to God's creation of the world as described in the Bible."
• Big Bang theory: "A theory of cosmology holding that the expansion of the universe began with a
gigantic explosion (big bang) between 12 and 20 billion years ago."
• Evolution: "The development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state
to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny."
• Macroevolution: "Large-scale and long-range evolution involving the appearance of new genera,
families, etc. of organisms."
• Microevolution: "Small-scale hereditary changes in organisms through mutations and
recombinations, resulting in the formation of slightly differing new varieties."
• Scientific Biblical Creation: "teaching and research based upon the belief that the biblical account
of the creation of the world is scientific fact.”
• Uniformitarianism: "The doctrine that all geologic changes may be explained by existing physical
and chemical processes, as erosion, deposition, volcanic action, etc., that have operated in
essentially the same way throughout geologic time."
Regarding Biblical origins, there are 3 kinds of creation: 1) scientific - no mention of Bible; 2) Biblical -
no mention of science; and 3) Scientific Biblical - mentioning both science and Bible. Evolutionists, on
the other side, believe that life started with a single cell. That cell developed in a vertical and
successive line of life forms into higher kinds (macroevolution*). Science and the Genesis creation
week narrative agree that the Creator made all living things by their “kinds” with no biological abilities
for any kind to evolve into another higher kind.
*“Macro-evolution,” according to J.S. Levinton (2001), is "the sum of the processes that explain the
character-state transition that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank." For layman,
Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) – which mentions nothing about the origin of life – means
that the human race (that evolved from primates) came by way of goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo.
"Micro-evolution" is simply minor variation of plants and animals (horizontal changes) - not the changing
of one kind into a higher (vertical) kind. There are natural limits to biological change. We do get DDT-
resistant insects, but they are still insects. We also get antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but they are still
bacteria. Minor genetic variation (microevolution*) is no problem with the creation scientist.
Creationists say, "Genetic variation (microevolution*): YES; macroevolution: NO." *For the record, the
term, evolution—in any form (microevolution or macroevolution) is based on chance and random
mutations. As referenced in this paragraph, these terms are to be understood as change over time. Thus,
Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, whereas Microevolution refers to varieties
within a given type.
Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to
large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). However, all observed changes

5. 5
have been "horizontal" and not "vertical,” producing changes due to "natural selection," also known as
variation, or adaptation. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's,
there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of a kind (e.g. dog) speciate into various species,
but dogs will always be dogs.
Trillions of mutations are needed in order to evolve one major kind of animal into another. Then again,
no known biological program can enable the transition from one kind into another kind. Regardless, 4.6
billion years are woefully inadequate. Trillions of years would not be enough time. And why would
evolution produce the complex systems in our bodies that search for and eliminate . . . mutations?
Biogenesis says that life comes ONLY from life. It is a mathematical impossibility that even one strand of
highly complex DNA could arise from random, non-living chemicals (abiogenesis). Structurally, DNA is a
double helix, comprised of thousands of amino acids arranged to form hundreds of polypeptide chains.
Arranging the hundreds of bases, amino acids, and polypeptide chains sequentially to form even one
strand of DNA, without mistakes, is beyond random chance probability. There was nothing from which
“natural selection” could select when only non-living chemicals existed.
Chirality (e.g. handedness) in human biology requires only left-handed amino acids. Even if there were
substantial amounts of non-living amino acids, how would random processes, void of any intelligence or
plan or additional information, combine only left-handed amino acids? Too, it takes proteins to
manufacture DNA, but it takes DNA to help manufacture proteins. One needs the other and thus both had
to form at the same time, according to evolution. Evolution insists that this came about by undirected
chance.
Evolutionary mechanisms had to exist in the first life forms to produce incredibly complex chemical
reactions in time for healing processes before traumatic injuries occurred (in order to stop bleeding,
infection, disease, etc.). Another example is photosynthesis: a mechanism had to exist in plants in order
to convert raw sunlight into chemical energy. Which came first, the chicken (plant) or the egg
(mechanism)?
Information is required for one kind to become another kind. Whatever is needed to function had better
happen FAST before the life form dies. Mechanisms are required to digest and convert raw materials into
energy. Systems must also exist for breathing, blood circulation, nervous connections to transfer
information, waste elimination, and, in general, every other life-supporting system!
Vast gaps between kinds of animals are documented in the fossil record. Evolution requires
intermediate links to bridge such (amoeba-to-man) transitions. Furthermore, evolutionists are at a loss to
satisfactorily explain the "Cambrian explosion." Single cell life is seen in the Precambrian stratum. But in
the next higher Cambrian stratum is filled with highly complex life forms, with no transitional fossils
between the two strata. Of the multi-billion ocean-dwelling fossils, not one invertebrate (e.g. clam) is seen
transforming into a vertebrate (e.g. fish).
The 2nd
law of thermodynamics basically says that order goes to disorder as useful energy dissipates
(increasing entropy). Yet the Big Bang cosmology says just the opposite: disorder becomes orderly.
Evolutionists disregard the fact that it would have been impossible for life to have arisen from non-living
chemicals (abiogenesis) according to both the 2nd
law, as well as the first law of thermodynamics
(conservation of energy). Accordingly, our complex brains came from an invisible, odorless, tasteless,
gas, which originated from . . . nothing!
“Creation science”, then, is a valid term, because ICR scientists use research procedures to evaluate
evidences they find in their various disciplines. The word “creation” in creation science is used to denote a
valid alternative cosmology to that of evolution. ICR uses a model, from which to make predictions about
the causes and construct of our universe and earth. Similarly, evolution has a model from which it makes
its predictions.

6. 6
ICR scientists have observed that evolutionary processes (uniformitarianism) do not coincide with what
science actually says. In short, the present processes do not accurately tell us if such processes were the
same in the past. A major problem in evolution thinking is that the Genesis flood never happened exactly
as described in Genesis (Chps. 6-9). Evolution assumes that present geological processes are constant.
Contrarily, ICR scientists have revealed a number of scientific evidences that indicate a young earth.
Evolutionists who reject any notion of creation science would find out that good science – with an
objective attitude – would reject evolution outright (as seen in Icons of Evolution - Dismantling the Myths).
They would realize all too soon that trying to produce a working mechanism for evolution would be as
successful as trying to nail a fresh pan of Jell-O to the wall. Students intuitively know that a kissed frog
turning into a prince is called a fairy tale. However, when millions of years are added to a frog to produce
a prince, well, this is called science, according to the evolution theory!
Neither creation science nor evolution can be called scientific theories. A scientific theory must be
qualified by the following conditions: The Scientific Method is the approach science uses to gain
knowledge. This method tries to be unbiased and neutral. The Scientific Method involves observation,
inductive and deductive reasoning, hypothesis testing and falsification, and predictive model testing (see
below).
Models
Contrary to anti-creationist’s claims, ICR does not want to exclude either creation or evolution from the
class room. We favor a balanced treatment of both instead. ICR uses a model, from which to make
predictions about the causes and construct of our universe and earth. Similarly, evolution has a model
from which it makes its predictions. These models are discussed in the following ICR article: Summary of
Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I and II).
The model of evolution is predicated on five basic assumptions about its cosmology: vast amounts of (1)
time (billions of years) were necessary for multiple trillions of (2) mutations, which enabled (3) natural
selection to form life from non-life (spontaneous generation) in an undirected course of (4) random
events, otherwise known as chance, (5) no deity or “intelligent design” in forming humans from some
mutating pond scum, from goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo or, in other words, slime over time.
Listed below are some of the most obvious contradictions between the two systems and could be
considerably extended. There is no excuse for theistic evolutionists and other old-earth advocates to
claim that the evolutionary system is compatible with Scripture. Either Scripture contains allegory only, or
evolution is wrong.
Contradictions between Evolution & the Bible:
Evolutionary Order Biblical Order
Life in ocean before land plants Land plants before life in ocean
Simple plants before fruit trees Fruit trees, the first plants
Land animals before flowering plants Flowering plants before animals
Small animals first land life Cattle before creeping things
Dinosaurs evolved into birds Birds before land animals
Land reptiles evolved into plesiosaurs Flying animals before land animals
Land reptiles evolved into pterosaurs Marine animals before land animals
Land mammals evolved into bats Flying animals before land animals
Land mammals evolved into whales Whales before land animals
Death of the unfit produced man Man was the cause of death
It should be noted that at no time should it ever be claimed that creation science is a “scientific” theory.
Nevertheless, its scientists use the scientific method to validate a young age for the earth. Actually,

7. 7
evolutionists have helped discover evidences for a young earth, such as the cellular proteins in dinosaur
fossils.
Changes occur in speciation, caused by environmental conditions and other biological challenges.
However, such (environmental) changes are the result of adaptation (microevolution, if you prefer), which
is determined by available genetic information and not as a result of macroevolution processes. In short,
microevolution will not enable one kind into another kind of higher animal.
The Scientific Method (and major potential problems with it):
ICR scientist Dr. John Baumgardner has the following to say in his article entitled Exploring the
Limitations of the Scientific Method:
Just what are these "standard procedures and criteria" that scientists apply in their attempt to
arrive at an accurate and reliable representation of the world in which we live? Most scientists,
including [Frank Wolfs, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester], boil them down to
the four following essentials:1
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. (In physics, the hypothesis often
takes the form of a mathematical relationship.)
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict other phenomena or to predict quantitatively the results of
new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of
nature. If they do not, the hypothesis must be rejected or modified. As Wolfs explains, "No matter
how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe
that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, 'experiment is
supreme' and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary."1
When Does the Scientific Method Fail?
Are there circumstances in which the scientific method ought to work, but for which the method
does not provide "an accurate representation of the world" – that is, a correct description of the
way things really are? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As Professor Wolfs mentions above,
"personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural
phenomena." If the hypothesis-testing process fails to eliminate most of the personal and cultural
biases of the community of investigators, false hypotheses can survive the testing process and
then be accepted as correct descriptions of the way the world works. This has happened in the
past, and it happens today.
Some of the most glaring examples of this failure of the scientific method today have to do with
the issue of origins. There are two fairly obvious reasons for this: 1) many of the crucial
processes occurred in the past and are difficult to test in the present; and 2) personal biases are
especially strong on topics related to origins because of the wider implications.
EXAMPLE:
As seen at left, scientific understanding begins with observations. Scientists then make a hypothesis to
explain those observations. The hypothesis should make predictions which can be tested via

8. 8
experiments. If the predictions of the hypothesis are verified, it is concluded that the hypothesis is
supported by the scientific data. That conclusion is an observation in-and-of itself, which can form the
basis for further hypotheses, experiments, and conclusions. In this way, scientific knowledge builds upon
itself:
Scientific knowledge is at its heart based upon observations and experiments. Another way of putting it is
that science is based upon empirical data.
What creation scientists have observed is that evolutionary processes (uniformitarianism), according to
Charles Lyell, do not coincide with what science actually says. In short, the present processes do not
accurately tell us if present processes were the same in the past. A major problem in evolution thinking is
that the Genesis flood never happened exactly as described in Genesis (Chps. 6-9). Evolution assumes
that present geological processes formed earth strata. Contrarily, ICR scientists have revealed a number
of scientific evidences that indicate a young earth.
Of course, good science and theology substantially refute. In truth, evolution is a religion. Dr. Henry
Morris says of Michael Ruse in the (free online) ICR booklet The Scientific Case against Evolution,
Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even
acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is
promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity,
with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the
beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
In PBS and "Evolution" - Tax Dollars Diverted for Religious Teaching ICR President, Dr. John Morris
quotes Richard Lewontin, leading evolutionist from Harvard, who said,
We are forced by our a priori adherence to material (i.e., natural, ed.) causes to create an
apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how
counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is
absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (Richard Lewontin, in New York Review
of Books, January 9, 1997.)
There is truth in the statement that the creation theory cannot be a scientific theory because it cannot be
tested. Evolution is not a scientific theory for the same reason: its theory cannot be tested, observed, or
repeated. Both creation science and evolution are faith-based theories that interpret history. Neither
creationists nor evolutionists were there “in the beginning” to see what happened, and they cannot repeat
either process. Both, therefore, interpret history based on how each interprets the present evidence.
Dr. Baumgardner concludes his article above (Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method) by
saying,
In summary, science is a social enterprise. Scientists are human and share the same
weaknesses as all members of the human race. The scientific method fails to yield an accurate
representation of the world, not because of the method, but because of those who are attempting
to apply it. The method fails when scientists themselves, usually collectively, allow their own
biases and personal preferences to short circuit the hypothesis-testing part of the process.

9. 9

10. 10
The Inefficiency of Evolution
Evolutionists have been trying to explain the origin of species without a design – or a Designer – since
1859. The Darwinian macro-evolution theory is just as dismal today. Let good science be taught without
ANY philosophical bias. Let science be inductive, not deductive, and let the student decide! Following are
stated observations for consideration that have been compiled by the writer of this document:
Arguments for evolution may seem plausible to one who has not taken a critical look at the theory.
However, such arguments would be empty, due to a lack of verifiable, scientific evidence.
1. The origin of the species has never been observed (and empirical science requires a great deal
of observation). The supposed “macro” evolutionary process (one distinct kind transitioning into
another distinct kind) would take trillions of mutations in order to evolve a major kind of animal
into another. This is why evolutionists insist on a (current) age of 4.6 billion years for mutational
processes to produce and advance living things on Earth. Note: Trillions of years would not be
enough time for evolutionary processes to bring about any life, according to mathematical
probability see #5 below).
Biogenesis prohibits evolution. This law says that living things come from living things, period.
Life has never been produced from non-living chemicals in a lab. Abiogenesis (life from non-life)
is mathematically impossible. Nevertheless, evolution insists that mutations have accumulated to
derive man from amoeba; in other words, from goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo.
No mutation has resulted in a net increase of usable information. However, a staggering fact
faces evolution: From where does all the information come in order to increase the magnitudes of
complexity in the lowest orders of life? But information in and of itself is not enough; it must be
compatible information. In other words, a mechanism and within a plan must be able to convert
raw information (sunlight for example) into usable information (e.g., nutritious chemicals/energy
by way of photosynthesis).
2. An amoeba needs phenomenal amounts of information for natural selection to do its thing.
Understand that natural selection selects OUT those things that are not useable. In other words,
redundant duplicating systems seek out disrupting mistakes and eliminate, uh, mutations. And
just what produced such complex mechanisms for this genetic security safeguard, not to mention
amino acids, proteins, etc.? It definitely is not the chaotic and random process of evolution!
3. No mechanism for macro-evolution has ever been demonstrated. This MUST happen if evolution
processes are to transcend vertical speciation into new kinds of animal live. However, limited
information within the DNA programming only allow for various species to adapt to the
environment, but never enable that species to transcend into another completely different animal
kind (e.g., amoebas into fish; fish into land animals; land animals into birds, etc.).
4. "Natural selection" in macro-evolution is a myth at best, a hoax at worst. The so-called
mechanism of natural selection was impossible if non-living chemicals existed before life. There
was nothing from which to select, and there was obviously no mechanism to organize the first
living anything. Furthermore, programmed (genetic) informational and mechanisms had to exist in
order to select and manufacture every required amount and kind of chemicals necessary for the
construction of any life forms. Procedural requirements were needed to start and end processes;
what chemicals were needed for the thousands of systems within any body; dependency on
chance and random mutations to combine, produce, and maintain every unplanned organ.
More information on this topic can be found in the article What Is the Difference between
Macroevolution and Microevolution?

11. 11
5. It is a mathematical impossibility that even one strand of highly complex DNA could arise from
random, non-living chemicals. Structurally, DNA is a double helix: two strands of genetic material
spiraled around each other. Each strand contains a sequence of bases (also called nucleotides).
A base is one of four chemicals (adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine). Arranging the
hundreds of bases sequentially to form even one strand of DNA, without mistakes, is beyond the
ability of random chance processes.
6. It is a mathematical impossibility that DNA and/or a single cell, which require only left-handed
amino acids (known as chirality), could form in (non-living) chemicals. Amino acids consist of
equal proportions of both left-handed and right-handed amino acids. Assuming there were
substantial amounts of non-living amino acids, how would random processes void of any
intelligence or plan combine only left-handed amino acids? One right-handed amino acid will
destroy any DNA formation. Consider, too, that it takes proteins to manufacture DNA, but it takes
DNA to help manufacture proteins. One needs the other and thus both had to form at the same
time, according to evolution.
7. Evolutionist Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996) argues that a
complex organism cannot lose any part that would cause its malfunction or death. This becomes
an insurmountable problem to evolution: There are interdependent relationships of many
symbiotically-related parts within any organism - especially organelles in a cell. These parts must
arise at the same time if the organism is to function as a unit. For that matter, any cell needs all of
its components at the same time to function. If the mitochondria (e.g. energy storage units) are
not in the cellular complex, then the cell will cease to function.
8. The infamous evolutionary “tree of life” begins with only one “proto (first) cell,” which, in turn,
would evolve into both animal and plant kinds. Evolutionists know that it is mathematically
impossible for even one cell to be formed by random processes, and thus realize that it would be
"miraculous" to get even one living cell via random processes.
9. Take your pick: reducing atmosphere; non-reducing atmosphere; water. All would kill any attempt
for life to exist in any of these conditions. A reducing atmosphere - no oxygen - would not allow
for the formation of an ozone layer, which is composed of oxygen. Both oxygen and water destroy
DNA. That is why a trap was necessary in Stanley L. Miller’s infamous experiment - which, by the
way, produced deadly tar amino acids, but no life-producing amino acids.
10. Evolutionary mechanisms had to exist in the first life forms to produce healing processes before
any harm befell them (in order to stop bleeding from a puncture, infection, disease, etc.). How
could evolution have prepared for the unknown?
11. The first and second laws of thermodynamics prohibit the existence of the '''Big Bang" and the
development of lower forms into higher forms of life. The second law of thermodynamics, for
example, has to do increasing entropy. Crumbling buildings, rusting cars, and even the universe
itself will all lose energy, regardless if they are in an open or closed system.
12. Vast gaps in the fossil record confront the macro-evolutionary dogma. Intermediate, linking
transitional animals are required to connect one kind of animal into another kind. However, huge
gaps appear between major kinds of animals (e.g. amoeba-to-man). Evolutionists point to a
pitifully small amount of (disputed) transitional fossils as evidence, such as Australopithecus,
Basilosaurus, Archaeopteryx, single/multi-toe horses, etc. However, ALL discovered fossils are
from one animal; not one shows a transition from something into something else.
Furthermore, evolutionists are at a loss to satisfactorily explain the "Cambrian Explosion".
According to the evolutionist timeline, this explosion took place about 640 million years after Earth
formed. Thus, single cell fossils in Precambrian stratum somehow became multicellular, highly

12. 12
complex and totally distinct animals in the succeeding Cambrian stratum. But absolutely NO
transitional and connecting fossils exist between the two strata.
13. No evolution scientist can scientifically explain the origin of matter, the origin of the “Big Bang,”
the origin of evolutionary mechanisms, or the origin of life. In fact, Charles Darwin wrote
absolutely nothing about the origin of any species in his book, The Origin of Species! A.G.
Fisher, contributor to the 2003 Grolier Encyclopedia, says, "Both the origin of life and the origin of
the major groups of animals remain unknown." (Emphasis in original.)
14. If macro-evolution is a scientifically demonstrable and observable fact, then many creation
organizations advocating a young earth would have ceased to exist long ago, if at all.
15. Every creation scientist who has earned a Ph.D. in any science discipline from a recognized
secular university had to fulfill required, scientific standards. Therefore, how can evolutionists
claim that such creation scientists have no scientific credibility?
16. In addition to the above, more arguments against macro-evolution can be found at www.icr.org by
placing the word "fossil," "evolution," "creation," "biology," or other science words into the ICR
search engine.
17. No mention of God or the Bible is needed to refute evolution. Critical thinking and true scientific
methodology in any science classroom are enough to discredit macro-evolution as a scientifically-
valid explanation for the origins of the universe and life. Creation scientists have shown how
macroevolution is scientifically bankrupt. Much of the verifying evidence can be found by doing
the word searches as described in #16 above. Thus, the only answer as to why we exist is a
Creator, specifically, the literal six-day creation account as described in the first chapter of
Genesis.
From Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about design
Bill Dembski [Intelligent Design Movement member], one of the organizers of the Mere Creation conference, has a
Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and an M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary. As a visiting scholar at
Notre Dame, Dembski is investigating the foundations of design. The following remarks are those given after
researching the origins issue and intelligent design:
1. DESIGN DETECTION. If the universe, or some aspect of it, is intelligently designed, how could we
know it? Do reliable methods for detecting design exist? What are they? Are such methods employed in
forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis? Could they conceivably detect design in biological
systems?
2. RELEVANCE OF SETI. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a scientific research
program that searches for signs of non-human intelligence from distant space. Should biologists
likewise search for signs of non-human intelligence in biological systems? Why or why not?
3. BIOLOGY’S INFORMATION PROBLEM. What explains the origin of complex information-rich patterns
in biological systems? Could biological systems exhibit informational patterns that cannot be adequately
explained by natural selection and other material mechanisms? What would such patterns look like?
4. MOLECULAR MACHINES. Can you give examples of structures in the cell that resemble machines
designed by humans? Does the complexity of these molecular machines rival artifactual machines
made by humans? Is there any solid evidence that such machines could have arisen apart from actual
design?
5. IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. Are there complex biological systems whose parts are all indispensable
for the systems to perform their functions? If so, are such “irreducibly complex” systems evidence of
intelligent design? If not, why not?

13. 13
6. REUSABLE PARTS. Human designers reuse designs that work well. Life forms likewise reuse of
structures that work well (the camera eye, for example). Is this evidence for common descent,
evolutionary convergence, common design, or a combination of these? How do we decide among these
options?
7. REVERSE ENGINEERING. In trying to understand biological systems, molecular biologists need to
“reverse engineer” them. In other words, they start with functional biological systems and then use their
knowledge of engineering to determine how the systems could have been designed and built. Is this
evidence that the systems were engineered to begin with?
8. PREDICTIONS. Do intelligent design theory and neo-Darwinian theory make different predictions?
Consider, for instance, junk DNA. For which of the two theories would the idea that large stretches of
DNA are junk be more plausible? Which theory is more likely to look for unknown uses of seemingly
useless biological structures?
9. FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE. What evidence would convince you that intelligent design is true and
that Neo-Darwinism is false? Could such evidence even exist? What would it look like? If no such
evidence exists or indeed can exist, how can Neo-Darwinism be a testable scientific theory?
10. IDENTIFYING THE DESIGNER. Can we determine whether an object is designed without knowing
anything about its designer? If an unidentified intelligence was responsible for designing biological
systems, how could we know it?
Other ICR WEB pages (below) furnish data on evidence for a young universe and Earth (click on the blue
numbers):
Age (Dating, etc.)
• Good overall article Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
• Appearance of age in Bone Disease Simulating Ancient Age in "Pre-Human" Fossils
• Other articles related to dating
Here are several links to articles discussing the statistical problems with life originating spontaneously:
• Probability and Order Versus Evolution (#73)
• Evolution is Biologically Impossible (#317)
• The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order (#37)
• Not According to Hoyle (#138)
Persecution and Bias
It is a given that a secular scientific periodical advocating evolution is not about to present a favorable
view of creation science, let alone allow an article by a creation scientist to enter its publication! How long
is the job of an editor going to last if he/she publishes a (positive) creation science article? Or, what effect
would such a published creation article have on that periodical’s readership? To use a related quote,
Nobel Prize winner Sir Fred Hoyle said,
Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if
you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the
editors will turn it down (Horgan, J., Profile: Fred Hoyle, Scientific American 272(3):24–25, 1995).
The accusations and questions found at anti-creation organizations regarding ICR peer review and
scientific integrity have been directly and indirectly answered many times, an example being ICR founder

14. 14
Dr. Henry Morris’ online booklet entitled Creation and Its Critics. This booklet gives cogent answers to the
most common charges made against creation and its defenders.
Past and Present Creation Scientists
From Over 100 Scientists Who Believed in the Creator we read,
One of the most serious fallacies of modern thought is the widespread notion that Biblical
Christianity is in conflict with true science. In short, genuine scientists cannot believe the Bible.
The scientific method is built on empirical testing of hypotheses, and since creation and other
Biblical doctrines cannot be tested in the laboratory, they are considered nonscientific and must
be taken strictly on faith. Furthermore, it is commonly believed that the Bible contains many
scientific errors. In mainstream secular thinking, a scientist may be able to accept the spiritual
teachings of the Bible if he wishes, but never its scientific and historical teachings.
Such a charge is tragically wrong, however, and has done untold damage. Many creation
scientists have been and are Bible-believing Christians. As a matter of fact, the most discerning
historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern
science had its origins in a culture at least nominally committed to a Biblical basis.
As a matter of fact, authorization for the development of science and technology was
specifically commissioned in God’s primeval mandate to Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26-28). And
many early scientists, especially in England and America, viewed scientific research in just this
way. The study of the world and its processes is best undertaken, as Kepler and other great
scientists have maintained, by “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
Articles can be accessed that present past and present creation scientists. Among them are the following:
• ICR Scientists
• Famous Scientists Who Believed in Creation
• Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net
• Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?
Creation Education
Do sincere creation organizations want to force creation science into public schools to the exclusion of
other cosmologies that differ with them? Such a charge could not be farther from their educational goals.
They exist solely to stress the scientific and theological evidences for a literal Genesis creation and do not
want to force what they believe on anyone. It is up to the school board to choose whether creation
science is to be taught. If any view is "forced" on the youth, it is evolution, with no other scientifically-
supported cosmology allowed into the public school system.
Those, including “old-earth” Christians who accept macro-evolution, regard young earth creationists as
anti-intellectual, narrow-minded religious fanatics. Such views sometimes include charges (and fears) that
we want to teach the Bible in public schools, which is certainly not true. We would not trust secular
teachers to discuss Bible theology accurately and we believe that students learn best when allowed to
compare and discuss various options.
Secular headlines often declare that teaching creation science or intelligent design (ID) will cause
students to enter into a scientific dark age and become scientifically ignorant. Religion will reign and the
“fundamentalist” Christian dictates turn America into a Taliban society. This is sheer propaganda used to
distort the truth and subjugate the uneducated to conform to the evolutionary dogma.

15. 15
In truth, creation organizations desire that good science be taught in public and other evolution-centered
schools. Good science should be able to verify either creation science or evolution. Both are faith-based
theories, since both seek to interpret history, and cannot repeat the origins of either cosmogony. Both
sides look at the same evidences, but interpret them from biased views (e.g. God or no God).
Good science should be able to examine the cosmological theories that propose how the universe and life
began and how life developed. Because of the lack of scientific verification, many theological cosmologies
would be excluded from credible discussions on origins; their adherents simply cannot provide those
scientific evidences that would verify their respective theories.
Such a requirement begs the question as to whether the evolution-based cosmological model is scientific
or religious in nature. It cannot be observed (too slow), repeated (in the past), or tested. It can, however,
be falsified; major scientific laws and evidences refute it. Biogenesis, probability, chirality (only left-handed
amino acids used in our bodies), the fossil record, irreducible complexity, and information limitation
(amoeba to higher forms) are only a few challenges to evolution. It takes a tremendous amount of faith to
accept evolution without required evidences. For this reason, ICR founder, Dr. Henry Morris, has
concluded that Evolution Is Religion – Not Science.
By the way, Intelligent Design (ID), contrary to popular belief, is not a Christian creation organization. Its
members, for the most part, are a group of non-Christians who found major inadequacies in evolution to
explain the origin and complexity in life forms. Although the ID efforts to expose the inadequacies of
Darwinian Evolution are commendable, nevertheless they are not to be considered in the Genesis
creation camp. Simply put, Intelligent Design advocates design, not a Designer. Their relationship with
young earth advocates is best explained by the following information:
Design Is Not Enough!
The Design Revelation
The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design
"Natural" Selection versus "Supernatural" Design
Overall, creation scientists are not concerned about having all the answers to creation questions; they
believe that all science is God’s science. Thus, good science will reveal the Creator (Romans 1:20). They
do not need to prove that God exists. All things we examine through telescopes or microscopes reveal
that a Creator indeed exists.
Benefits
In truth, creation scientists and evolution scientists must use scientific methods in the present in their
respective scientific research projects. It is how the results are interpreted that has been used to
persuade people regarding a particular philosophical viewpoint. However, Christianity is not a religion
but a Person, namely Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Creator (see first chapters of John, Colossians, and
Hebrews). And, as the Creator, Jesus put in place all scientific laws, which all scientists must use in all
research.
Good science does not depend on evolution, because evolution is a religion and not science. ICR, the
preeminent creation research organization, has continually provided solid scientific evidence for a young
world. It has documented that there is no scientific evidence that supports evolution. A good article on the
comparison of creation science and evolution is the Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation.
Therefore, technological advancement is enabled by scientists applying good science to their research.
They do not, for example, say, “Now how would evolution or religion do this?”
However, it can be argued from history that, when scientific studies have been used to reveal the Biblical
Creator and His purpose, many benefits for society have followed. For example, belief in creation science
has caused many to fathom God’s Person and work in what He has made, according to Romans 1:20,

16. 16
which says, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.”
Scientists who have used good science have produced many technologies that have created many jobs.
Among them are those that have advanced medical benefits that have benefitted virtually all humans (as
well as animals in veterinary clinics). And many medical products have cured diseases and curtailed
expenses for those needing medical assistance, diabetes, smallpox, and polio being examples.
In a topic related to medical benefits, ICR research has convinced thousands of individuals to accept the
truth that they are not merely animals with a hopeless existence. Because of creation organizations like
ICR, multitudes have come to understand Who their Creator is and have a clear knowledge about their
eternal destinies.
Those having accepted God’s prescription for their sinful condition, i.e. the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:3-4),
have found that the Great Physician (Jesus Christ) has taken away a lot of stress. Thus, many people no
longer need to spend money for prescriptions for stress-related drugs and therapy for psychotic disorders,
including guilt, various phobias, and nervous conditions.
Reducing of stress-related “patients” has resulted in huge benefits in the business world; prominent
among them are business execs who have Christian employees who have reduced days lost because of
psychosomatic-caused illnesses. How much reduction in health insurance premiums would result if all
employees were Christians? And let’s face it; no one enjoys listening to those who continually sing never-
ending strains of woe-is-me and share their worry-plagued lives. That could make you sick!
The physiological wellbeing of humans was a major topic by a medical doctor in his ICR article entitled Fit
& Function: Design in Nature. In it, Dr. Randy J. Guliuzza says,
It's no surprise that psychological research shows that creation-based thinking comes naturally,
while evolutionary thinking is not natural. This is an integral trait of every human—and it is never
going away. When believers see the underlying attributes of design, they can communicate that
to others to help them understand that what they see in nature was, in fact, designed.
He says further on,
Research shows that humans are naturally compelled to seek explanations of purpose, with
"pleasure" areas in the brain being rewarded when it is discovered, but are left feeling frustrated
when explanations are elusive. The process of discovering purpose is captivating and emotionally
stimulating, similar to the experience of unwrapping a present [my emphasis].
The word “reality” can be substituted for present. To recognize the design in complex systems and accept
that the Designer is none other than Jesus Christ has brought about great peace to millions seeking
explanations to key questions, including Who am I?, Where did I come from?, What is my purpose in life?,
and What happens to me after death? The Apostle Thomas was given a concise answer to these
questions: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but
by me.” Jesus emphatically declares that He IS the way, truth, and the life; there is no alternative to the
declarations of Jesus.
A good definition of reality has been given thusly: Reality is when you face it. And when millions are given
the truth about their sin condition and their need to receive Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, they
make excuses as to why they cannot—or do not—want that solution to remedy their greatest need in life:
total forgiveness of sin and a guaranteed entrance into Heaven immediately after death. They ultimately
do not want to face the reality that Jesus Christ is God and will judge all unforgiven sinners.
Contrarily, public schools are teaching an evolutionary worldview to students, including future pastors.
And many students become teachers, professors, and pastors who, in many cases, teach their own
children, students, and congregations that humans evolved from apelike creatures. In other words, their

17. 17
message is that we came from goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo. And in so doing, millions go through life
ignorant of the Reality they have come to think of as historic figure who, after all, was just a man.
Is it any wonder why so many have a poor image of themselves, not to mention a philosophical outlook
that predicts a hopeless future? A slime-over-time evaluation of one’s history does not bring forth self-
worth, especially when one cannot compete with those who have better looks, a healthier and stronger
body, placement in a culturally-superior environment, or a large bank account. Combinations of poor self-
images, extremely difficult problems, and hopeless futures have no doubt contributed towards many
suicides.
But the bright lining to such a bleak outlook on life is the transitional truth that there is indeed a biblical
God who loves them and has accomplished everything necessary for them to become His children,
experience His security, and have a permanent home in Heaven after death.
The Creator has called on every Christian to present His gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) to those who do
not know Him personally or His promised free gift of salvation. Those who believe the gospel message
from those who are unashamed to present it (Romans 1:16) will be able to say as Paul did in 2 Timothy
1:12b, “for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have
committed unto him against that day.”
Morality
One of the greatest evils that creations are combating is the immorality caused by evolution. For example,
a pertinent article can be found in the article entitled, Morals Decline Linked to Belief in Evolution, from
one creation organization. (NOTE: You may be sent to an introduction by the website’s CEO. To skip this,
just exit from the website and click on the link again.) Thus, we read in part,
For years, many people have scoffed at any suggestion that the evils in society could be
linked with the teaching of the theory of evolution. But new research has confirmed what
Bible believers have known all along that the rising acceptance of Darwin’s theory is related
to declining morality in the community.
The research survey of 1535 people, conducted by the Australian National University,
revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness. Darwin himself
apparently feared that belief in evolution by the common man would lead to social decay.
The survey showed that people who believed in evolution were more likely to be in favour of
premarital sex than those who rejected Darwin’s theory. Another issue which highlighted the
contrast between the effect of evolutionary ideas and that of biblical principles was that
Darwinians were reported to be ‘especially tolerant’ of abortion. In identifying the primary
factors determining these differences in community attitudes, the author of the research
report, Dr. Jonathan Kelley, said: ‘The single most important influence after church
attendance is the theory of evolution.’
Creationist, David Catchpoole, adds to the above thoughts in his article, How to build a bomb in the public
school system. (NOTE: You may be sent to an introduction by the website’s CEO. To skip this, just exit
from the website and click on the link again.)
How could they shoot and kill their fellow students? That was the question asked following the
shooting deaths of 15 people at Columbine High School in Colorado, USA, last April [1999]. Why
would young people kill, destroy and bomb in a suicide attack? Their clothes may give a clue to
the thinking of these teenage murderers. The autopsy report for one of the killers documents that
on the day of the tragedy he was wearing black combat boots, a black glove on his right hand,
and a white T-shirt with the inscription ‘Natural Selection’ on the front.

18. 18
Answers in Genesis (AIG) published an article entitled, “Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary
Worldview” (by Dr. Georgia Purdom and Dr. Jason Lisle on May 13, 2009). In the section, The
Foundation of Morality, we read,
Even though most people do not acknowledge it, the morality and rules that most humans adhere
to have their basis in the Bible, specifically in the literal history of Genesis. The Bible claims to be
the revealed Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) and that the biblical God is the ultimate
authority and foundation for knowledge (Hebrews 6:13; Proverbs 1:7, 2:6; Colossians 2:3). The
Bible tells us that God is the Creator of all things and, therefore, all things belong to Him (Genesis
1:1; Psalm 24:1). Thus, God as the Creator has the right to define absolute standards of
behavior.
•••
In fact, many evolutionists are quite clear that evolution does not provide a basis for morality.
William Provine, evolutionist and biology professor at Cornell University, states in referring to the
implications of Darwinism, “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life
exists, and free will is merely a human myth.2
Thus, if evolution is true, then there can be no
universal moral code that all people should adhere to.
And Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, evolutionist and physics professor at the University of
Texas, states, “I think that part of the historical mission of science has been to teach us that we
are not the playthings of supernatural intervention, that we can make our own way in the
universe, and that we have to find our own sense of morality.” Again, if morality is determined by
our own sense, then a universal moral code that all people should follow cannot be justified. [My
note: See also Dr. Lisle’s related article entitled, Evolution and the Challenge of Morality.]
Therefore, a primary goal of creation science is to educate educators and those who seek objective
scientific evidence for the meaning of life. They are not products of random processes. Nor should believe
(and behave) as mere animals in a culture dominated by those who dictate the dogmas of evolution to
them. Good science must be taught and evolution critically examined and exposed as a religion.
Theological Viewpoints
Of utmost importance is this: the stand one takes for a young or old earth position has no bearing on
gaining personal salvation and entrance into the Creator’s Heaven; salvation is determined by what one
does with the Lord God, Jesus Christ. It is heretical to teach that one must accept a young earth position
in order to be saved.
Can we and should we be accurate about literal 24 hour creations days? The answer is ‘yes’. God has
given man unique languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) and scientific rules in interpretation
(hermeneutics) to know the exact meanings regarding theology, historical events, and science within
Scripture.
Actually, God’s definition for a day is given in Genesis 1:5 (with my emphasis), “And God called the light Day,
and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Without deviation,
every time an ordinal number (e.g. first, second, third, etc.) is connected to “day,” a literal day is to be
understood. The sun is not necessary; the day/evening cycles (as the earth turned in its twenty-four hour
rotation period) are exactly the same as for the rest of the week, as the context of Exodus 20:11 will verify.
The Hebrew language – in the context of Genesis – does not allow for anything but a literal interpretation.
The highly scientific application of rules in interpretation (hermeneutics) prohibits long ages. If one cannot
understand “day,” how does one know the meaning any other word in Scripture? To do so, Christians
must compromise the integrity of God when it is believed that God used evolution. Even evolutionists
know this:

19. 19
Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural history may be like, He
is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about His
productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of Galápagos is
careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of god to whom
anyone would be inclined to pray (Hull, David L., “The God of the Galápagos,” review of Darwin
on Trial, by Philip Johnson (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991, 195 pp.), Nature, vol.
352 (August 8, 1991), p. 486. Hull is in the Department of Philosophy, Northwestern University.1
)
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution,
because 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!
(Bozarth, G. Richard, "The Meaning of Evolution," American Atheist (February 1978), page 30.1
)
1
Quotes are taken from Dr. Henry M. Morris' book, That Their Words May Be Used against Them.
Every time an ordinal number (e.g., first, second, third, etc.) is connected to a day/s (Heb. yom, yomim),
“day” is always to be understood as a solar day (the first three days having the “light” on the first day to
illuminate a rotating earth for twenty-four hours). To have the definite boundaries “evening and morning”,
as used in the first six Genesis creation days, clearly establishes that everything was created within seven
literal days. The fourth commandment in Exodus 20:11, etched in stone, declares, “For in six days the
LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the
LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Thus, the creation week consisted of seven literal days,
with absolutely no provision of long ages between each day.
ICR President Dr. John Morris says the following in his article entitled When Is a Day Not a Day?
In Genesis chapter one, God apparently went out of His way to make sure we didn't
misunderstand, for He defined yom the first time He used it. On Day One, after creating the
heavens and the earth, God created light (v.3), and "God divided the light from the darkness"
(v.4). This light/dark cycle was further identified when "God called the light Day [yom], and the
darkness He called Night" (v.5). Throughout the rest of the passage He uses the term for the First
Day through the Seventh Day.
The door to misinterpretation is closed in Exodus 20:11, where God wrote in stone some things
He really didn't want us to misinterpret. The fourth of the Ten Commandments concerns our work
week, where we are commanded to work six days and rest on the seventh, "For in six days the
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day." Same
word, yom, same context, same modifiers, same tablet of stone, same Author, same finger which
wrote it. If words have meaning, then God created in six days just like our days. His work of
creation becomes the pattern for our work week.
"Day" can mean a period of time when the context demands, but in the creation account "day"
means a real "day." Christians need to allow the unchangeable Scripture to define its own terms
and not rely on the temporal musings of men.
God did not try to fake us out by making Earth with appearance of age. Adam sinned, which reaped the
consequence of God’s curse upon humans and the Earth. Catastrophic processes reshaped the Earth’s
geology and geography. It is the evolutionist interpretation of the geological formations (uniformitarianism)
that has caused many to think in terms of slowly accumulated strata. Thus, another declaration presents
itself: It is the evolutionists’ interpretation of Earth’s geology that is faking out millions and brainwashing
them with the belief that there is no God.

20. 20
Theologians compromised Scripture when they panicked at the published Origin of the Species (1859), by
Charles Darwin. Not wanting to look foolish in a scientific world, they spliced millions and billions of years
into the Genesis creation. Thus, these compromising theologians insert long ages into the Genesis
creation week. They mislead their congregations and teach the Gap Theory, Day-age Theory,
Progressive Creation, Theistic Evolution, as viable cosmologies.
Crevolutionists (i.e., Christians who believe in evolutionary processes) would do well to study the scientific
method used to interpret Scripture, namely hermeneutics. They would discover, when it comes to the
study of the word, “day,” the definition of “day” may have different meanings according to the context in
which the word “day” is placed. The context and figures of speech are often overlooked when considering
the meaning of Scripture. When it comes to the Genesis creation account, “day” must be interpreted as a
literal, twenty-four hour, solar day.
There are only two choices for origins. The first possibility is that God created the earth, the universe, and
all of life without any form of evolution (for many scientific and theological reasons). As stated above,
many Christians interpret the Genesis creation as a metaphorical or allegorical story. Others insert long
ages into the Genesis creation week by way of the Gap Theory, Day-age Theory, Progressive Creation,
Theistic Evolution,, and often believe that our universe was caused by the Big Bang.
The second possibility is that the earth, the universe, and all of life developed over time by chance from
nothing. Every non-Biblical cosmogony based on evolution and its uniformitarianism processes are devoid
of scientific evidences to validate them. As noted above, there are many science evidences for a young
world. As another example against evolution is found in ICR founder Dr. Henry Morris’ article, Probability
and Order Versus Evolution:
It is clear by beyond any rational argument that chance processes could never have produced
even the simplest forms of life in the first place. Without a living God to create life, the laws of
probability and complexity prove beyond doubt that life could never come into existence at all.
So, why such an uproar about this non-salvation related topic? The answer is simple: the Person and
work of Jesus Christ. As the Word of God and Creator (John 1:1-3), Jesus authored the Bible, the
essence of how one can know with certainty that salvation from all sins can be granted as a free gift
without any works, and that entrance into heaven takes place immediately after death for the true believer
(1 Cor. 15:2-3; Rom. 10:9-10; John 1:12; Eph. 2:8-9; 1 Jn. 5:11-13). In short, Jesus Christ, the second
Person in the Trinity (before He became “Jesus” when He became the Incarnate God) is the Creator of
Genesis 1:1 and in Colossians 1:16.
To the point: if God used progressive creation, theistic evolution, day-age or Gap theories, or any other
cosmology that incorporates long ages, then God will be made to be anything but the God of truth and
love as is portrayed in Scripture.
Theological Reasons that Prevent God from Using any Form of Evolution
1. Evolution could not be used by God by its own definition, which is comprised of essentially time (fifteen
billion years), random combinations, and mutations by way of natural selection. The Biblical God is not
a God of chance or confusion, nor the God of "survival of the fittest." Furthermore, such a process
would conflict with the Biblical gospel of salvation, as is seen in the following articles: Gospel of
Creation-Anti-Gospel of Evolution and Creation is the Foundation. In the later Impact article Dr. Morris
says (with my bold emphasis),
It is high time that people in general, and Bible-believing Christians in particular, recognize the
foundational significance of special creation. Creation is not merely a religious doctrine of only
peripheral importance, as many people (even many evangelical Christians) seem to assume.

21. 21
Rather, it is the basis of all true science, of true Americanism, and of true Christianity.
Evolutionism, on the other hand, is actually a pseudo-science masquerading as science. As
such, it has been acclaimed as the "scientific" foundation of atheism, humanism, communism,
fascism, imperialism, racism, laissez-faire capitalism, and a variety of cultic, ethnic and so-
called liberal religions, by the respective founders and advocates of these systems. The
creation/evolution issue is, in a very real sense, the most fundamental issue of all....
Many Christians, who either ignore or compromise the Biblical doctrine of creation,
have urged creationists just to "preach the Gospel-not creation!" But this is impossible,
because the saving Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is squarely founded on creation.
The wonderful threefold work of Christ (creation, conservation, consummation) as
outlined in Colossians 1:16-20, is identified as "the gospel" in Colossians 1:23. The very
last reference to the Gospel in the Bible (Rev. 14:6, 7) calls it the everlasting Gospel
(thus, it could never have been any different) and its message is to "worship Him that
made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
While it is surely true that the central focus of the Gospel is on the substitutionary atonement
and victorious bodily resurrection of Christ (I Cor. 15:1-4), it also includes His coming kingdom
(Matt. 4:23) and His great creation. Any other gospel is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6) and is not
the true gospel. Without the creation, a supposed gospel would have no foundation; without the
promised consummation, it offers no hope; without the cross and empty tomb, it has no saving
power. But when we preach the true Gospel, with the complete Person and Work of the Lord
Jesus Christ as they really are, we build on a "sure foundation," can promise a "blessed hope,"
and have available "all power in heaven and earth" through Christ who, in all His fullness, is
"with us, even to the end of the world" (Matt. 28:20).
2. What kind of God would evolve animals to the point of apes, and then form humans from "the dust of
the earth, not from monkeys, according to the second chapter of Genesis? It must be remembered
that God created both apes/monkeys AND man on the sixth day.
3. Any theory of spontaneous life or abiogenesis (life from non-living chemicals) evolution begins with
the first cell. This “Proto-cell” became the progenitor of both plant and animal life. Thus, for the
biblical God to use evolutionary processes in any theory (Gap Theory, Day-age Theory, Progressive
Creation, Theistic Evolution, etc.) would contradict His Word. That is, if all living systems began with
one cell, then the independent “kinds” of life made on various days could not have been made
according to the Genesis narrative. Examples would be plants on the third day (before the sun);
aquatic and birds on the fourth day; Mankind and dinosaurs, and all other land creatures on the sixth
day. (Note that humans did not evolve from apes and dinosaurs did not evolve into birds, since birds
were made on the previous day.) In short, ALL life began on the first day according to any theory of
evolution.
4 Perhaps the greatest reason against God's use of evolution is that death would have existed before
Adam's sin (Romans 5:12; Genesis 2:15-17). Thus, millions of years of evolutionary animal death
would have occurred, "survival of the fittest" being the rule for life. God's pronouncement to Adam,
that death would result should the forbidden fruit be eaten, would be meaningless.
If there was no "original sin,” then what was the purpose of Christ’s death? There would be no "death"
to defeat (1 Corinthians 15: 54 - 56). And, how could God call death "good," according to the Genesis
account (Gen. 1:31 - 2:3)? Scripture actually presents death as a punishment and penalty, and never
used for good (cf. Genesis 2:15-17; Romans 5:12). Furthermore, Paul says, “The last enemy that
shall be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:26; emphasis mine). The Impact article, Death Before
Sin? stresses the importance of Biblical creation.

22. 22
There is no reason for biblical creationists to fear truth. God is truth (John 14:6), and God's Son,
Jesus Christ, was the Word Who created all things (John 1; Phil. 2; Col. 1; Heb. 1) in six literal
days (Gen 1; Ex. 20:11). Would to God that all Christians would accept the literal Genesis creation
account, so that the religion of evolution will not mislead humans to believe they are mere animals
or are the product of death and struggle for life (devised by God) over many millennia.
Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, what Jesus taught His disciples about creation was that God created everything in six literal
days (Ex. 20:11), since He is God, the Creator, "the Word of God" (John 1:1-3), Who cannot lie or alter
the truth of any Scriptural doctrine (John 14:6). The true gospel of Jesus Christ must have the foundation
of a literal Genesis creation. Keep in mind, as Dr. Henry Morris notes in Bible-Believing Scientists of the
Past,
[They] believed that God had supernaturally created all things, each with its own complex
structure for its own unique purpose. They believed that, as scientists, they were "thinking God's
thoughts after Him," learning to understand and control the laws and processes of nature for
God's glory and man's good. They believed and practiced science in exactly the same way that
modern creationist scientists do.
It is fitting that Dr. Morris, in his article Evolution Is Religion--Not Science should provide the conclusion of
this brief reply to the evolutionist/atheist accusations against the Creator:
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why they are so
adamantly committed to anti-creationism? The fact is that [non-Christian] evolutionists believe in
evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything
without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it
humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but
they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the
purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its
components, including man.
Related articles:
The Principles of Creationism
Ten Misconceptions about the Geologic Column (excellent)
Evidence for a Young World
Evolution is Biologically Impossible
The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order
Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy
Not According to Hoyle
Good overall article Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)
The Scientific Case Against Evolution – a free online booklet by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Is God an Evolutionist?
The Gospel of Creation and the Anti-Gospel of Evolution
Things You May Not Know About Evolution
The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins
Evolution and the Bible
Can Order Come Out Of Chaos?
The Anti-Creationists
Creation and its Critics: Answers to Common Questions and Criticisms on the Creation Movement by
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

23. 23
The above information is meant to help you better understand the differences between creation science
and evolution. As was evidenced, the philosophy of evolution has caused serious devastation in moral
and ethical standards; it has also contributed heavily to devaluing one’s life by those who have accepted
the philosophy of evolution.
I hope that the above information has also help to clarify the meaning of the literal creation week by our
Creator. The Creator is indeed Jesus Christ. My overall objective has been to better acquaint Christians
and non-Christians with Him and have confidence in what He has to say about His acceptance of any and
all that have come to realize their need for complete forgiveness of all sins against God.
No better Scripture can be found that gives such assurance that all can KNOW they will enter Heaven
IMMEDIATELY after death than in 1 John 5:13 (with my emphasis):
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the
Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and
that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
Your servant in Christ Jesus,
Bruce Wood, BA, BS, MA – Theological Studies (Northwest Baptist Seminary)
Theolog Creation Ministries
Primary email: brucewood65@gmail.com
Cell Phone: (530) 215 – 5961