Creation Evidence

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©1999

Is there actually evidence for the Creation theory? If so, why do so many scientists reject it? Drs. Ankerberg and Weldon examine why Creation is actually a better theory.

Creation Evidence

Creationist Dr. Duane Gish has actually debated leading evolutionists some 300 times and almost always won.^[1] Creationist Dr. Henry Morris has spoken to some 30,000 audi­ences and never heard an evolutionist respondent offer convincing evidence for evolution.^[2] The hundreds of scientists with the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and other creationist organizations (there are well over 100) have read literally thousands of evolutionary books and articles. They conclude there is little or no genuine evidence for the validity of evolution. In essence, the reason most people continue to believe in evolution is because of personal bias or because they are misinformed about the evidence against it.^[3]

Scientists may choose not to listen to creationists. However, we don’t see how any scientist can logically deny the conclusions given by W. R. Bird in his critique of evolution and presentation of the scientific evidence for abrupt appearance, or creation. He shows that of six scientific approaches to macro-evolution (besides the theory of abrupt appear­ance), classical Darwinism must be considered wrong on key issues; that neo-Darwinism and punctuated equilibria cancel each other out by denying the relevance of the other’s mechanism; and that the other three approaches are anti-Darwinian, with one opposing it and a second being agnostic toward macroevolution.^[4]

In essence, all theories of evolution, whether Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, punctuated equilibria, or non-Darwinian, should now be considered dead despite their continuing popu­larity in the scientific world. The obituary has already been written due to the latest scientific discoveries and the failure of 150 years of scientific advancement to confirm evolution. Obviously then, something like theistic evolution would also be dead.

We emphasize again that the evidence of neither paleontology; phylogeny; taxonomy or classification, comparative anatomy; comparative embryology; comparative biochemis­try, population genetics, artificial selection, biogeographical distribution, cytology; nor any other area offers real evidence for evolution.45

Only Two Options?

Sometimes, it is claimed there are many different legitimate origin theories. But this is not ultimately true. Native American, Hindu, Muslim, Aztec, etc., have creation accounts that are either myths or have no scientific validity. Scientifically the only real alternatives are creation or evolution. Thus, we think that to effectively disprove evolution is to effec­tively prove creation. And we are not alone in limiting our choices this way.

In a recent anti-creationist book, the evolutionist Futuyma writes, “Creation and evolu­tion, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things.”^[5] George Wald, a Nobel Prize winner says that between spontaneous generation and a single primary act of supernatural creation, “There is no third position….”^[6]

Bird cites other evolutionists as admitting the same: O’Grady (“It [neo-Darwinism] has long been perceived as the only legitimate theory of evolution, and thus the only alternative to creationism.”); H. Newman (“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and com­pletely refuted idea of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”); D. Watson (“The only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”);J. Teller (“The concept of development was accordingly untrue, and special creation remained the only valid interpretation.”); R. Jastrow (“Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously….”); M. Simpson (“If life was not created supernaturally, and if it did not simply develop from pre-existent ‘seeds’ present from the creation of the universe [whenever that was], life must have come forth from nonliving matter.”); Alexander (“Indeed, at this moment creation is the only alternative to evolution.”); P. Davis and E. Solomon (“Such explanations tend to fall into one or the other of two broad categories: special creation or evolution. Various admixtures and modifi­cations of these two concepts exist, but it seems impossible to imagine an explanation for origins that lies completely outside the two ideas.”^[7]

Thus, it is not surprising that some evolutionists will accept the fact, that, as Miller and Fowler state, “a case against creation is a case for evolution and vice versa.”^[8] And evolu­tionist Naylor agrees that “Evidence in favor of one is necessarily against the other. “^[9]

From the perspective of chosen worldview options, only evolution or creation have the capacity to logically attract men’s minds. Pantheism and related theories lie outside the realm of science and are self-refuting or disproven by modern science; directed pansper­mia theories are evolution in disguise and only push the problem back further; theistic evolution is scientifically and biblically impossible; and other theories have serious or fatal problems as well. So, if evolution is disproved, creation is our only option. The remaining chapters in our book will disprove evolution, leaving creation the best choice. Perhaps then it should surprise no one that even a number of evolutionists have publicly declared that creation is the better theory.

Creation the Better Theory?

Evolutionary scientists generally claim that “No competent scientist believes in cre­ation.” But even some evolutionary scientists agree that the theory of special creation better fits the actual scientific data. Many more examples could be cited; the ones given are only for purposes of illustration. Our point is to show that evolutionists cannot be correct when they claim no serious scientist accepts creation or that creation is a useless religious theory without a shred of scientific evidence for it. If this were true other evolutionists could never claim that creation is the better scientific theory.

Of course, virtually all of the thousands of scientists who are creationists believe that whatever scientific field one is referring to, the actual scientific facts fit creation far better than evolution^[10]:

The true sciences of astronomy, physics, chemistry; biology; and especially thermodynamics, all give strong witness to the primeval special creation of all things, whereas the sciences of geophysics, geology; paleontology, and others similarly give clear testimony to the great Deluge. The fossil record, in particular, commonly alleged to provide the strongest evidence of evolution and the geological ages, instead can be understood much better in the framework of the Flood…. There is no scientific evidence for evolution that is not at least as well explained by creation, and there are now thousands of modern scientists who have abandoned evolution and become creationists.^[11]

Below we cite representative statements of evolutionary scientists who are frank enough to admit that special creation is the better theory in whole or part. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, most scientists wrongly assume evolution has been proven in other fields and that their field of specialty is the only one with difficulties. For example, the botanist E. J. H. Comer of Cambridge University believes that evidence for evolution exists in certain other fields, although he admits to difficulty in finding evidence for evolution in his own field:

Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution—from biology; biogeography and paleontology but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. . . . Can you imagine how an orchid, a duck weed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry; and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer; but I think that most would break down before an inquisition.”^[12]

In fact, as we will indicate in our remaining chapters, every field is fraught with difficul­ties. Those who recognize this are more open to considering creation.

Writing in the Physics Bulletin (Volume 31, No. 4, May 1980, 138), H. S. Lipson at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology and a Fellow of the Royal Society states: “I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for ex­ample). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last 30 years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do.” He further states, “In the last 30 years we have learned a great deal about life processes (still a minute part of what there is to know!) and it seems to me to be only fair to see how the theory of evolution accommo­dates the new evidence. This is what we should demand of a purely physical theory. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all. I shall take only one example—breathing.” And he proceeds to show how one cannot account for breathing on evolutionary assumptions. After further discussion, he asks, “How has living matter originated?” and concludes: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable expla­nation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”^[13] It is refreshing indeed to read such words. Without a few such statements like this one might think that truly open-minded evolutionists were themselves an extinct species.

In his Biology, Zoology, and Genetics: Evolution Model Versus Creation Model 2, A. Thompson observes (1983, 76), “Rather than supporting evolution, the breaks in the known fossil record support the creation of major groups with the possibility of some limited varia­tion within each group.”^[14]

Dr. Austin Clark, the curator of paleontology at the Smithsonian Institution observed in “Animal Evolution:” “Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument.”^[15] In the area of comparative biochemistry, Bird observes, “This comparative unrelatedness argument is an affirmative evidence for the theory of abrupt appearance, as not just Denton and Sermonti but Zihlman and Lowenstein acknowledge in reference to the comparative biochemistry evidence, saying that ‘this constitutes a kind of “special creation” hypothesis.’”^[16]

These citations and others reveal that some evolutionary scientists are frank enough to admit the theory of creation is in whole or part superior to the theory of evolution. In fact, the scientific evidence is so conclusive against evolution and for creation one is finally amazed that the idea of evolution so thoroughly dominates modern science. As noted, the reasons are not scientific. Were they scientific, virtually all scientists would be creation­ists—as the vast majority were in preceding centuries. Even such eminent scientists as Sir Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, his research partner, in discussing the “theory that life was assembled by an [higher] intelligence” state, “Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific. “^[17]

The remainder of this book will be devoted to showing why the evidence for evolution is lacking—and why it will never be forthcoming. We will show the scientific basis for the increasing dissatisfaction with evolution even among many evolutionary scientists. This is why creationists make statements like the following by leading Canadian medical specialist Evan Shute, M.D., author of Flaws in the Theory of Evolution: “Evolution will be a lost cause as soon as people hear all the evidence and not just the noise made by its propo­nents.”^[18]

And “the fall of Darwinism will be the big story of the early 21st century…” states noted U.C. at Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.^[19]

Notes

1. ↑ Gish, Creation Scientists Answer, p. ix.
2. ↑ See Note to the Reader. Dr. Morris may be contacted at the Santee, CA Institute for Creation Research in confirmation.
3. ↑ See the discussion in chs. 7, 8 of Darwin’s Leap of Faith.
4. ↑ Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 486.
5. ↑ D. Futuyama, Science on Trial (1983), p.198 in Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 2, p.167.
6. ↑ George Wald, “The Origin of Life” in Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p.3 in Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol.2, p.167.
7. ↑ Original references cited in Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol.2, pp.172-73.
8. ↑ In ibid., p.168.
9. ↑ Ibid.
10. ↑ Henry Morris, Long War, p.32.
11. ↑ Henry M. Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, Ml: Baker, 1984), pp. 130-31.
12. ↑ E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contempo­rary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.
13. ↑ H. S. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31 (1980), p.138.
14. ↑ A. Thompson, Biology; Zoology and Genetics: Evolution Model vs. Creation Model (1983), p.76 cited in Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol.1, p.49; Thompson does not regard the creation theory as scientific.
15. ↑ Austin Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, p. 539, cf., p.523 in Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol.1, p.50.
16. ↑ Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 102.
17. ↑ Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 130 in Bird, Origin… Revisited, Vol. 1, p. 82.
18. ↑ Evan V. Shute, “Evolution in the Glare of New Knowledge,” The Summary, Dec.1969, p.2.
19. ↑ Phillip E. Johnson, “Controversy;” Commentary; September 1996, p.22.