Evidence supports creationist position

Of My World View

It’s taught all over the world as scientific fact, but under examination, the evidence actually refutes neo-Darwinian evolution. As scientific knowledge of the history of life mounts, facts contradicting evolution are becoming more difficult to ignore, but that is exactly what is happening. Major problems for the theory of evolution exists, but rather than expose students to the difficulties, textbooks include only the relatively scant evidence that seems supportive of evolution.

Students are told that life began when the right combination of elements formed the first living, single-celled organism. This notion survives as "scientific" despite the complete absence of empirical support and though the process is extremely defiant of the odds. The late Sir Fred Hoyle, a famous mathematician and astronomer, calculated that the odds of obtaining the required set of enzymes for the simplest living cell was one in 10 to the power of 40,000. This number is startling when compared to 10 to the 80th power, which represents the number of atoms in the universe. All the evidence derived by scientific method defies a naturalistic theory of the origin of life. It is a pure faith position.

The fundamental claims of evolution concerning origins sometimes have no evidential support in textbooks. Other times, evidence is cited which could be used just as well by creationists to support their theory.

Students believe that the fossil record proves evolution to be true; however, the observable evidence refutes the theory. For that reason, the problems with the fossil record are omitted from instructional materials. This is exactly the opposite of what we expect from the scientific community.

According to the evolution model, all species have emerged from a common ancestor over billions of years. The change from bacteria to jellyfish, for example, requires numerous intermediate forms of life. The fossil evidence records lots of bacteria and many jellyfish, but no intermediate life forms between the two species.

The absence of intermediate life forms in the fossil record is called "gaps," and it’s no secret among paleontologists that the gaps are huge. Not one transitional form has been found that clearly shows a link between: single-celled organisms and invertebrates, invertebrates and vertebrates, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds or mammals, and "lower"mammals and primates.

Leading evolutionists confirm these claims, but we shouldn’t expect to hear the following quotes in science classes. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, when asked why he left transitional fossil forms out of his book, replied, "If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

The late Stephen J. Gould, an evolutionary biologist, wrote, "The absence of fossil evidence for the intermediary stages between major transitions has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

George Gaylord Simpson, an influential paleontologist, wrote, "The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."

Although Simpson penned these words in 1944, the latest fossil-finds fair no better for the evolutionist.

No honest scientist can claim that the gaps exists because the fossil record is too incomplete. Hundreds of millions of fossils have been found. The only fossils missing are those required by Darwinian evolution — the transitional forms between basic orders mentioned above.

While refuting evolution’s common descent dogma, the fossil record actually supports the biblical model of creation. The complete absence of transitional life forms confirms the creationist claim that basic kinds of life were created suddenly and fully formed. Creationists believe that fully functioning organisms were made to reproduce after their own kinds, having been designed with enormous amounts of genetic information enabled a variety in future generations within each created kind.

Jon Anderson is a graduate student working on his degree in adult human resource development.