Continuing the work of Jesus : Peacefully ~ Simply ~ Together


COB Logo

Written by Ronald J. Gordon ~ Published January, 1998 ~ Last Updated, December, 2019 ©
All Rights Reserved. This document may be reproduced for non-profit or educational purposes only, with the
provisions that the entire document remain intact and full acknowledgement be given to the author.

    Darwinian citation from various sources     :     Highlight within a Darwinian Citation     :     Brief comment from this Writer    
Origin of Species citations were taken from the original 1859 edition which can be downloaded from Darwin-Online for free
Other free formats may be obtained from Project Gutenberg, Talk Origins or Many Books
but the page numbers will not match the original 1859 edition.




Few words have created more discomfort for Christians than the word Evolution. It has become a reproach to many, for it’s basic conclusions would appear to invalidate the fundamental trustworthiness of the biblical record, and hence their own faith. Some people attempt to compromise Evolution with the Genesis account but this usually produces one impasse after another; because the former model requires no God which is absolutely essential to the latter. To say that God used the process of Evolution to create the universe is self-contradictory. It begs a most fundamental question, why would an all-powerful Being use a process which does not need the existence of that Being? Why would a Being having a pattern of behavior (Old Testament) which consistently demands recognition of that Being’s accomplishments then use a process that returns no such recognition? Focus groups and surveys reveal Christian leaders citing Evolution as one of the main contributing factors to young adults leaving the church. Young people reason that if one cannot trust the Genesis record then how can one trust the rest of the Bible? This work is offered for Christian leaders and educators to better understand and interact with those who believe that Evolution invalidates the Bible.

The word Evolution came into prominence during the middle of the 19th Century when Charles Darwin issued his controversial work entitled “On The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection” in 1859. He was not the first to suggest an evolutionary approach to resolving the mystery of the beginning of life, but his monumental publication gained a wider acceptance than other researchers. Darwin was not a scientist. His knowledge of genetics was minimal. Gregor Mendel was the great pioneer of that field. Darwin is more correctly titled a Naturalist, one who is interested in studying botany or zoology in the field, under the premise that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes.

What propelled him into the world of observing nature and dismissing God? Perhaps it was his reading of Charles Lyell’s, Principles of Geology (1830) which dismissed religious claims about origins and asserted that Earth was the simple product of natural processes. Darwin transferred that line of reasoning from the world of geology into the realm of biology. He had embarked on sailing expeditions around the world, recording numerous observations about plant and animal life in different climates and regions. By 1838 his conclusions would draw him to propose an evolutionary hypothesis which directly challenged the stability of both scientific and religious thought, namely that all life evolved from a common ancestral form, instead of the contemporary biblical view that all life forms were the result of a creative design.


So then, why did he wait more than twenty years to publish? There are perhaps a number of plausible factors involving at least personal employment and family life. But there is one glaring event which needs to be considered: his monumental inaccuracy concerning the parallel benches of Glen Roy in the Grampian Highlands of Scotland. He was more than just a little bit wrong. He was completely and humiliatingly wrong! Darwin’s conjecturing was as wrong as a Northern Red Cardinal painted blue. He was so embarrassed that he would not admit the blunder until responding to an 1861 letter from Thomas Jamieson who extensively investigated sea levels and glacial dynamics:  “I thank you sincerely for your long and very interesting letter. Your arguments seem to me conclusive. I give up the ghost. My paper is one long gigantic blunder ... Now I shall rest contented, though ashamed of myself. How rash it is in science to argue because any case is not one thing, it must be some second thing which happens to be known to the writer.”  {  1  } Why is this incident important to this author? To respectfully exhibit Darwin’s path of reasoning, his methods of investigation, and his haste to acquire prominent status. The Glen Roy mistake illustrates several particulars.  Darwin did not fully investigate the phenomenon. He trusted his own faulty methodology. He did not consider all possible alternative explanations. He did not consult others who could preponderantly demonstrate greater understanding of the subject matter. And, most important of all, he rushed his 1839 Paper directly to the Royal Society of London, intentionally bypassing the less glamorous Geological Society. 

Geology was the new field of science and Glen Roy was a hot spot for geologists, each proposing their novel suggestions on how these roads or benches were formed. Here came many young geologists who wanted to share prominence with the big boys such as, John MacCulloch, Adam Sedgwicks, Thomas Lauder, Charles Lyell, and especially Henry De la Beches who became president of the Geological Society of London in 1847 and received the society’s highest honor, the Wollaston Medal, in 1855. This Glen almost became the Dealey Plaza of its day. Following the Kennedy assassination in 1963, researchers went to Dallas, and each with their own conspiracy theory. Likewise did many young geologists rush to this Glen, and each with a new geological theory. Time-frames for each were similar: trek up and down the slopes, make your drawings, compile your observations, write your research paper, and then race to the Geological Society of London for deserved recognition. Charles Darwin fell right in with the mix.

Most researchers believed that a lake shoreline was the answer, but the holy grail that eluded them was explaining three particulars: how a lake could have been formed at this elevation of 1,168 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), how it achieved three different shorelines, and where are the remains of the ancient barrier that held back the water? Glen Roy is not easily shaped for a lake. At the northeastern corner all slopes converge at even higher elevations, and the southwestern end is wide and shallow. Whoever could resolve this mystery would achieve the most enviable fame imaginable.

Glen Roy

Darwin also had a new theory of incredible dimensions. He had observed a similar bench manifestation at Coquimbo on the west coast of Chile, and assumed that Glen Roy must be a result of the same oceanic forces. He proposed that the lake had really been the Atlantic Ocean of a bygone era. Further, he conjectured that Scotland was at one time near sea level and experienced at least three upward surges, each uprising correlated to a different bench. With everything neatly organized, he submitted a Paper directly to the Royal Society, which would have accorded him greater recognition than the Geological Society.

What was so incredibly wrong with applying his experience at Coquimbo with Glen Roy? EVIDENCE! THERE WAS NONE. He searched in vain along each bench of the Glen for sea-shells, hoping that a significant yield would corroborate his theory and seal his fame. There were none. They were as elusive as Intermediary Transitional Life forms that he also did not find in the Geologic Column. In fact, at no place on either side of the Glen, at any elevation did he find anything even reminiscent of marine life. Truth was staring him in the face but he refused to see it. Another particular that also did not convince him of the paucity of his thinking was the elementary nature of water seeking its own level. If the ocean had etched lines in one valley of Scotland, then it is reasonable to conclude that the ocean should have etched similar lines in every surrounding valley at near the same elevation. Glen Roy is the only valley in the entirety of Scotland to exhibit these lines.

The holy grail was finally captured by Louis Agassiz, a Swiss geologist, who contended that the valley had been dammed by glaciers, not an earthen dam and most certainly not the preposterous assumption of an ocean. Each line or bench was the result of periglacial infringement. Subsequent investigations by others confirmed that he was right. Imagine that, a Swiss knowing something about mountains, valleys, and glaciers. Charles Darwin was wrong. Dead wrong. He was so embarrassed by his oceanic conjecture he would not privately acknowledge his blunder until responding to Jamieson and he would not publicly admit the error until just four years prior to his death in 1882. It is on the heels of such a fantastic blunder that he published Origin of Species. This author contends that Darwin’s very same Glen Roy patterns of reasoning, methodology, assumptions, and conclusions are threads of fabric woven into this latter and more widely accepted publication (Origins); and of special note was his “Bear into Whale” conjecture that would make a straight-line academic bury his head and chortle. That section was removed after the first edition. See below for a respectful, indepth examination of his assumption.

Over the years, Evolution widened as a belief system, acquiring many different faces according to the various scientific disciplines which applied it. For this exercise, the word Evolution requires a more specific explanation in order to express the singular intent of this work, because many people have varying degrees of understanding regarding what evolution IS and what evolution is NOT. There is also a need to set forth a very unambiguous underlying principle of what this author intends to accomplish in this exercise, and at the cost of redundancy, what is not intended. The above title adequately captures the intention of this exercise: that is, to review the basic tenets of the hypothesis of Evolution, and see if there are valid proofs that will successfully refute the biblical record. Conversely, it is not intended to unnecessarily extend the length of this work by attempting to prove the complete biblical account of Genesis. Many of the conjectures, suppositions, and analogies of Darwin appear to be in opposition to the record of Genesis. This author is primarily concerned with examining whether Darwin’s conclusions successfully prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the biblical account of Genesis is thus invalid.


There are two different kinds of evolution: Macro suggesting “external changes” whereby all living systems have a common progenitor from which each system has developed because of transitional changes, and Micro specifying “internal change” within the same population or species. For example, Indian elephants have smaller and more pointed heads with smaller ears, whereas African elephants have broader heads with much larger ears. This is an example of a naturally occurring Micro event within the same family. Hybrid corn is another example of Micro evolution whereby different strains have been genetically combined, to produce a new variety of corn that will exhibit different attributes. Micro events occur through a genetic alteration which is observable. Conversely, Macro events have never been observed at any time by anyone, yet they are key to the validation of evolution. The multitudinous array of plant and animal kingdoms are composed of millions of different genera and species, with no indisputable evidence of distinct transitional forms between the major class structures. Without noticeable proofs of these intermediary links, Macro-evolutionary reasoning must then educe their past existence, and hold that their problematic absence is a temporary discomfort, an impasse that will hopefully be resolved upon their eventual discovery. Darwin bemoaned this absence, citing it as the greatest challenge to his hypothesis: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see Innumerable Transitional Forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” Origins, VI, p. 171 And similarly expressed again in a later chapter. “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” Origins, IX, p. 280

For this study, I focus my attention toward Macro evolution which suggests that “all living systems have developed from a common progenitor through transitional or intermediary changes.” As previously stated, I believe that Macro events have never been observed in any form, to any degree, at any time, by anyone. I do stipulate that all living material contains similar DNA or RNA molecules, that only twenty known types of amino acids are found in the protein of all known species, and that immunological reactions in many animals are quite similar. But my fundamental argument persists that molecular similarity between organisms, genetic changes within a class, or biologically similar reactions do not prove that one type of organism has evolved into an entirely new living self-sustaining, pro-creative system. The key to Macro-evolution are transitional forms or what might be called “missing links.”

The biblical account of creation is contained in the first two chapters of Genesis, and more specifically for this exercise, I am concerned with the passage of Genesis 1:11-25, where the words “After His Kind” are repeated no less than eight times. Here I find the creationist model wherein all life forms were created at one specific time, and given the biochemical means to reproduce according to their own genetically defined type. This manner of creation does not need intermediary forms, because there would not have been a need for transition. This is my fundamental argument with Macro-evolution which requires huge transitional leaps from one class or family to another. I will argue that the biblical principle of Kind producing after its own Kind is not only persuasive, but still to this day the only process observable, continuously resisting the efforts of time and human initiative to alter it. I further observe that this biblical principle is challenged only with the absolute ingenuity of human desire to circumvent what occurs naturally. Geneticists frequently observe Micro changes within an organism, such as the transformation of a new gene trait from parent to offspring. However, these transformations have never been observed to mutate or jump into an entirely new living, self-sustaining, pro-creative system. Darwin’s finches are still finches, mutated fruit-flies after thousands of generations are still fruit-flies. In those very few times when mutation has been successful, the offspring is not a self-sustaining, pro-creative organism. Mules are the mutant offspring between a female horse and male donkey, but as with other mutants they are sterile - genetic dead-ends. Whereas a mutation is supposed to be evolution’s answer to the rise of entirely new pro-creative systems, upon actual observation they have tended to be one of the more successful arguments against evolution, because these specimens are routinely sterile, often weak, no friend of the competition in natural selection, and occasionally dysfunctional.


  Tiger Swallowtail
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Mammalia
Family: Lepidoptera
Genus: Papilio
Species: Glaucus

Even the most superficial observation of plants and animals reveals that life forms can be easily grouped together in categories, such as but not limited to dogs, cats, birds, snakes, and insects. An even closer observation reveals that there are many different kinds in each category; for example, large cats and small cats, domestic cats and wild cats, spotted cats and stripped cats. Additionally, there are relationships and uniquenesses within the many different kinds. Taxonomy is the science dealing with the classification of all living things, and most often the student is introduced to the Linnaean hierarchical system or the PhyloCode. It deals with terms and relationships such as kingdom, phylum, class, family, genus, and species. For purposes of comparison, each level is classified with a descriptive word (often Latin), so that all living organisms may be referenced individually, to the exclusion of all other forms. The common name for the yellow butterfly in the photo is Tiger Swallowtail, but this is typically a North American label. In order to share findings about this same butterfly to a foreign researcher in another language and culture, to the exclusion of other life forms, a person must use the family, genus, and species names. By this universal method of classification, the possibility of mistaken identity should be alleviated, except in the most extenuating situations. To insure consistency, something needs to regulate this system of nomenclature so that it will always remain consistent and universal, and this oversight is administered by the British International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

After all the classifying and regulating has been done, something is noticeable missing, at least for the evolutionist. Just at the very moment when nearly every known living organism on the planet has been given a name, the absence of “transitional forms” is all too apparent. There is no clear explanation from any classification table to answer the evolutionary hypothesis of common ancestry. Cats are still cats and whales are still whales, as far back in time as it has been possible to unearth their fossilized remains. Although many species bare strikingly similar attributes to others of the same class or family, there are no animals that exhibit a gradual change between any two. No one can produce a half-dog half-cat variety. Even with the most elaborate charts and taxonomic gymnastics, the preponderant fact still remains that all living forms contain a strong element of distinction. Nearly seventy-five percent of all living animals are insects, and they are more distinct from each other than any other class. How then is it possible for evolutionists to propose a solution of Macro-evolution without clear incontrovertible evidence? On those few occasions when transitional forms have been declared, the assertion is based on similarities and conjecture, not incontrovertible evidence, and certainly not on genetics.


Evolutionists propose an answer for materialization from common ancestry through the agency of either Character Acquisition or Mutation. Character Acquisition is the oldest of these two which postulates that a distinctive species may acquire new characteristics and pass them on to the next generation (heritability). At the turn of the Nineteenth century the French naturalist, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that ducks once had feet much like chickens, but then for some unknown reason decided that they wanted to swim. As they tried to swim with great awkwardness, their repeated desire to swim more efficiently produced a stretching that resulted in their feet having a more web like appearance. Over a period of many generations with each successive offspring also desiring to swim more efficiently, the toes of the ducks eventually became filled with a solid web between each tip. In other words, wishful thinking and intense desire caused a real physical change to take place. This type of reasoning is hopelessly flawed. If it were true, then wishful thinking and focused desire could result in healthier offspring that would ultimately rid the world of illness and disease. But it has not. If Character Acquisition were transferable, then wishful desire could result in more holistic offspring that would desist violent behavior. But it has not. Another popular conjecture was that the long neck of the giraffe resulted from a much smaller animal repeatedly stretching its neck to reach higher and higher tree branches. Over enough time it was assumed that their offspring gradually produced longer and longer necks.


Although this idea of Acquired Characteristics being inherited may seem plausible at first, it fails for two principal reasons: first, it does not satisfactorily explain the actual process, and second, observation of newborn generations never show convincing evidence of a characteristic being transferred. Thus, a conjecture without a process is still a conjecture. Evolution is replete with conjectures, suppositions, analogies, and of course, lots of time for something to possibly happen. Evolution is really about time. It has lacked adequate and definitive explanation from before the time of Darwin. The idea that an acquired characteristic can be inherited by future generations is simply flawed. Genetic information can be lost but is never added.

A long family line of body builders individually acquire over-sized muscles by intense training, yet their offspring show no evidence of a change in newborn anatomy to any forward generation. Each one must develop their own muscular system. A long family line of Swiss mountain climbers individually acquire perseverance and dexterity in the face of death, yet their newborns may actually be fearful of heights, to any forward generation. A long family line of pianists have no guarantee that their individually acquired finger dexterity will continue in their newborns from generation to generation. A long family line of motorcyclists who exhibit great skill at balance and understanding of road surface peculiarities will produce offspring that also need to learn both disciplines. Acquired Characteristics are not inherited by offspring to any subsequent generation. In summation, a conjecture without a process or evidence remains a conjecture, even if it is actually true.

August Weismann later doubted Lamarck’s explanation, for it did not seem possible that a mere characteristic could be transferable. Weismann believed that genes alone were the controlling factor in development and transference, because the act of simply wishing does not easily lend itself to describing the process of transference. Weismann tested the theory by cutting off the tails of day old mice, and then observing the tail length of the next generation to see if there was a measurable difference. After hundreds of generations, each newborn mouse had a tail about the same length. The forced acquisition of a new character trait was not transferred to the next generation or to any generation. {  2  } In other words, genetic information is what controls the traits that will be inherited by succeeding generations.

Genetics: No Friend of the Evolutionist

Biologist Dr. Lane Lester writes: “Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.”

Lester continues: “Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.” {  3  }

In the early 1800’s, the French endeavored to increase the percentage of sugar in sugar beets through a process of isolating those beets with the highest percentage of sugar and using their seeds for the next generation. Year after year large numbers of beets were tested and only the sweetest were used for the next generation. By 1878, the average percent of sugar had, indeed, risen from about six to nearly seventeen percent, naturally convincing researchers that they were finally able to force succeeding generations to acquire new characteristics. Unfortunately, the percentage of sugar in sugar beets has not changed significantly since then because gene information is not affected by character acquisition. {  4  } What this project really demonstrated was that selection (natural or unnatural) only shifts the array of gene frequencies. In other words, genes that favored high sugar yield were retained as unwanted genes were eliminated, but the amount of yield is proportional to the number of genes retained. Once that number had been reached, the genetic brakes snapped on and the percentage of yield could increase no farther. Character acquisition does not appear to be the answer to Macro-evolution for when this process is put to the acid test it fails predictably. But yet, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, evolutionists continue to plead character acquisition to suggest that a thin skinned, light haired animal from the tropics would actually develop thicker skin and longer hair (over many generations) if moved to the Arctic; that teeth of carnivores (over many generations) would actually grow longer from the necessity of having to kill larger and larger prey; that gills of fish (over many generations) would begin to breathe air if removed from water. All these instances fail to demonstrate a process of character transference from one generation to another, because it is the gene that holds the controlling factors - not geography or environment or wishful thinking.

In another attempt to encourage character acquisition, researchers tried to change the number of bristles on the thorax of fruit-flies by isolation. After the flies were temporarily put to sleep, a lab technician would count the number of bristles and place those with the fewest number in a large jar, where they could only breed among themselves. This was repeated after each generation and the number of bristles continued to diminish until about the nineteenth generation when the number remained a constant, no matter how often the experiment was repeated. The genetic brakes snapped on again. In most breeds of cattle, the production of butterfat can be increased, but only until its genetic limit. For example, it is not very difficult to raise the average butterfat production in a herd of 100 cows from 200 to 300 pounds a year, with the farmer culling the herd of poor producers and breeding among the highest producers. To increase this same herd from 400 to 500 pounds of butterfat per year not only becomes more difficult, it requires diligence with a little bit of luck in breeding. But to increase beyond 500 pounds of butterfat per year is almost impossible. Once again, the genetic brakes snap on as one shifts the array of gene frequencies. This lack of change is frustrating to the Evolutionist, however, it is exactly what the Creationist would expect!

Mutation is another facility through which evolutionists propose the transition and proliferation of life. One of the main differences between acquisition and mutation is that we can generally predict the former but rarely the latter. For example, if a plant is placed in the dark it will lose its green color and predictably acquire a different color trait (acquisition). If the same plant is set under ultra-violet light, many of the seeds will be defective (mutation) but no one can reliably predict what will happen to the seeds or the quality of their maturity should they even grow when planted. Mutation has become a holy grail for evolutionists because of the dissatisfying results of character acquisition. Fruit Flies have received more doses of radiation than perhaps any other species on the planet. For many years, researchers engaged in a wide variety of radioactive bombardments on these little animals, many experiments of which were to create a distinctively new species through gene mutilation. Unfortunately for both researcher and fruit flies, all that was produced was mutilated fruit flies. No distinctively new, self-sustaining, pro-creative life form was engineered. Additionally, further research has shown that mutants are generally sterile, weak, and rarely able to compete in the process of survival of the fittest. Natural selection usually overlooks, eschews, or destroys these misfits. Even among humans, people tragically shun others with mutant qualities - ask children with freckles. Mules are the mutant offspring between a female horse and male donkey. Mules are unable to produce offspring of their own, except in the most extreme and rare conditions. All male mules and most female mules are sterile. A very small number of female mules have produced young, but only after they were bred to male asses or male horses. These mutants are genetic dead ends but usually referred to as hybrid animals, possibly because this word does not carry the baggage of evolutionary dysfunctionality.

In all fairness, some mutant or hybrids are beneficial, depending on your interpretation of beneficial. A navel orange is a hybrid fruit resulting from a mutation which creates a depression at the blossom end, that also inhibits the formation of seeds. It is beneficial for the consumer, in that discomfort from seeds is eliminated, but a disaster to itself because it cannot reproduce. Navel oranges survive only because workers graft their twigs into another non-mutant variety of orange tree.

Ordinary people are under the impression that there are examples in nature which prove that chance mutation and recombination can create new meaning in the genetic code -- new genes. Yet the alleged examples of the phenomenon do not actually exemplify it. Consider the ability of bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics. Salvador Luria and Max Delbrück proved in 1943 that the resistant bacteria descended from preexisting strains; the genes for the resistance were already available in the gene pool. Although some originally disputed their interpretation, it is now well established. {  5  }

In the last century when genetic information was poorly understood, evolutionists used Character Acquisition to bolster their proofs in spite of demonstrable evidence to the contrary, i.e. natural selection and wishful thinking does not transfer to the next generation what only the gene can accomplish. In this Century with a veritable explosion in genetic understanding, evolutionists use mutation to bolster their proofs in spite of demonstrable evidence to the contrary, i.e, no matter how often you mutate a species, you fail to achieve a superior, physically stronger pro-creative species. Mutants are sterile derelicts, genetic dead ends that fail to provide convincing proof that single celled life forms evolved into complex plants and animals. Fruit-flies bombarded with radiation will still be fruit-flies. Since the basic evolutionary premise of natural selection maintains that the most adaptable will, not only survive, but continue these gene traits into their future generations, how then may weak sterile mutants overpower their stronger, more healthier and attractive competitors for breeding rights? These suppositions usually seem contrary to what is actually observed in the field.


Geologic Column Still another tool of developmental investigation is the study of earthen layers. Anyone who has visited the Grand Canyon or the Painted Desert of Arizona or a Local Highway has encountered strata in beautiful color. In geology, strata are usually layers of sedimentary soil that hardened into rock. Each stratum or layer contains internal characteristics that distinguish it from surrounding layers. If one could extract a giant vertical cylinder of earth, beginning at the surface and protruding deep within the crust, one would observe a huge column of geology, or the Geologic Column. Since this is usually not feasible to any great depth without an expensive drilling platform and a huge bank account, it is more feasible to locate the side of a hill or deep canyon where erosion or violent movement has exposed the same various layers or strata. Stratigraphy is the study of strata and the process of layering (Stratification).

The concept of a Geologic Column finds its crude beginnings in the minds of several British researchers. Farmer and Naturalist James Hutton presented a Paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1788, describing an Earth that was formed much differently than a catastrophic event. William Whewell termed this process Uniformitarianism (Gradualism), an assumption that what is happening now is the key to understanding what has always been gradually occurring in the past. Surveyor William Smith endeavored to produce a complete geologic map of England and Wales, using the principles of fossil succession. The map was published in 1815. Adam Sedgwick, Professor of Geology at Cambridge University and later president of the Geological Society of London continued Smith’s techniques, and identified the Cambrian Strata after Cambria, the Latin name for Wales. Charles Lyell, geologist, lawyer, friend of Charles Darwin, professor of Geology at King’s College published his most famous work, Principles of Geology in 1830, which advanced Hutton’s theories of Uniformitarianism. Lyell and Smith recognized rock strata as successive time periods, for which time scales were able to imprecisely estimate the age of the Earth. Arthur Holmes turned the corner in geology by applying radiometric dating. He accurately performed the first uranium-lead radiometric dating of rocks. In this new field to be known as Geochronology, he published The Age of the Earth in 1913 in which he argued that radioactive methods were more precise than former estimations according to geological sedimentation and fossil succession.

Now, here comes the interesting part. Most of the aforementioned geologists were Creationists, not Evolutionists as many have assumed. Mostly before 1815 and certainly by 1860, they had identified and classified ten basic layers or periods of geological history on the assumption of Catastrophism and the more reliable principles of Stratification using comparative Index Fossils. What is an Index Fossil? One that consistently appears in the same stratum over diverse regions without exception. For example, if every discovery of “Mickey Mouse Watches” is consistently found at the bottom of the Pliocene stratum, then until the exception is presented, it may be reliably suggested with a high degree of confidence that any new discovery of a Mickey Mouse Watch may have identified another Pliocene stratum. Index Fossils do not prove. They serve only as markers. In the interest of civility, since far too many Creationists have vilified Evolutionists and “their” column of geology, it was Creationists who invented it, catalogued it, gift wrapped it, and presented it to Charles Darwin.

But this Column is more of a theoretical classification than a field trip delight, since all ten layers are rarely found in one neat stack. The global distribution of these strata or layers is chaotic. Not all layers appear in their proper sequence. The oldest Cambrian rock is fully exposed at the surface in the Adirondack Dome of New York. In a textbook the Geologic Column can be displayed with pretty colors, but it serves only to give reference points for the purpose of education. If all classified layers were placed on top of each other, the resultant column would be over 140 miles high. In actuality at any given place on the Earth, the Geologic Column is never more than several thousand feet, and in some areas the very lowest and presumably earliest strata are fully exposed to the surface. Each layer name represents a different period of time, and each contains fossilized remains of animals that lived during that era. In other words, each level represents a historical record of that age. There is wide disagreement over how the universal sequence of the strata should be presented, because the strata appears in very different sequences all over the world. Some argue that no two places on the Earth have the same Column, whereas others contend that like sequences have been found in at least two or more places. Others even doubt that the chaotic nature of the strata yields enough information to be relied upon at all. Correlation is the name given to this process of comparing strata in different places and then drawing conclusions based on their findings. One photo journalist has wisely stated that without film or video tape, history often becomes an illusion. Explaining geology is very similar. We connect the dots through various witnesses and reliable standards to try and understand what most probably occurred. In this manner, researchers of various scientific pursuits have carefully studied these exposed layers and tried to connect the dots, by establishing the fossil contents of one stratum with that of many other strata. When enough information has been gathered from enough locations, one may then draw reasonable conclusions as to what may have happened during the process of the Earth’s development.

Over the past two centuries of debate, the Geologic Column has become a weapon of persuasion for both the Evolutionist and the Creationist. You may ask, how can the same thing benefit each side? Because so much of the arguments are based on conjectures or presumptions. One attribute of the Column that is most precious to the Creationist is the absence of transitional forms or missing links. At no place, in any observable stratum, at any depth, has anyone, at any time, observed a preponderance of transitional life forms which are so necessary to the hypothesis of Evolution. Transitional forms are the bedrock necessity of a model supposing that all life forms evolved from one common ancestral form through the processes of character acquisition, mutation, or natural selection. If this is valid, then it would be a reasonable expectation to find a multiplicity of these transitional forms, evenly distributed throughout the historical record of the geologic column. Their absence has driven Creationists to argue more persuasively for the biblical record which describes a momentary creation of all life as distinct whole organisms. If a preponderance of transitional life forms existed in the Geologic Column, it would lend favor to the hypothesis of Evolution. Another peculiarity of the Geologic Column is the possible existence of large plants that fully extend through multiple layers. {  6  } If these examples are genuine, it would lend favor to the Creationist model which rejects the notion of many layers being formed around a living plant over millions of years. Evolutionists counter that layers must have folded quickly, even if no physical evidence of fault slippage is present. Additionally, fossils representing presumably different ages are found encased in the very same layer, which is just what a Creationist would expect from a global catastrophe. Evolutionists counter that mixing has occurred between these layers. In other words, one proof of either model will usually be the assumption of that model.

Misunderstandings abound over the geologic record and film makers only contribute to the already muddy water. The movie Jurassic Park is one example. This stratum classification was used as the title of the movie, but the dinosaurs generally pictured in the film lived during the Cretaceous Period instead of the Jurassic. Evidently the moguls in Hollywood did not understand the dinosaur period or more probably just disliked the movie title of Cretaceous Park.


Origin Cover Was the Geologic Column known to Charles Darwin and did he make any statements concerning it? The answer is yes to both questions. It bothered him greatly that his necessary transitional forms were missing from the known classified strata. In fact, it bothered him greatly to the extent that he stated this absence was the greatest challenge to his new opinion. “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” Origins, VI, p. 171 Darwin was very honest about the shortcomings and inconsistencies of his theory. He did not recede from trying to explain obvious contradictions, and in a few cases, simply left questions unanswered for later examiners. Occasionally he would return to a course of blaming geology for not providing him with much anticipated evidence. Naturally, it would seem obvious to the biblical student that the ground cannot yield what it never possessed. “In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because  Analogy  leads the observer to  Suppose  either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a  Wide Door  for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.” Origins, VI, p. 47

Analogy accompanied by supposition creates a very wide door, indeed, and far too many researchers have used these methods for detrimental means. Darwin’s honesty at this point, and several others, is to be acknowledged and applauded. He is not proposing a new way of evaluating history without also divulging his sincere concern for its weaknesses and shortcomings. There are not many people who exhibit these qualities of maturity, respect or reverence for the pursuit of any field. Today’s landscape of debate is too often littered with the mortally wounded. Fiery exchanges of verbal torment rage across the Internet. Grant Fraud is slowly becoming a matter of routine for some researchers whose need for financial stability has exceeded their need for integrity. If you cannot trust the scientist, then who can you trust? The US Department of Environmental Protection Agency offers this brochure: When Good Money Goes Bad. It is a great misfortune for everyone that modern science has unfortunately given shelter to the fraudulent. It is, therefore, with comfort that I explore Darwin’s findings and conclusions, knowing that he belongs to a more respectable class of investigator.

Geology Imperfectly Kept?

While describing the process of comparison and ranking a given species, Darwin stipulates to the absence of intermediate or transitional links. He admits that the Geologic Column is not his closest friend, because natural observation of the strata do not yield the very forms which are so necessary to prove his hypothesis. The key terminology in this section are the words analogy and suppose, for they are much of the basis for his conclusions. Classification and correlation are determined more often by supposition than by observable criteria. In other words, even though evolutionists have not actually found transitional forms, they pretend that they existed because transitions are vital for their purpose. However, assumption is not improper in science, for it is always a tool that lends itself to the serious investigator. Many discoveries and inventions have been the result of imagination that was based on assumption. Our purpose in highlighting this passage is to sustain two points: (1) that Darwin was aware of the lack of transitional forms, and (2) that he depended to a great deal on analogy and supposition. “I look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world  Imperfectly Kept,  and written in a  Changing Dialect;  of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines. Each word of the slowly-changing language, in which the history is supposed to be written, being more or less different in the interrupted succession of chapters, may represent the apparently abruptly changed forms of life, entombed in our consecutive, but widely separated formations.” Origins, IX, p. 310-311

“The noble science of Geology loses glory from the  Extreme Imperfection Of The Record.  The crust of the Earth with its embedded remains must not be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a  Poor Collection  made at hazard and at rare intervals.” Origins, XIV, p. 487

“Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the  Extreme Imperfection Of The Geological Record.  I look at the geological record as a history of the world  Imperfectly Kept,  and written in a  Changing Dialect;  of this history we possess the last volume alone, relating only to two or three countries. Of this volume, only here and there a short chapter has been preserved; and of each page, only here and there a few lines.” Origins, IX, p. 280

Darwin refers to the lack of transitional forms in the geological record numerous times in his monumental composition. He characterizes geology as Extreme Imperfection. Darwin literally blames the ground for not recording what he thinks should have been there. I say the following not with any intent of sarcasm but in pure amazement, for here is a learned individual who bemoans his predicament without considering that maybe his basic assumption is the reason for his disappointment. This is precisely his similar predicament at Glen Roy. He could not find sea-shells that would corroborate his oceanic theory and never considered that their absence was due to the simple fact that they never existed in Glen Roy. Researchers should be free to utilize the advantage of supposition in order to propel their investigation into new paths of discovery, but one must be careful that self-delusion does not accompany that process. It is entirely appropriate to suggest that the reason why the ground has not yielded Darwin’s transitional forms is because  it never possessed them! 

Another innovation which Darwin introduces in this passage is what he terms the Changing Dialect of the geological record. There is truth in this for the Earth is not one homogeneous process of uniform activity. Earthquakes occur in some regions but not in others. Asteroids strike in some places but not in others, and likewise other cataclysmic events such as volcanoes, floods, droughts, and fires. I agree with his observation, but I disagree with his conclusion. If Macro-evolution is genuine and the Earth contains millions of different living plants and animals, then the number of transitional forms would have been enormous, and to a far greater degree than the Earth may conceal under a paradigm of changing dialects. The geologic column should be littered, soaked, and saturated with these bygone relics, and their super abundance should be the Macro-evolutionists most persuasive argument, but their obvious absence in the Geologic Column is a glaring indictment against the entire hypothesis. This vast number of transitional forms did not just vaporize. I must continue to insist. The ground cannot yield  what it never possessed! 

“But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how  Poor a Record  of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.” Origins, IX, p. 302

 Poor a Record?  What can I add? How can it be more easily explained? Even when the absence of transitional forms has pressed his theory to the point of reconsideration, Darwin tenaciously holds to his theory and dismisses forthright observation to the contrary. He labels the Geologic Column a “Poor Record” because it is not able to yield his necessary transitional forms. At the cost of redundancy may I plead to say once again; it is not reasonable to conclude that the Geologic Column should be able to produce  what it never possessed!  Darwin could not find sea-shells in Glen Roy because they never existed in Glen Roy. A moment of reality will arrive in everyone’s pursuit of a conclusion that needs to shout: There’s no evidence. Change your thinking to match your observations.

“On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation  Charged With Such Links?  why does not every collection of fossil remains  Afford Plain Evidence  of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? We meet with no such evidence, and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections which may be urged against my theory. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though certainly they often falsely appear, to have come in suddenly on the several geological stages? Why do we not find great piles of strata beneath the Silurian system, stored with the remains of the progenitors of the Silurian groups of fossils? For certainly on my theory such strata must somewhere have been deposited at these ancient and utterly unknown epochs in the world’s history. I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the supposition that the geological record is  Far More Imperfect  than most geologists believe.” Origins, XIV, p. 463-464

“Charged with such links?”,  “Afford Plain Evidence” Precisely. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make! As previously stated, the number of transitional forms, between all living organisms, should have been enormous and much of the geologic column saturated with these relics. Their super abundance should be the Macro-Evolutionists most persuasive argument! Yet it is not. The silence of their argument is obvious. The ground cannot offer  what it never possessed! 
“Far More Imperfect?” No. I strongly disagree. The geological record is exactly what it is, history. It yields only what it has possessed and it will never yield  what it never possessed! 

“Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the  Gravest And Most Obvious  of all the many objections which may be urged against my views.” Origins, IX, p. 299

“The Gravest and Most Obvious?” I concur, for the absence of these transitional life forms is precisely the Most Obvious objection to the hypothesis. Darwin was intellectually honest enough to admit this. Page after page he bemoans the absence of the transitional forms which should be the strongest component of his argument. The reason should be clear by now if I have not repeated it to the point of redundancy. Darwin never found his long-hoped for transitional life forms because the ground was unable to yield  WHAT IT NEVER POSSESSED! 

A Whale of an Omission

“Of diversified habits innumerable instances could be given: I have often watched a tyrant flycatcher (Saurophagus sulphuratus) in South America, hovering over one spot and then proceeding to another, like a kestrel, and at other times standing stationary on the margin of water, and then dashing like a kingfisher at a fish. In our own country the larger titmouse (Parus major) may be seen climbing branches, almost like a creeper; it often, like a shrike, kills small birds by blows on the head; and I have many times seen and heard it hammering the seeds of the yew on a branch, and thus breaking them like a nuthatch.   In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.  As we sometimes see individuals of a species following habits widely different from those both of their own species and of the other species of the same genus, we might expect, on my theory, that such individuals would occasionally have given rise to new species, having anomalous habits, and with their structure either slightly or considerably modified from that of their proper type.” Origins, VI, p. 184

It is quite natural and expected for authors to make revisions to their original publication. Especially to the serious research-author, it seems almost irresistible but to continue improving their wording, so that it might produce greater clarity or perhaps incorporate material from later discoveries. A manuscript of this type seems destined for subsequent omissions and insertions. Darwin is no different in this respect, and that is fine.

But there is one glaring conjecture in the 1859 original edition that is omitted from all later revisions that cannot be ignored. He seriously believed -  “I can see no difficulty” - that if a species of bears were to remain in the water long enough, free from competitors, and with a constant aquatic food supply, that eventually they would evolve into creatures as large as whales. He actually believed this! Perhaps upon reflection he decided that it would be impossible to substantiate this conjecture against the body of all known fossils without clear and undeniable evidence, thus, it was removed from all later revisions. This quotation is not intended to denigrate Charles Darwin in any respect, but offered instead to demonstrate the consistent pattern of his reasoning; e.i., if observation excites the imagination to suggest a conclusion without evidence, that is highly preferable to evidence suggesting the conclusion. Again, this was precisely his predicament at Glen Roy. He published his oceanic conclusion without the slightest evidence of marine life.

But in removing this conjecture, Darwin has removed the very essence of his theory, that one animal can evolve into another. This is astonishingly significant. Darwin has retracted on his own theory! If he really believes this process, then why remove it? Why not champion this conjecture as the centerpiece of his book? Here now is the real essence of Darwinism: It’s all about time and assumptions. Yes, Evolution is all about time and assumptions. It is not about solid empirical unassailable evidence to the exclusion of alternate explanation. It is not about finding gazillions of Transitional Life Forms. It is the hopelessness and despair of not finding them. Evolution is about conjecture upon conjecture; suppositions built upon suppositions with analogies that may even sound plausible and rational. Darwin did not find sea-shells in Glen Roy, and for the very same reason, he did not find “Innumerable Transitional Life Forms” in the Geological Column. The evidence never existed at either location. Although the truth was staring right at him in Glen Roy, he refused to accept it, and likewise the truth was staring at him from geology, but he refused to accept it.

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain;  and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” Origins, IX, p. 280 No! The imperfection lies in the theory. Geology is history.

“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see Innumerable Transitional Forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them,   Well Defined ?” Origins, VI, p. 171

“Well Defined?” Precisely! Darwin has finally asked the right question, and the biblical record has been giving the correct answer that Kind Shall Reproduce After Its Own Kind. This is what history has given us. Kind after Kind. Not a chaotic mixture of species in innumerable transitions. Geology continues to exhibit: Kind After Kind. May I state once again, with the deepest respect for Darwin’s work and contribution to science, these “Innumerable Transitional Forms” which he desperately sought for but could not find - simply never existed. Assumptions and conjectures do not change history. Geology is about the history of the Earth, and geology has not produced Innumerable Transitional Life Forms at any depth of the Geological Column throughout the investigated regions of our planet, any more than sea-shells were found in Glen Roy at any elevation. What geology has yielded to us is what we now plainly see on a daily basis with every litter of kittens: Kind Reproducing after its Own Kind.


Suppose that a large number of people were given a piece of paper with only two objects as depicted in Figure 1: a blue diamond and an orange circle with only empty space between them. When asked the question: What message did the graphic artist intend to convey? It would be natural for them to conclude that someone drew each geometric shape with the intention of high-lighting their distinctiveness, especially since each is a different color and a different shape, and there is significant emptiness between them. Conversely, if they were given a piece of paper with the image shown in Figure 2, a blue diamond on the left and a orange circle on the right with a series of transitional shapes in between, it would also be natural for them to conclude that the graphic artist intended to show the similarities or connectedness of both shapes by high-lighting the evolving nature of each intermediary link. Under examination, most people focus their eyes, to a greater degree, on the intermediary shapes of Figure 2 instead of the diamond or the circle at either end.

Figure 1
Diamond & Circle

Figure 2

Diamond Morphing Into Circle

Each of these figures may easily be compared with our two contending philosophies: Figure 1 representing a Creation model and Figure 2 representing an Evolutionary model. Now at this point it would be logical to ask: Which figure most closely represents the Geologic Column? Since Darwin bemoaned the absence of Transitional Forms in the geologic record, the rational person is admonished to nominate Figure 1 and Creation as the most logical solution to the emergence and proliferation of life. Conversely, if the geologic witness revealed a multitude of transitions as in Figure 2, then it would be most logical to nominate Evolution as the solution. Here then we see the unreasonableness of Evolution, for it requires one to accept an imaginary and undefined process without clear evidence on a preponderate scale, and further one is admonished to eschew the very observable evidence that rests beneath ones own feet.

Figure 3

Multiple Diamonds Morphing Into Circles

This lack of connectedness is why it is so difficult for the Creationist to accept Evolution. Where are the intermediary links? Additionally, one must then learn to appreciate the shear numerical dimension of evolutionary transitions. In Figure 2 there are only twenty intermediary steps between the blue diamond and the orange circle. If every form of plant and animal required only twenty transitions between their closest progenitor, then the geologic record should contain twenty times the number of specimens that exist today. Figure 3 represents only five transitions but requires 110 intermediary forms. It cannot be over emphasized how absolutely staggering would be the number of intermediary transitions that should cry from the ground for recognition. It should bewilder the mind. Darwin believed in these large numbers and, literally, blamed the ground for not yielding them.

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain;  and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” Origins, IX, p. 280

“I can answer these questions and grave objections only on the  Supposition  that the Geological Record is  Far More Imperfect  than most geologists believe. It cannot be objected that there has not been time sufficient for any amount of organic change; for the lapse of time has been so great as to be utterly inappreciable by the human intellect. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the  Countless  generations of  Countless  species which certainly have existed.” Origins, XIV, p. 464

“Far More Imperfect” is how Darwin considers the ability of the Earth to preserve its history. It is actually discomforting to read the numerous places in Origins where Darwin blames the ground for not yielding what he “Supposes” must certainly have been there. Why is it so difficult to expect the ground to yield what it has never contained? “Countless ... Countless” are the “species which certainly have existed”. Perhaps Darwin is making the point better than this writer, for it must be emphasized over and again how enormous should be the number of transitional intermediaries forms in the Geologic Column. But there are none. And the few fossils that have been argued by evolutionists as transitions is based on structure without DNA sequences. The researcher is advised to reconsider at some point, that if plenary evidence from observation repeatedly demonstrates major objections to a hypothesis, perhaps one should consider molding the hypothesis to match the observations. Few people actually realize to what great extent that Darwin had questions over his own hypothesis, which he occasionally referred to as “Grievously Hypothetical.” {  7  }. To his credit, Darwin devoted an entire chapter (VI) to assess the difficulties with his theory. This momentary openness remains in stark contrast to the modern Evolutionist who is generally rigid and inflexible. What was formerly termed as Grievously Hypothetical is now celebrated by the modern Evolutionist as established fact. Chapter Six is full of questions that are now generally dismissed without sufficient answers. But despite his openness, Darwin still would not relinquish his Glen Roy pattern of thinking that evidence is of a secondary nature to the conclusion. If there is no evidence of marine life in Glen Roy, the presence of an ocean is still presumed. If the ground does not yield Transitional Life Forms then blame the ground (Far More Imperfect).

Modern Inflexibility

One example of this rigidity in the modern effort to describe the Geologic Column by modern geologists and paleontologists is to rarely if ever use actual Darwinian terminology such as:  Far More Imperfect  or  Extreme Imperfection  of the geological record or  Imperfectly Kept.  Instead, these researchers conclude that each stratum is a reliable deposit of history. So firm is their passion for reliability, that we are presently encouraged to believe that the Geologic Column offers us the near exact date of the extinction of the dinosaurs. A cosmic theory growing in popularity suggests that an asteroid struck the Earth near the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico about 65 million years ago, that destroyed larger forms of life while depositing its signature as a layer of ash over most of the Earth. Humorously called the Blast from the Past, this layer of ash is offered as evidence of an exact record of an actual history event. Perhaps it is, and perhaps it is not, but what is of greater interest is the intractable attitude of far too many researchers to dismiss alternate possibilities. This layer is known as the K-T Boundary Layer because it closed the Cretaceous (K) Period and opened the new Tertiary (T) Period. One can easily obtain research papers wherein it is argued with baronial rigidity that the K-T Layer of Yucatan definitely represents the extinction of the dinosaur. You will see photographs of men pointing to this layer of ash in stratum in different parts of the world. The debate would seem to be over.

Then what about the much larger impact crater in the Shiva basin off the western coast of India? Paleontologist Sankar Chatterjee states: “This crater measures 600 by 400 kilometers, and was made by an enormous meteorite measuring 40 kilometers across. The impact appears to have sheared or destroyed much of the 30-mile-thick granite layer in the western coast of India ... The impact probably triggered a component of the Deccan Trap: the iridium-rich alkaline igneous complex rocks that were emplaced asymmetrically as a fluid ejecta at the KT boundary along the NE downrange direction of the bolide trajectory outside the crater ring.” So, which one correctly represents the true K-T Boundary Layer? The little one at Yucatan or the big one at India? Yucatan is also a dwarf to many larger verified impact craters, such as the Vredefort Crater in South Africa, the Sudbury Nickel Irruptive near Ontario, Canada, or the Kara Crater in the Yugorsky Peninsula, Nenetsia, Russia. How can any scientist point his finger to an ash layer in any stratum of the world and identify it as the Yucatan Layer when there are so many other impact craters of larger proportions?

Gradualism or Punctuated Equilibrium

Archaeopteryx If there are no reliable transitional forms in the Geologic Column, which frustrated Darwin to no end, then why do Evolutionists continue to promote a theory without evidence? Because they have recently changed the playing field. Instead of gradual changes from generation to generation (termed Gradualism), they now propose that the changes occurred in large jumps. A hypothesis called Punctuated Equilibrium which proposes that change does not take place from generation to generation but is the result of huge geological events of speciation termed cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is assumed to be a process whereby a species splits into an entirely new species, instead of one species gradually transitioning into another. It is a convenient way of getting around Gradualism by suggesting that similarities are proof enough of a connected change.

The photo at right is the fossilized remains of Archaeopteryx, which exhibits qualities of both the dinosaur (bones) and birds (feathers). This animal has been hailed by Evolutionists as their holy grail. It has become their long lost explanation for the absence of gradual transitions in the geologic column. When Evolutionists refer to transitional forms, they now mean transitional “jumps and splits.” When the Creationist refers to transitioning, they have always maintained Gradualism. This causes no shortcomings of confusion, for both use the same term to mean two entirely different processes. Evolutionists look at Archaeopteryx and see an example of transition. Creationists look at this animal and see God having simply created a reptile with feathers. The movie Jurassic Park is a poor education in dinosaur type and behavior. First, these animals lived during the Cretaceous Period, not the Jurassic. Second, one villain of the movie (Velociraptor) was depicted as a large framed, eight foot tall, running lizard. In reality, Velociraptor was a mid-sized Dromaeosauri and slightly larger than a turkey with fully matured adults measuring up to about two feet tall at the hips and weighing about 35-40 pounds. Third, and the most disappointing of all from the movie makers, Velociraptor was actually covered from snout to tail end with Feathers.

Not only did the producer of the movie get everything wrong about this ancient dinosaur, but he also missed a golden opportunity to champion the discovery of Archaeopteryx and its very importance to Evolution, that dinosaurs transitioned into birds by a huge genetic jump! The leading character, Professor Alan Grant, makes this assertion several times throughout the movie; especially on the plains where a herd of Gallimimus race toward him. He says: “Look at the wheeling - the uniform direction change! Like a flock of birds evading a predator!” Well then, why not mention Archaeopteryx as his proof, and why not depict Velociraptor as it actually existed, as a big turkey, not higher than waist high to a human, and most important of all - cover it with feathers!

Just because an animal is odd looking or retains unusual traits does not prove a new kind of transition. The platypus is one such example. Is it a result of transitional jumping? A mix of duck, beaver, and otter? And how do you convincingly prove the case? Finding a singular fossil does not prove a theory. It merely reflects the traits of one animal at that particular time. The biblical law of Kind only producing according to their own Kind is not only found in the Bible, it is found in every part of the Earth, both plant, animal, and human. It is something which the modern world strictly obeys. It is disingenuous to marginalize the biblical record which teaches the very process that one constantly observes. It certainly is not science to dismiss the very law that governs the creation of life in every knowable form. The Evolutionist by whatever means of science is unable to reproduce, by any means of force, the very processes which he imagines to occur naturally.

But the suggestion of Punctuated Equilibrium as a quick fix to account for the absence of Transitional Forms in the Geologic Column also suggests its own inherent fatal flaw. If two parents birth an entirely new one of a kind species - Who does this new species mate with? For it is the only one of its kind. It is a genetic dead-end!

COMPLEXITY, A Very Wide Door Of Interpretation

“In very many cases, however, one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because  Analogy  leads the observer to  Suppose  either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a  Wide Door  for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.” Origins, VI, p. 47


One of the principle tenets of Evolution is that life evolved from very simple forms to that of very complex forms. Therefore, life at the bottom or oldest part of the Geologic Column should exhibit small, simple celled organisms. As one rises through the Column, evolution should produce organisms that gradually become more complex, more diverse, and much larger in size. One should also expect to observe a very small number of organisms at the bottom which then gradually becomes larger and much larger as one rises upward through the Column. Non-uniform world events could impact this process slightly at different geographical locations. But this would not greatly change the overall process, since it takes about the same amount of time for generations of any species to multiply at their unique life span variations. For example, if gestation of a particular dinosaur is six months, what compelling evidence is there that volcanic action or meteoric bombardment would double or triple that period?

This all sounds natural, logical, and acceptable, yet the Geologic Column exhibits nearly the opposite. Directly at the very bottom, in stratum that has been labeled Cambrian, and even Precambrian, we observe the most complex life forms imaginable - and they exhibit incredible diversity.

Darwin’s “Wide Door” opens even wider into Complexity, for in the lowest and earliest strata of the Geologic Column we find a little creature of the most dynamic complexity: the Triobite. Where did this little guy come from? Where are the multitudes of simple organisms that were supposed to precede this highly complex organism? Evolution dogmatically teaches that life is a Simple To Complex process, yet here is a highly complex organism with a wide diversity, estimated to be at least 17,000 known species, and this is at the very beginning! How can evolution account for such a complex organism at the beginning of life? Triobites continue to remain the proverbial “Fly In The Ointment” for the Evolutionist. For their ideas to be valid, the complex should not be here. The Evolutionists wants to see simple forms and not many of them. When the Trilobites first appear, they are highly complex and geographically dispersed. Some were sea-floor predators, and others fed on plankton while swimming.

Trilobites also possessed highly complex, compound eyes. This is another significant blow to Evolution, for eyes should develop much later when there is an environmental necessity for such improvements. Here we see complex animals, that emerged suddenly, with no transitional ancestor preceding them. And it’s not only their existence that challenges the Evolutionist, for there is a sudden appearance of many diverse animals in the Cambrian stratum. This “Cambrian Explosion” has been one of the best kept secrets of the Paleontologist. It is simply embarrassing for Evolutionists to observe not only complex animals at the beginning, but also a veritable explosion of them over most of the Earth.

J. Warner Wallace, author of Cold-Case Christianity, approaches this matter as a crime scene detective. He states in Why the Efficiency of Biological Organisms Cannot Be Explained by Evolution, “The bacterial flagellum bears a striking resemblance to the rotary motors created by intelligent designers. An ensemble of over forty different kinds of proteins makes up the typical bacterial flagellum. These proteins function in concert as a literal rotary motor. The bacterial flagellum’s components stand as direct analogs to the parts of a man-made motor, including a rotor, stator, drive shaft, bushing, universal joint, and propeller. The natural mechanisms of strict evolutionary processes can’t explain the flagellum for an important reason: these processes can’t account for efficient, irreducibly complex micro-machines. Darwinian evolution requires a gradual and incremental pathway to any finished micro-machine.” Charles Darwin is to be commended for recognizing that the sudden appearance of complexity is problematic to Evolution. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Origins, VI, p. 189

The Bible is also here in the Cambrian stratum with a stronger presence than Evolution could ever dream of, for all these animals reproduce along the biblical requirement of Kind after their Own Kind: Trilobites produce little Trilobites, Brachiopoda produce Brachiopoda, Anomalocaris (another sharp-eyed predator) produces Anomalocaris, Opabinia produce Opabinia, Halucenia produce only Halucenia, and Wiwaxia produces only Wiwaxia. Kind after their Own Kind. There are no exceptions. There are no transitioning forms. There is no jumping. There is only the Word of God Almighty who set all things in order and continually supersedes this one maxim of reproduction: Kind after their Own Kind! This God ordained genetic limitation will continue from the appearance of the first Trilobite to the last litter of kittens. Kind will only reproduce after its own Kind.


Kitten Litter The Genesis record of creation is not based on suppositions, analogies, probabilities, or the opinions of the sheepherders who penned it onto paper. This record is a direct statement from God, and as such, has become the bedrock hope of the faithful. The Bible does not display a Geologic Column of dead bones, but the joyful expression of the living. Verse after verse we witness the creation of life. Our minds rejoice with God. Our spirits are uplifted. We do not study its record with pick and shovel, but rather with gratitude and worship. We are inspired by love of a wonderful Creator who organized the galaxies in their places and established planets with correct orbital velocities. God is omnipresent. God fills the known universe and the unknown as well. People say that is not possible. Well, if your image of God is a white-haired, grandfatherly type who peeks from behind clouds, then it may not be. But just exam the similar assumption regarding electrons, protons, neutrons, and the principles of light. Who would argue that these components do not fill the known cosmos? If we were honest with ourselves, the more deeply we probe the universe, the more we are presented with questions than answers. We have studied the complexity of light for many years but do we fully understand it? Is it matter or energy? It displays properties of both. The Bible declares that God dwells in unapproachable light, “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting,” 1 Timothy 6:16. Those who reject the existence of a God, then turn toward the heavens, the stars, the cosmic expanse and state without hesitation that they do not understand all that is out there. Perhaps one should look to the small in order to understand the large. It may help us to better understand the distant by contemplating the near.

Life on this Earth, be it plant, microbe, animal, or human is composed of DNA, Deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA information is stored in code form in four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). It is the sequence of these bases that determines the uniqueness of all living things. Consider these bases as letters of the alphabet. As letters are arranged in different sequences to form words and sentences, so also does the sequence of these bases determine the composition of an organism. Here is the answer to why all life forms are different. Each living thing contains DNA, but it is the sequence of the bases which determines cows from kittens, and roses from radishes. It is the law of nature.

God also has a law. Macro-creation begins in Genesis chapter one at verse eleven. Though, written thousands of years ago, it is just as true in our modern world as it was from the beginning of time. It is repeated no less than seven times in this passage, as though God wants to make sure we understand it: herbs yielding seed after their kind, fruit-trees bearing fruit after their kind, every living creature that moveth after their kind, and every winged bird after their kind, beasts of the Earth after their kind, cattle after their kind, everything that creepeth upon the ground after their kind. It is God’s law. Animals, plants, and humans in the natural realm have strictly obeyed this law since its inception. The proof of the biblical record as declared in the book of Genesis is demonstrated with the birthing of every litter, clutch, brood, hatchlings, or swarm in the animal kingdom. Each reproduces Kind after their Own Kind. Evolutionists can not demonstrate one preponderate macro-transition in public view, because the arguments for Evolution are usually inferred, supposed, imagined, or alluded. In Darwin’s own personal experience, he continued to hope for graduated transitions that never arrived. The Geologic Column did not give him the Innumerable Transitional Life Forms that he imagined and supposed must certainly have been there. His imaginary sea-shells did not exist at Glen Roy.

Biological discovery and classification of animals until recently was based almost entirely on structure and physical characteristics of a species. Researchers naturally grouped these according to their evolutionary assumptions. But as science explores the deeper constructs of DNA sequences, they are being confronted with many surprising discoveries. Species that had been previously associated with each other due to structure are not always genetically similar.

Hominids - Structurally Similar but Genetically Unrelated

K-Z Chart - Original The famous Kelvin-Zallinger chart depicting the supposed evolution of man, from a primal ape on the left to modern human on the right has been falling apart almost from the time of its publication. Visually, it has strong appeal, for each hominid image shows very similar features. And, this is precisely one of the main fallacies of evolution, that being: if two specimens show distinct similarities, then one may infer that each was generated from a common ancestor. This is not science. This is an agenda looking for evidence, just like Darwin at Glen Roy. Year after year, this publication appeared in text books and magazines, convincing the gullible to accept as proven fact what never existed in the first place. But once again, it would be the Geneticist who would revise the chart to its true history. Similar appearances can fool but genes don’t lie. Each figure was visibly similar and a definite connection was suggested. The first to disappear were Australopithecines and Ramapithecus. Then Dryopithecus, Pilothouse, Proconsul, and Oreopithecus were also removed. Why? Because there is little or no genetic evidence that was transmitted from one to another. When finally brought up to date with current beliefs, all that would remain from this chart would be just a few specimens and modern man with absolutely no genetic ties in between. In other words, the evidence for evolution in the past has been primarily appearance, structure, and fossil evidence.

K-Z Chart - Genetically Revised For years the Kelvin-Zallinger illustration, in various forms, was used by Evolutionists to lock their argument as to the origins of mankind. But genetics is telling a different story. Recently published studies of their mitochrondial DNA by Dr. Matthias Krings, Professor of Anthropology and African Popular Culture at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz: “Both pairwise sequence comparisons and phylogenetic analyses tend to place the Neandertal mtDNA sequence outside modern human mtDNA variation. Furthermore, the divergence between the Neandertal mtDNA sequence and the modern human mitochondrial gene pool is estimated to be about four of the modern human mtDNA gene pool. This shows that the diversity among Neandertal mtDNA sequences would have to be at least four times larger than among sequences to be ancestral to modern human sequences. Thus, although based on a single Neandertal sequence, the present results indicate that Neandertals did not contribute mtDNA to modern humans. These results do not rule out the possibility that Neandertals contributed other genes to modern humans. However, the view that Neandertals would have contributed little or nothing to the modern human gene pool is gaining support from studies of molecular genetic variation at nuclear loci in humans.”

The precious Kelvin-Zallinger chain of origins is broken. The original illustration was misleading. One is no longer permitted to group similarly constructed organisms solely by appearance, structure, and/or fossil remains, and then infer an evolutionary process as the only vehicle to attain the results. The field of genetics is teaching us hard lessons in the correct formation of living things. For evolution to be valid, one of its basic necessities is the addition of new DNA information. In other words, ancient simple organisms must acquire this new information by some process to generate new species that are more complex with more advanced attributes, such as eyes and wings. But there is no evidence that new information has ever appeared.

Geneticist Dr Jim Allan, and senior lecturer in the Department of Genetics, University of Stellenbosch writes about the lack of new DNA being added: “It doesn’’t matter if one population breaks into several subgroups, even to the extent of not reproducing with each other anymore. In fact, you would expect that to happen after the Flood, so coyotes, wolves, dingoes, and so on might have had a common ancestor, but the key is that there’’s no new information, —that natural processes don’’t create any new DNA information. I’’ve observed 40 generations of selection of fruit flies. I’’ve seen lots of defective flies because of mutations, but I’’ve never seen new, additional genetic information appear which would give hope to evolutionists. The belief in amoeba-to-man evolution needs a huge amount of new genetic information.”

Biologist Dr. Lane Lester (repeated from above): “The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.”

DNA is the Convincing Factor

Antony Flew Antony Garrard Newton Flew was a British philosopher, author, and lecturer belonging to the analytic and evidentialist schools of thought. He taught at the universities of Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading. Flew was a vigorous defender of atheism, insisting that atheism should be preferred until there is empirical evidence of God. His virulent arguments rejecting Christianity and the existence of God ensconced him in the atheist’s most favored status, long before Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, or Stephen Hawking.

Flew proclaimed himself to be “The World’s Most Notorious Atheist” In his article Theology and Falsification, Flew notoriously argued that allegations for God were “vacuous where they could not be tested for truth.” Flew was highly critical of the mere idea of life after death, following his evidentialist nature that demands evidence before acceptance. He was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto. Evolution was naturally his preference for answering questions surrounding the beginning of life.

However, that gradually changed as Flew invested his energy in studying the monumental complexity and intricacy of Deoxyribonucleic acid, the molecule that carries the genetic instructions governing the development, functioning, and reproduction of all known living organisms. After great length and considerable thought he reasoned that the complexity of DNA, which is composed of an enormous number of intricate connections and dependent relationships, could not possibly have come into being from the process of Evolution. In a 2004 debate at New York University, he declared that he “now accepted the existence of a God.” In that debate, Flew stated that because of the complexity of DNA he believed that the origin of life points to a Creative Intelligence, “...almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence.”

Flew stated: “My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.” Flew joined several other academics in 2006 to urge the British government to consider teaching Intelligent Design in all state schools.

Genetic Algorithms Using Darwinian Mechanisms Will Not Work

David Berlinski David Berlinski is an American philosopher, educator, author, and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his PhD in philosophy from Princeton University. Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford University, Rutgers University, The City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Université de Paris.

“We’re not dealing with a theory in any sense as say a physicist would recognize the theory. First of all the fossil record does not sustain any kind of prediction that can be intelligently derived from Darwinian theory. We’ve never been able to, in any way, theoretically examine the central Darwinian claim that natural selection and random variation can account for a great deal of complexity. If you look at the history of physics for example, what did Newton do in the 17th Century. He said, the planets are being attracted to the sun by a force, an inverse square force. And then he went and showed that if you make that assumption, the result will be an orbit that conforms exactly to that of the Earth or Mars. It will be a conic section. And then he proved the converse, if it’s a conic section, the planets must be attracted to a central source by an inverse square law. There is nothing like that in biological Darwinian theory; a kind of conical demonstration that this mechanism, random variation, natural selection is adequate to the generation of this level of complexity. From the point of view of the serious sciences, without that kind of a demonstration, one is completely adrift. You have no idea whether the mechanism is adequate for its intended purpose.”

“If you turn to the serious sciences, general relativity, quantum mechanics; I can program a computer with the equations of general relativity or quantum mechanics. I can say, what are the consequences? I can actually see the consequences emerge in a simulation. We can’t do any of this in biology. And that should prompt any reasonable person to ask, why not? And this is such a simple mechanism which should easily be programmed into a computer. How is it that we cannot set up a computer and create something of biological like complexity? That we could see the unfolding of an evolutionary process, the way that we can see an evolutionary process in physics?”

“I’ve looked at all the genetic algorithms, and the sheer fact is that without a tremendous amount of very special manipulation, and ad hoc constraints, the computer is not going to generate anything realistic if it uses Darwinian mechanisms. And it will generate something realistic only if it doesn’t use Darwinian mechanisms. This is an important point. Fifty years after the computer revolution began we have a splendid tool for assessing the intelligibility and viability of Darwinian theory, and everything we know indicates a uniform experience to anyone working in genetic algorithms that these mechanisms will not work. They will not work for their intended purposes.”

“And finally there is the utter absence of laboratory evidence - random variation, natural selection - we should be able to start manipulating organisms. When we look at dogs, no matter how far back we go, it’s dogs, when we look at bacteria, no matter what we do they stay bugs. They don’t change in their fundamental nature. There seems to be some sort of inherent species limitation, and we have no good explanation for this in terms of Darwinian theory. We should have far more flexibility, far more plasticity under laboratory conditions than we actually do, if Darwinian theory or anything like that were correct. What we see in nature and what we see in the laboratory is very highly bounded variations. These are evidentiary points that I think need to be stressed, need to be examined openly and honestly.”


After reviewing the basic tenets whereby Macro-evolution is suggested to have been the agent responsible for the initiation and proliferation of innumerable varieties of plant, animal, and human life forms, this author finds that most of this theory more correctly rests on Analogy, Supposition, Inference, and Unknown Processes which can not be demonstrated, explained, or reproduced.

For these reasons this author does not believe that Evolution has successfully refuted the biblical record. There is little evidence at any point, and there is no process explained. Actually, the Creationist has always had a happy home in the Geologic Column. There are so many things that lend validation to what we find in the Bible.

If Macro-evolution is true, then we should expect a preponderance, not scarcity, of information which demonstrates processes whereby one distinctive organism changed into an entirely new, distinctive organism. This obvious lack of incontrovertible evidence has been the birth mother of Neo-Darwinism, one more approach to explaining the hypothesis of evolution by mixing different attributes of older theories into a brand new concept. “Neo-Darwinism is an attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics which states that organisms do not change over time - with Darwinism which claims that they do.” {  8  }

My intention in this exercise has been two-fold: (1) to carefully examine the basic tenets of Macro-evolution and determine whether observable processes successfully refute the biblical record of creation in Genesis; and (2) to advocate that the biblical record of Genesis is reasonable, sensible, and convincing. Why is it convincing? Because every new birth in the human and animal kingdom still adheres to the biblical mandate of “Kind producing after their Kind”, and the most profound efforts to subvert it constantly results in complete failure and frustration. Every time a newborn infant emerges from the womb of human or animal, the Bible rejoices with one more validation of itself. Therefore, I must conclude that the hypothesis of Macro-evolution does not successfully refute the God ordained genetic limitation or biblical law of: Kind Producing Only After Their Own Kind.


Since faith is generally assumed to be entwined with studying the Bible, may one successfully argue that a discussion of biblical events will make sense apart from the necessity of exercising faith? Yes, certainly. I shall demonstrate the trustworthiness of an ancient witness apart from faith, although believers will most certainly start from a position of faith.

Charles A. Young published General Astronomy for Colleges and Scientific Schools in 1898, a college level textbook that was routinely cited as the authoritative word on astronomical disciplines. Today, it is has little academic value other than amusing reading. Why? Because of concepts such as the following. (1) The heat from our sun comes from it’s cooling off (like a burning log); whereas we now know that the heat from our sun results from the changing of 4.2 million tons of matter into energy each second. (2) The solar system was formed according to the Nebular Hypothesis; a concept which is generally refuted. {  9  } (3) Young believed that dark spots in our night sky were holes through which we look into empty space; whereas now we know that most of the universe is far beyond our own galaxy. Just think of the implications of using this textbook. In less than one hundred years, the best specialized reference material that man can produce is outdated! Although written by a distinguished authority, this textbook offers little more than humorous reading. But, the creation account of Genesis is almost four thousand years old, and it stands as a fierce competitor in the modern arena of ideas. Additionally, the biblical record was written, not by astronomers, physicists, cosmologists, or scientists of any pursuit. It was recorded by sheepherders. One of the reasons why some Christians are so quick in attempting to compromise Genesis with evolution is because this ancient record so easily lends itself to modern scientific teachings.

In the following chart, the ancient biblical record exhibits amazing parallels with particulars which are taught by modern science.

Chapter 1:3 “Let there be light” Big Bang of exploding hot gases.
Chapter 1:4 “God divided the light from the darkness” As rapidly expanding gases began to cool, gravitational forces encouraged a separation of faster hotter gases from the slower cooling darker masses.
Chapter 1:6 “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters” Cooling matter became planets with an atmosphere.
Chapter 1:9 “Let the gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear” Atmospheric shrouds began condensing which precipitated oceans in all land mass depressions.
Chapter 1:11 “Let the Earth bring forth grass ..seed ..herb ..fruit” Earliest plant life forms began on land.
Chapter 1:20 “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life” Earliest animal life forms began in the sea.
Chapter 1:24 “Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind” Complex animal life structures appear on dry land, with genetic instructs to reproduce distinctive offspring, only within their own kind.
Chapter 1:26 “Let us make man in our image” Humans were the last creatures to appear.
Chapter 1:28 “Be fruitful, ..multiply ..replenish ..subdue ..have dominion” Humans gained or refined intelligence so that they were able to control other life forms.

A summary of the entire debate seems to be that Evolutionists claim science is on their side, and that Christians must appeal to the biblical record through faith. But science is merely explaining observations. Thus, it could be argued that science and the biblical record have much in harmony. The four thousand year old Genesis record explains not only the observation of Kind producing after Kind, but articulates an amazing progression of development that parallels what modern science currently teaches. Modern theories concerning the development of the universe and the subsequent appearance of life need constant revision. Charles Young has demonstrated that in less than a century, the profound gift of human knowledge offers us little more than humorous reading.

Quotations From the Original 1859 Edition:

Resources Used in this Project:

Return to Inspiration Written by Ron Gordon

Image Icon Image Icon