El agua PUEDE mover montañas rápidamente.

Bruce Malone

Cuatro millones de personas visitan el Gran Cañón cada año y reflexionan sobre las increíbles fuerzas que excavaron este abismo en la tierra. ¿Acaso el pequeño río en el fondo excavó las numerosas capas de sedimentos durante eones o fue un evento catastrófico el que excavó el cañón con mayor rapidez? Estas son las explicaciones contradictorias sobre el origen del Gran Cañón. Sin embargo, ¿cómo pudo una inundación lograr tanto? Como muestran los siguientes ejemplos, el agua en movimiento tiene una enorme capacidad erosiva.

En la primavera de 1983, el túnel del aliviadero de la presa Glen Canyon tuvo que abrirse para permitir el drenaje del agua del lago Powell. Cuando uno de los aliviaderos se abrió por completo, el patrón de flujo cambió y se observaron bloques de roca saliendo a toda velocidad por la salida del aliviadero. El agua se tiñó de rojo con arenisca disuelta y se produjeron temblores de tierra notables. El aliviadero se cerró inmediatamente para su inspección. El equipo de investigación descubrió increíbles daños por erosión en el túnel del aliviadero causados ​​por la cavitación del agua fluyente. En cuestión de minutos, el agua que fluía penetró los muros de casi un metro de espesor, reforzados con acero, y abrió un agujero de 45 metros de diámetro en la roca circundante, cuya reparación requirió 1.800 metros cúbicos de hormigón.

En las tierras descuidadas del este de Washington se encuentra un ejemplo aún más dramático de la increíble fuerza erosiva del agua que fluye rápidamente. Un antiguo lago quedó bloqueado al final de la edad de hielo por una presa de hielo en el norte de Idaho. Cuando el agua rompió la presa, arrasó Montana, Idaho y Washington, dejando 25.000 kilómetros cuadrados de terreno marcado y valles profundamente excavados. En un punto, la inundación excavó una zanja de 80 kilómetros de largo, 9.6 kilómetros de ancho y 275 metros de profundidad en roca sólida. Se estima que 26 kilómetros cúbicos de basalto de la meseta de Columbia se erosionaron en cuestión de horas por este único evento. El proceso por el cual el agua en movimiento puede causar daños tan extensos se ilustra arriba.

¿Pudo el Gran Cañón haber sido excavado por eventos y procesos catastróficos similares? Muchos geólogos cualificados están empezando a creer que esto es exactamente lo que ha ocurrido. Estos geólogos han propuesto que una gran zona del suroeste de Estados Unidos quedó cubierta por agua que, al parecer, rompió una presa natural y erosionó rápidamente gran parte del Gran Cañón hasta su profundidad actual. El agua que provocó esta rápida erosión provino del agua que quedó en la meseta al retroceder el diluvio universal.

Existen muchos otros ejemplos de agua en movimiento que han provocado cambios geológicos masivos. Sin embargo, todos estos ejemplos locales palidecen en comparación con el efecto que un diluvio universal tendría en las características geológicas regionales. Si se produjera un diluvio universal, las fuerzas destructivas ilustradas estarían en acción durante y después del evento. El resultado sería la rápida acumulación de depósitos sedimentarios muy gruesos sobre vastas regiones. Durante tal evento, los valles se llenarían de sedimentos de miles de metros de espesor.

Un único diluvio universal sigue siendo la mejor explicación para las capas de roca sedimentaria que cubren nuestro planeta. Los geólogos que creen en una Tierra antigua no rechazan la evidencia de este diluvio basándose en observaciones científicas. Simplemente optan por interpretar la evidencia partiendo de la base de que nunca hubo tal diluvio. ¿Podría ser una aversión filosófica a aceptar lo sobrenatural en su origen? ¿Sería bienvenido en la comunidad científica actual un geólogo que aceptara un diluvio universal como la formación de las características geológicas de nuestro planeta? ¿O esta interpretación "políticamente incorrecta" lo condenaría al ostracismo? Aceptar un diluvio universal como un hecho real afectaría profundamente también a otras áreas de la ciencia, como la biología, la paleontología y la antropología. ¿Permitiría la comunidad científica tal interpretación?

Read More

A água PODE mover montanhas – rapidamente

Bruce Malone

Quatro milhões de pessoas visitam o Grand Canyon anualmente e refletem sobre as forças incríveis que esculpiram este desfiladeiro na Terra. Teria o pequeno rio no fundo do desfiladeiro esculpido as inúmeras camadas de sedimentos ao longo de eras, ou um evento catastrófico teria acelerado a formação do desfiladeiro? Estas são as explicações concorrentes para a origem do Grand Canyon. Mas como é que uma inundação poderia ter realizado tanto? Como mostram os exemplos seguintes, a água em movimento possui um enorme poder erosivo.

Na primavera de 1983, o túnel do descarregador da Barragem de Glen Canyon teve de ser aberto para permitir o escoamento da água do Lago Powell. Quando um dos descarregadores foi totalmente aberto, o padrão de escoamento alterou-se e foram vistos blocos de rocha a serem lançados para fora do descarregador. A água ficou vermelha devido à dissolução do arenito e foram sentidos tremores de terra percetíveis. O descarregador foi imediatamente encerrado para inspeção. A equipa de investigação descobriu danos erosivos incríveis no túnel do descarregador, causados ​​pela cavitação da água em movimento. Numa questão de minutos, a água corrente penetrou nas paredes de aço reforçadas com um metro de espessura e abriu um buraco de 45 metros de diâmetro na rocha circundante, exigindo 1.784 metros cúbicos de betão para a reparação.

Nas terras acidentadas do leste de Washington, há um exemplo ainda mais dramático da incrível força erosiva da água corrente. Um antigo lago foi bloqueado no final da era glaciar por uma barragem de gelo no norte de Idaho. Quando a água rompeu a barragem, devastou Montana, Idaho e Washington, deixando 41.440 quilómetros quadrados de terreno marcado e vales profundos. Num local, a inundação abriu uma vala de 80 quilómetros de comprimento, 9,6 quilómetros de largura e 274 metros de profundidade na rocha sólida! Estima-se que 16 quilómetros cúbicos de basalto do Planalto de Columbia tenham sido erodidos em questão de horas por este único evento. O processo pelo qual a água em movimento pode causar danos tão extensos é ilustrado acima.

Será que o Grand Canyon foi esculpido por eventos e processos catastróficos semelhantes? Muitos geólogos qualificados começam a acreditar que foi exatamente isso que aconteceu. Estes geólogos propuseram que uma grande área do sudoeste dos Estados Unidos estava coberta de água que aparentemente rompeu uma barragem natural e erodiu muito rapidamente grande parte do Grand Canyon até à sua profundidade actual. A água para esta rápida erosão veio da água deixada no planalto quando o dilúvio global recuou.

Existem muitos outros exemplos de água em movimento que provoca alterações geológicas massivas. No entanto, todos estes exemplos locais são insignificantes quando comparados com o efeito que um dilúvio mundial teria nas características geológicas regionais. Se tivesse havido um dilúvio mundial, as forças destrutivas ilustradas estariam em funcionamento durante e após o evento. O resultado seria a rápida acumulação de depósitos sedimentares muito espessos sobre vastas regiões. Durante um evento deste tipo, os vales seriam preenchidos com sedimentos com milhares de metros de espessura.

Um único dilúvio mundial é ainda a melhor explicação para as camadas de rochas sedimentares que cobrem o nosso planeta. Os geólogos que acreditam numa Terra antiga não rejeitam as evidências deste dilúvio com base em observações científicas. Simplesmente optam por interpretar as provas partindo do pressuposto de que nunca houve tal dilúvio. Será esta uma aversão filosófica a aceitar o que é sobrenatural na sua origem? Um geólogo que aceitasse um dilúvio global como a formação das características geológicas do nosso planeta seria bem-vindo na atual comunidade científica? Ou esta interpretação "politicamente incorreta" levá-lo-ia ao ostracismo? Aceitar um dilúvio global como um evento factual afetaria profundamente também outras áreas da ciência, incluindo a biologia, a paleontologia e a antropologia. Tal interpretação seria permitida pela comunidade científica?

Publicado originalmente 16-11-2012.

Read More

Water CAN Move Mountains – Rapidly

By Bruce Malone:

Four million people per year visit the Grand Canyon and ponder the incredible forces which cut this chasm out of the earth. Did the small river at the bottom carve through the many layers of sediment over eons of time or did a catastrophic event carve the canyon more rapidly? These are the competing explanations for the origin of the Grand Canyon. How could a flood, though, have accomplished so much? As the following examples show, moving water has enormous erosion capabilities.

In the spring of 1983 the spill-way tunnel of the Glen Canyon Dam had to be opened to allow drainage of water from Lake Powell. When one of the spillways was fully opened the flow pattern changed and blocks of rock were seen hurtling out of the spillway exit. The water became red with dissolved sandstone and there were noticeable earth tremors. The spillway was immediately closed for inspection. The survey team discovered incredible erosion damage to the spillway tunnel caused by cavitation of the flowing water. In a matter of minutes, flowing water had penetrated the three foot thick, steel reinforced, walls and ripped a 150 foot diameter hole into the surrounding rock requiring 63,000 cubic feet of concrete to repair.

In the scab lands of eastern Washington is an even more dramatic example of the incredible erosion force of rapidly flowing water. An ancient lake was blocked at the end of the ice age by an ice dam in northern Idaho. When the water breached the dam it ripped through Montana, Idaho, and Washington leaving 16,000 square miles of scarred terrain and deeply cut valleys. At one location, the flood cut a 50-mile long trench 6 miles wide and 900 feet deep through solid rock! An estimated 10 cubic miles of Columbia Plateau basalt was eroded in a matter of hours by this single event. The process by which moving water can cause such extensive damage is illustrated above.

Could the Grand Canyon have been carved out by similar catastrophic events and processes? Many qualified geologists are coming to believe this is exactly what has happened. These geologists have proposed that a large area of the southwestern United States was covered by water which apparently broke through a natural dam and very rapidly eroded much of the Grand Canyon to its current depth. The water for this rapid erosion came from water left on the plateau when the global flood receded.

There are many other examples of moving water accomplishing massive geological changes. Yet all of these local examples pale in comparison with the effect a worldwide flood would have on regional geological features. If there were a worldwide flood; the illustrated destructive forces would be in operation during and subsequent to the event. The result would be the rapid accumulation of very thick sedimentary deposits over massive regions. During such an event, valleys would be filled with sediment thousands of feet thick.

A single worldwide flood is still the best explanation for the sedimentary rock layers that cover our planet. Geologists who believe in an old Earth do not reject the evidence for this flood based on scientific observations. They simply choose to interpret the evidence based on the assumption that there never was such a flood. Could it be a philosophical aversion to accepting that which is supernatural in its origin? Would a geologist who accepted a worldwide flood as the formation of our planet’s geological features be welcome in the present science community? Or would this “politically incorrect” interpretation cause him to be ostracized? To accept a worldwide flood as a factual event would profoundly affect other areas of science, as well: including biology, palaeontology, and anthropology. Would such an interpretation be allowed by the scientific community?

Originally published November 16, 2012.

Read More

Proof of Creation - Bruce Malone

Read More

Astounding Evidence for a Young Earth- Bruce Malone

Read More

Science Defined to Exclude Creation

By Bruce Malone

The following strategy is repeatedly used by those who advocate “evolution only” education. They:

1. Define science to exclude the possibility of a creator.

2. Claim that all the evidence for our designer is “not science” and, therefore cannot be shown.

3. Repeat, like a mantra, statements such as “evolution is the basis of science” and imply that microbes to man evolution is a proven fact.

4. Then give examples of minor changes within organisms as “proof” that one organism can change

into a completely different type, while using the same word, ‘evolution’ for both the small and the

enormous changes. 

Actual scientific evidence for any major evolutionary transformation is non-existent. No experiment ever performed has come even remotely close to showing how life could form from chemicals. Major problems with origin of life experiments are systematically hidden from students – after all, we can’t have students considering the only other alternative (creation), can we? 

No experiment has shown how useful functioning information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes. Yet, it can be experimentally demonstrated that every known mutation results in a net loss of original functioning information. Why aren’t we training students to ask the big question - where did all of this original functional information come from? Acknowledgment of a designer gives a mechanism that agrees with known scientific observations; evolution relies on faith that denies experimental reality.

It is commonly parroted by evolution believers that creation is not science because it is not testable or repeatable. In actuality, the creation model is far more testable than the concept that microbes turned into man by random mutational changes. Any sequence pattern even remotely similar in form or function to the DNA code, beamed to earth from outer space, would immediately be acknowledged as evidence of an intelligent originator. Yet, the same evidence for a designer, found in every DNA molecule, cannot be acknowledged as such in classrooms! Mutation rates have been accelerated a million-fold with fruit flies, yet no new creature or even any new functioning feature has ever developed. 

Fossils are an undeniable record of the sudden appearance of distinctly different animal forms with huge gaps between enormously diverse creatures. The Biblical creation model explains the fossil record as a consequence of a real worldwide flood and the reality of this ancient global flood has been repeatedly confirmed by careful scientific observations. Yet, these evidences are systematically suppressed because of a dogmatic faith in evolution, which survives by defining “science” so that it leaves out the better creation alternative. 

Those setting the standards for our public school science curriculum have merely replaced the acknowledgement of our Creator’s existence with a definition of “science” that excludes the possibility of God’s interaction with His creation. In essence modern man has decided to use the public education system to pretend that there is no God (at least not one worth mentioning). In reality what is being taught is that there is no God except naturalism. God, who desires for us to have a personal relationship with Him, has a response to this sad situation. Psalms 14:1 states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” We have become a nation of fools in the way we have allowed our children to be educated.

Read More

Dinosaur Discoveries Rock Evolution

Bruce Malone:

Only seven Tyrannosaurus Rex specimens have been found which are more than 50% complete. Because these fossils are assumed to be over 60 million years old, evolution believers have historically failed to look for non-fossilized material within the bones. Dinosaur bones are generally found in a fossilized condition with silica and other minerals having completely replaced the carbon structure of the original bones—although bones with the appearance of recent burial have been documented.[1] Fossilization is a well understood process that can take place very rapidly under proper conditions. There are many documented cases of the rapid fossilization of organic matter in silica rich water exposure.[2]

Yet, a recent T. Rex discovery sent shockwaves through the scientific community. Evolution believer, Mary H. Schweitzer, of North Carolina State University has discovered flexible blood vessels inside the fossilized bones of a “68-70 million year old” T. Rex from the Hell Creek formation in eastern Montana.[3] In fresh bones, any weak acid can be used to remove the calcium, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to use acid to demineralize a typical mineralized fossil, nothing would be left because everything has been turned to stone. Yet, this acid-treated T. Rex bone fragment left flexible and elastic structures very similar to what one would get from a fresh bone which appeared, “so flexible and resilient that when stretched would return to its original shape”[4]

Close examination of the broken thigh bone also revealed round microscopic structures that appear to be blood cells inside hollow vessels. Dr. Schweitzer stated, “I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren’t supposed to be there, but there they are. I was pretty shocked.”[5]

The entire evolutionary community should be far more than shocked. They should be rethinking their dogmatic faith system requiring millions of years of earth history. How could a fossilized bone, buried under enormous heat and pressure, and after millions of years exposure to the environment have intact organic structures? The soft tissue would have completely degraded, no matter how fortuitous the preservation process.

This is not the first soft tissue to be unearthed. Nucleic acid (DNA) with up to 800 base pairs has been taken from “fossil” magnolia leaves allegedly “17-20 million years old.”[6]  Yet, DNA exposed to water and oxygen rapidly degrades. A “25-40 million year old” bee was also found encased in amber containing living bacteria spores.[7] Dr. Cano, the discoverer, took careful measures to avoid contamination and his analysis of the bacteria showed it to be very similar to the DNA found in modern “bee bacteria.”

These finds -- soft tissue, bacteria spores, and DNA in fossils and amber -- are not isolated examples, but part of a growing number of scientific discoveries which are rocking the evolutionary time frame to its core! However, don’t expect to hear about them in your child’s textbook, popular science magazines, or museums any time soon. Why? Because it is easier to deny, ignore, or explain away the implications of these finds rather than to admit that the pre-suppositional assumptions of the evolutionary belief system -- huge periods of time, no recent worldwide flood, and no interaction of God with creation -- could be wrong.

Footnotes:

1. Buddy Davis, Mike Liston, John Whitmore, The Great Alaskian Dinosaur Adventure, Master Books, 1998.

2. Carl Wieland, ‘The Earth: How Old Does it Look?’, Creation ex nihilo 23(1):8–13, December 2000.

3. Schweitzer, M. H., et al.,Science, 307, no. 5717, pp. 1952-1955, 25 March 2005.

4. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/, March 2005.

5. Boswell, E., Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005.

6. Golenberg, E., et al., Nature 344:656-8.

7. Cano, S., Science, vol. 268, no. 5213, p. 977, Research News, 19 May 1995.

Read More

Our Mysterious Past

By Bruce Malone: 

Just beneath the lush vegetation and majestic scenery of our planet is a massive worldwide graveyard. Plants and animals are buried by the billions under countless tons of mud and sediment which have subsequently turned to rock. How did all those organisms get there? The answer to that question is THE KEY to understanding our origin.

Starting in the early 1800’s geologists have chosen to interpret fossils and sediments based on a presupposition of slow accumulation, or more recently, multiple local catastrophes over billions of years (uniformitarianism). Thousands of geologists have been indoctrinated in this belief and have spent the last 150 years working to fit the evidence into this interpretation of earth history. Yet, many facts remain unexplained by this interpretation. Most of these “mysteries” disappear, if the reality of a recent worldwide flood is acknowledged. A jury looking for the truth starts with eye witness accounts. In addition to the Bible, which clearly presents the global flood as a factual event, every major culture in the world has a flood story. From the Aztecs to the Chinese...Aborigines to the ancient Greeks...all cultures have an ancient account of a universal flood. Many of these stories include details of a righteous man being saved on a floating vessel and attribute the event to judgment from God. If this really happened; people would have spread across the globe after the catastrophe. As centuries passed, the account of the flood would have become distorted. This is exactly what we find.

More evidence comes from fossils. The very existence of fossils is evidence of rapid burial. Fossils do not form today unless animals are rapidly buried. Yet many fossil deposits contain billions of tightly packed and intricately preserved creatures indicating that they had been washed together and rapidly buried. The extent, frequency, and lack of decay found in most fossil beds testify to the worldwide extent of the catastrophe.

The nature of the rock record is also a testimony to a worldwide flood. At many locations around the world, often resting just above those rock layers containing very few indications of life, there is a conglomeration of rocks and boulders. The Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon is an example of this. The Great Unconformity represents a supposed 500 million years of missing earth history. But is there really any “missing” time? Along this interface great boulders of Shinumo Quartite are buried exactly as if they were transported into place by energetic flood waters.[1] The expected consequence of an extensive and energetic flood would be the rapid erosion of massive amounts of sediment and the redeposit of these sediments at other locations. Rocks and boulders would drop to the bottom of these flood waters and come to rest at the top of newly scoured surfaces. This is what we find between the Tapeats sandstone/Dox sandstone border in the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists assume there is a “missing” 500 million years at this border. Creationists see the evidence as a conformation of a worldwide flood with no “missing” time.

Creation geologists have only been working to explain the massive sedimentary rock layers of our planet by a worldwide flood for a few decades and there is still much to be explained. However, the creation model explains many problems which the uniformitarian model does not - despite 150 years of study from an evolutionary perspective.

The truth can only be found if all of the evidence is examined. Does our current scientific and education establishment allow for this freedom of investigation?

Footnote:

1. Austin, Steve, Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe - Field Study Guide Tour book, pp.44,

ICR, 1993.

Read More

Fossils Do Not Prove Evolution!

By Bruce Malone

Fossils. The very name brings to mind images of untold ages past...dinosaurs roaming ancient swamps...slow but steady progression as simple sea life was transformed into today’s complex variety. Is this an accurate reconstruction of the past or is a worldwide flood the correct explanation of the fossil record?

Fossils are the preserved evidence of past life. They are found in every part of the world, including the tops of the highest mountains. They may be as simple as a seashell which has left a permanent impression in sandstone or as grandiose as a giant plesiosaur whose bones have turned to rock after rapid burial. The fossils themselves tell us neither their age nor how they became encased in the rock layers. Rather, they must be interpreted within some view of earth history. Many people have been led to believe that the existence of fossils proves that millions of years have passed. In reality, fossils can form quite rapidly. Heat and pressure from rapid burial can accelerate the fossilization process. Geological conditions following a worldwide flood would have exceeded anything imaginable today and thus led to the rapid fossilization of the plants and animals on a massive scale.

Fossilization can happen rapidly under the right conditions, although it is a rare event today. Yet, there are mass burial sites throughout the world that are tightly packed with millions of fossils. Apparently, billions of organisms were washed together by the mass destruction of the worldwide flood, buried by massive amounts of sediment, and rapidly fossilized. These extensive fossil graveyards would be the predictable result of a worldwide flood, but would hardly fit the slow accumulation model which continues to be taught as the primary explanation of the fossil record. Something dramatically different must have happened in the past to have caused the wide spread fossilization which we find all over our planet. Noah’s flood would have been this event.

Geologists and paleontologists operating from a Christian world view acknowledge the possibility that a worldwide catastrophe buried unimaginable amounts of plants and animals. This was the disaster documented in the first book of the Bible. It lasted over a year and had reverberations lasting for centuries.

Although any order of burial in a flood would be possible, the general tendency would be for sea life to be buried in the lower rock layers and land animals to be buried in higher rock layers corresponding to their ecological niche. This tendency is generally found. Sea creatures would have been buried first because the salinity and temperature of the oceans would have changed during the catastrophe, wiping out massive numbers of these sea creatures. Ninety-five percent of all fossils found are sea creatures. Even after the flood, plant and animal extinction would have been common as many types of creatures failed to adapt to the dramatically changing conditions.

Creation geologists (and there are many of them) believe that the majority of the geological record is a result of geological activity during and subsequent to the year-long, worldwide flood. This flood would have been an incredibly complex event. It must have involved rapidly moving continental plates, changing climatic conditions, and massive volcanism for decades.

Geologists and paleontologists operating from an evolutionary world view acknowledge local catastrophes, but do not allow consideration of a worldwide flood. This would wipe out the “slow change over eons of time” interpretation of the fossils which is needed to continue believing in evolution.

Only one interpretation of the evidence can be correct and only one interpretation of the evidence agrees with what the Bible claims is the history of our planet.

Read More

Common Creation Question Answered

by Bruce Malone: 

Many questions are raised by believers in evolution when presented with the evidence for creation. This article addresses some of these common questions.

How did the marsupials get to Australia?

Noah was charged with building the vessel to safeguard certain animals during the first flood (a massive and complex worldwide disaster) not with distributing them afterwards. Once Noah released the animals on Mount Ararat, natural instincts and climatic conditions determined how the redistribution of the animal population took place. As subsequent generations of animals spread across the globe, territorial prowess or chance movements would send certain groups in certain directions. 

 Those animals least suited for or least able to defend a territory would either be forced further from the landing site or exterminated. A consequence of the worldwide flood was a brief but severe ice age which locked ocean water into vast ice fields. This lowered ocean levels and created a land bridge to Australia. A similar land bridge connected Asia to Alaska during this period of Earth history allowing for the free movement of man and animals between these continents. Land movements during the ice age or the subsequent melting of the ice cut off the connection between Australia and Asia effectively isolating the unique animal life to Australia.

How could worldwide coal deposits form rapidly?

The first effect of the worldwide flood would have been the ripping up of vegetation and erosion on an unimaginable scale. As the water receded from one area, vegetation would have been deposited only to be subsequently buried as the area sank and water brought in more sediment. Thus, layer upon layer of coal would have been formed. Furthermore, it has been shown in the laboratory that vegetation can be turned in to coal in as little as one hour with sufficient heat and pressure. A recent model of coal formation is provided by a study of the catastrophic explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980. This explosion knocked down millions of trees which ended up floating on Spirit Lake. Underneath this floating vegetation mat is a thick layer of peat consisting of tree bark and organic matter. If that organic matter were buried by a subsequent eruption, the result would be a coal seam covered by sedimentary rock. Repeated cycles would rapidly produce a series of coal seams with sediment on top of each seam. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that an enormous global flood would have rapidly created the extensive coal seams we find today.

Is “Survival of the Fittest” part of the evolution ?

Modern evolutionists have tried to distance themselves from this concept due to the obvious negative consequences of applying the principle to the social realm. Denying that survival of the fittest is part of the evolutionary process is akin to denying that one type of animal will drive another to extinction given the right conditions. Contrary to the rosy picture of animal cooperation which evolutionists like to portray, one type of animal has no qualms wiping out another in its quest to propagate itself. Wild dogs introduced to Australia are endangering native species because they are more aggressive and have no natural enemies. Sounds like “survival of the fittest” doesn’t it? Survival of the fittest has always been an integral part of the evolutionary theory.

If we are also animals that have evolved according to this basic principle of evolution; why shouldn’t we extend this principle to the social realm? Why shouldn’t we eliminate weaker classes of humans that compete for what we feel we need? Evolution taken to its logical conclusion leads to a savage world akin to Hitler’s Nazi Germany when the strong determine what is right. It was no coincidence that Hitler was strongly influenced by the writings of Darwin.

It is a slap in God’s face and a distortion of Scripture to believe that evolution, with its driving mechanism of survival of the fittest, would be a loving God’s method for creating and preserving us.

Read More

How did Cain Find a Wife?

by Bruce Malone

The following is the paraphrased essence of one of the most critical junctures in the most famous trial of the twentieth century. The scene is the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, and defense attorney Clarence Darrow had goaded prosecuting attorney Williams Jennings Bryan to take the stand in defense of the Bible.

Mr. Bryan,“Where did Cain find a wife?”

“I don’t know.”

“Could you repeat your answer Mr. Bryan? The entire nation is listening via radio broadcast and this is a pretty basic and simple question. Let me rephrase it. If, as the Bible claims, Adam and Eve were the first man and women, and no other people existed, who did their son Cain find to marry?”

“I don’t know.”

Darrow made Bryan appear foolish because he did not know scripture well enough to defend the most basic of questions. This trial marked a turning point in American education because, for the first time, the Bible was openly ridiculed. Bryan’s inability to answer simple and logical questions was one factor that allowed the American educational establishment to accept evolution hook, line, and sinker, while rejecting the historical creation account of the Bible.

Even today, most Christians do not know the answer to questions as basic as “Where did Cain find a wife?” The problem with not having reasonable answers to logical questions is that it brings all Christianity into question. Why should people believe in a God that they cannot see; if believers in God cannot answer life’s questions about our origin?

The reason that the answer to this question is not immediately apparent is that we have been trained to think like evolutionists. Evolution was founded on a principle of modern geology called ‘uniformitarianism.’ This is the belief that small changes over vast periods of time caused the massive geological changes (Darwin added biological changes.) In essence, we are trained to believe that every thing has always operated as we see it today. This is not what the Bible teaches. It teaches that mankind was created perfect, without flaws. It was only after man’s disobedience that imperfection entered God’s creation. Thus mankind, as originally created, would not have had the myriad of genetic mistakes now present in our DNA. Mutations do not lead to better and improved humans. These mistakes cause hundreds of debilitating illnesses and birth defects. The reason all of us are not born with enormous numbers of medical problems is because our genes are a combination of the characteristics of both our parents. Only when both parents have the same DNA mistake, do their children manifest the resulting genetic problem.

Furthermore, these genetic mistakes accumulate and increase with time. In other words, the information in our DNA gets more garbled, it never increases in clarity. Since mistakes are accumulating in our DNA, it is logical to assume that as we go back in time, there would be fewer mistakes. The reason brothers and sisters cannot marry today is because they are likely to have similar DNA errors which only lead to children with birth defects. However, there were no moral laws against children intermarrying until after the time of Moses. This was approximately 4000 years ago and at least 2000 years after the creation of mankind. Before that time, sibling marriage was quite common. The Bible states that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Cain merely married his sister.

The reason we don’t realize this obvious answer is because we have been trained to believe things have always been the way they are today. The past and the present become far more understandable when we view it from a Biblical perspective. This viewpoint acknowledges that the past was very different from the present.

Read More

Our Design is no Accident

by Bruce Malone:

Vestigial features are those parts of an organism thought to be useless leftovers from its ancestor, as the creature has evolved to a new way of life. Our tailbone is commonly taught to be such a feature. The idea of vestigial features has been used as evidence for evolution since 1859 when Darwin first proposed that such features were evidence for the descent of one organism from a completely different one. The logical consequence of this alleged transformation is that the “new” creature would be left with some features which are no longer needed in its new environmental niche.

Belief in evolution demands that we believe that each type of animal on earth is a result of its descent from some previous life form. If this were the case; almost every creature should have many leftover features which are no longer needed. Yet, the more we learn about biology, the more we discover that every part of an organism serves some useful function. For example, the appendix is often said to be a useless leftover from our ape ancestry. We now know that the appendix serves as a type of lymphatic tissue in the first few months of life to fight disease. It is no more a useless feature than one of your lungs is useless just because you can survive with only one lung.

The acceptance of the idea that some parts of the human body are useless leftovers has led to many tragic consequences. Based on the misguided concept that the human colon was a vestige of the past, Sir William Land and dozens of other surgeons stripped the colons from thousands of patients in order to “cure” a variety of symptoms. [1] Many died. As late as the 1960’s many people routinely had their tonsils removed. This practice was again fueled by the mistaken belief that the tonsils were a useless leftover feature from our past. It is now known that they serve an important disease fighting function and should not normally be removed.

Some possible vestigial features exist such as the blind eyes of cave salamanders. Blind salamanders have non-functional eyes because they live their entire lives in total darkness. At some time in the past, salamanders may have found a niche in dark caves and apparently only those which mutated to blindness had a need to stay in the total darkness where they could compete for existence without blindness being a disadvantage. However, these salamanders are still salamanders, a mutation to blindness is hardly an upward improvement in complexity, and no new information has been added to the DNA of the salamander.

The human tailbone is frequently listed as a vestigial feature but anatomists tell us that the tailbone serves a very important function in human physiology. The coccyx (tailbone) is the point of insertion of several muscles and ligaments including the one which allows man to walk completely upright. Without a tailbone, people could not walk in a completely upright manner, dance a ballet, perform gymnastics, or stroll down the street with their arm around their spouse. Hardly a useless, leftover -- vestigial feature! The human body is designed for maximum versatility -- it is far more versatile than the body of any other creature. What other animal can perform the range of movement required for activities as diverse as ice skating, pearl diving, pole vaulting, snow boarding and gymnastics? This range of movement would be impossible without the tailbone!

In summary, evolution predicts that there should be leftover features as one organism slowly turned into another. Based on this theory, over 150 human features were at one time listed as useless. Creation predicts that although some life forms have degenerated and lost use of an original function; every part of an organism was designed to serve some useful purpose. As we learn more about the biology of living organisms, including ourselves, it is readily apparent which theory best fits the facts.

1. Robert Wiedersheim, The Structure of Man, p. 200, 1895.

Read More

The Eyes Have it - Creation is Reality

By Bruce Malone:

Charles Darwin expressed confidence that natural selection could explain the development of the eye,[1] but how does this confidence stand up to the light of reason? Today, we are in the curious intellectual situation of allowing only naturalistic explanations in public schools. This is done in spite of the fact that the alternative (creation or intelligent design) more adequately explains the observations. It would take a miraculous number of design changes to transform a light sensitive patch into an eyeball. Furthermore, each change would have to be coded onto the DNA of the “new” creature in order for the change to pass to the next generation. It has never been explained how this could have happened. Each new feature would need to be independently useful or natural selection would not have allowed the new creature to live.

· An eyeball with no retina would be a tumor, not an improvement to be passed on to the next generation.

· An eyeball without a focusing lens would be worthless except as a light detector.

· An eyeball without a functioning optic nerve to carry the signal to the brain would be worthless.

· An eyeball without the perfect balance of fluid pressure would explode or implode.

· An eyeball without a brain designed to interpret the signals would be sightless.

· There are over 100,000 different proteins in our body. The only one with a molecular structure to make it perfectly transparent to light is used to construct the lens of our eye.

It is beyond credibility that chance mutations could have produced any of these changes, let alone all of them at once. Any one of these changes would result in a worthless tumor. All are needed simultaneously for sight to result.

Yet, the chance development of this “hardware” for the eye pales in comparison to the impossibility of the “software” development. The brain must be wired to both accept and understand the signal coming to it from the eyeball. An analogy would be the multi-pixel image from a digital camera. Each part of the image is wired to a specific spot in the receptor screen of the camera to reproduce an image of what the camera is viewing. As the “first eye” was developing, how could the brain have known what the randomly wired image received from the pixels of the optic nerve represented? Before there was sight, the image would be wired like the white snowy image of an out of tune television screen. It can be statistically proven that randomly changing the location of a few of the millions of available pixels would never produce a clear image and sight could never develop in this way.[2]

In Darwin’s time, the complex design of the eyeball was forceful evidence in favor of creation. Our more advanced knowledge of the intricate design of the eye provides even stronger evidence for its creation.

The complexity of the eye still argues for the reality of its instantaneous formation by an incredibly intelligent designer. There is neither a fossil record showing that the eye evolved nor any testable observations to explain how it could possibly have happened. The fanciful story that a light receptive patch turned into the complex eyeball is nothing but the dogmatic faith of a religious belief system. Why do we allow textbook selection which leaves out both the problems with evolution and the evidence for intelligent design? This is indoctrination, not education.

1. Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, republished by J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971, p. 167.

 2. Stoltzmann, David, The Specified Complexity of Retinal Imagery, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 6/06. 

Read More

Try Looking into the Microscope

By Bruce Malone:

NASA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars scanning every minute portion of the sky with radio telescopes. Its goal is to locate signals coming to earth from extraterrestrial life forms. Although NASA has backed off on these efforts, private funds are still being solicited in order to continue the search. How would we identify a signal as coming from an intelligent source? It would have to consist of a complex pattern with occasionally repeated segments which could not be generated by a formula or a natural cause. 

An example of a repeated complex pattern is any human language. The carrier of the sequence could be as varied as ink on paper, electro-magnetic signals in space, sound through air, or smoke signals in the sky. Whenever and wherever such a pattern is found it is proof of an intelligent originator. This is why a pilot flying over a deserted beach could immediately recognize a message for help spelled out in the alignment of rocks on the beach even if he did not know the language in which the message was formed. The pattern itself would be immediately recognizable as having an intelligent source.

The series of simple repeated patterns emitted by rapidly rotating stars (quasars) is not evidence of intelligence because the sequence is too regular and contains no information. Random non-repeating patterns are merely noise and are also not evidence of intelligent origin. It is only when there is a complex pattern with occasionally repeated segments that an intelligent originator must have been involved. If such a pattern coming from outer space were to be discovered; it would be proof that we are not alone in our universe.

The primary motivation for the effort to find this pattern coming from a source outside of our solar system is philosophic and not scientific. If evidence of other life forms was found; it would be heralded as proof that life had developed elsewhere. In other words, given the right conditions... life could pop up anywhere. Yet, there is not a single shred of evidence that life exists anywhere else in the physical universe. Since the effort is philosophically rather than scientifically motivated, negative results seldom change the motivation or beliefs of the experimenters.

The same individuals who are willing to spend millions of taxpayer dollars in an effort to find such a pattern in electromagnetic signals from space are unwilling to acknowledge that the same type of complex pattern, found in all living cells, came from an intelligent source. In our search for intelligent extra-terrestrial life, why don’t we take our eyes off the telescope and put them on the microscope? Inside every living organism is a marvelous blueprint for life known as the DNA molecule. Guess what this organic molecule contains? A complex pattern with occasionally repeated segments which could not be generated by a formula or a natural cause! This is the same type of evidence which scientists would immediately accept as proof of intelligent origin - if it was found coming from outer space.

Why isn’t the coded sequence of the DNA molecule heralded as evidence of intelligent origin? Can it be that many scientists are blind to the evidence for supernatural design because they have been trained to believe that an intelligent, creator God cannot be considered? Does peer pressure from the scientific community stop the open acknowledgment of this obvious evidence for the divine origin of biological life? Furthermore, as knowledge of our universe increases, do we have more or less reason to believe in its supernatural origin?

Read More

Concepts have Consequences

By Bruce Malone:

Concepts have consequences. People act on what they believe to be true. If children are indoctrinated through a public education system which allows only evidence which fits neatly into a naturalistic explanation of life; we will increasingly become a society which looks only to ourselves for answers to life’s questions.

If we have evolved from apes; if we are just another animal ...then who sets the rules? Whose standard should define right from wrong, good from bad, helpful from harmful, lawful from unlawful? Without an absolute basis for morals, the distinction between these opposites disappear. The result is a spiraling descent toward meaninglessness and a degeneration in the value of human life. Acknowledgment of creation provides answers to foundational questions about life that are based on factual scientific and historical evidence. If we evolved from pond slime; on what factual basis could anyone say their belief is right, while someone else’s belief is wrong?

A common consequence of the belief in evolution can be found in most high school biology books that contain a section on comparative embryology. This is the concept that humans and animals have a common ancestor because their embryos have a similar physical appearance. This concept was popularized in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel as he traveled throughout Europe showing the similarity of different animal embryos. Yet, as early as 1874 he was reprimanded by his own university for using fraudulent drawings. Amazingly, his teachings remain in textbooks to this day. Since the 1950’s, it has been proven that a woman’s fertilized egg is a complete human being. Only time and nutrition are required for it to grow larger. From the moment of conception, a pregnant woman’s body is two bodies, not one. The second body from the moment of conception can never be anything but a human.

Examples of developing baby parts which have been said to be evidence of evolution are the “gill slits” and the “yolk sac”. In a growing baby, the “gill slits” and “yolk sac” serve completely different functions from those of animals from which they are supposed to be descended. Gill slits form gills in fish. In humans, they are merely folds forming various glands and facial features. The yolk sac contains food for a reptile or a bird; while for a human, it has a radically different function. In a growing baby, the heart and circulatory system develop before the bones (which will ultimately be the baby’s blood source). A baby’s heart actually starts to beat 18 days from conception. Yet, the developing baby may have a different blood type than its mother, so it cannot use her blood. With no bone marrow to make its own blood, how can the baby continue to develop? The simplest engineering answer would be to provide a temporary alternative supply. The yolk sac does exactly that, then it disappears!

Comparative embryology does nothing to support the concept of evolution. The primary reason that it still remains in textbooks is that it is used to justify abortion. A woman does not have an abortion because she believes in evolution: although, it makes it much easier to justify killing a baby if you believe it is just a blob going through some stage of comparative embryology. How easy to justify moral disobedience; if we are just animals accountable to no one but ourselves.

It is a historical fact that mankind is sinful and rebellious. The taking of human life by abortion is just one more example of this sinful nature. Fortunately, God has provided a bridge to span the moral abyss between sinful mankind and Himself. This bridge is called Jesus and it is open to anyone willing to repent (change direction) and believe that Jesus is their Maker and Lord who paid the price for their sins.

Read More

Creation Viewpoint Heavily Censored

By Bruce Malone:

Censorship is a word which evokes a strong response because it conflicts with our inherent sense of fairness. Each year, the humanist organization, Citizens for an American Way, publish a report of supposed “censorship” incidents in which “fundamentalists” attempt to keep books out of libraries. Yet, a far more dangerous type of censorship is largely ignored.

Censorship is the banning of ideas so that people do not even have the opportunity to hear them. The reason this is so dangerous is that the human mind tends to work by paradigms. A paradigm is a framework which all people develop concerning what is right or wrong, true or false. The human mind often finds it very difficult to even consider ideas outside an accepted paradigm. Increasing exposure to the truth improves the probability that it will be embraced. Exclusive exposure to a false belief, no matter how outrageous, insures its eventual acceptance. This is the essence of brainwashing.

In an extensive search of 2.2 million mainstream magazine and journal articles (scanned by SCISEARCH), only 18 items were found which dealt with creation. When another computer search was done to find articles written by well-known creationist authors, not one creation-related article was found. Subsequent interviews revealed that whenever these authors had submitted articles showing specific scientific evidence supporting creation, their work was rejected.1

The situation is no better in school, university, or public libraries where censorship leads to a scarcity of creation materials. Libraries typically purchase materials from a relatively small number of publishers. Creation publications are not selected, no matter how well their work has been researched and presented, because these publishers use reviewers who won’t accept any material critical of evolution. For example, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity is a well documented high school biology book written by a dozen Ph.D. level creationists. Yet, not one of 15 different textbook publishers WOULD EVEN LOOK AT THE MANUSCRIPT! The textbook finally had to be published by Zondervan (a Christian publishing house) effectively eliminating it from consideration in any public school. 

 The authors of The Mystery of Life’s Origin also had difficulty getting their book published because it critically exposed the enormous problems with chemical evolution. This exclusively scientific treatment of the subject was rejected by 100 agencies before being published by Philosophic Press. Phillip Johnson, law professor at U.C. Berkeley, had similar problems publishing his book, Darwin on Trial, which deals with the fallacies of evolution. He finally settled on a Christian publishing house. Most creationist writers and researchers realize that this creation censorship exists so do not waste their time trying to publish their material with mainstream journals or publishers.

The late Dr. A.E. Wilde-Smith was an Oxford professor with 3 earned doctorates. Yet, an OCLC computer search of 1000 libraries showed that only 18 carried any of his classic works supporting creation while almost all of the libraries carried books critical of creation. Library journals publish book reviews and out of 100,000 book reviews, several hundred anti-creation books were favorably reviewed; yet, only one creation work was reviewed at all and the review was extremely negative.

There are hundreds of excellent books documenting the scientific evidence for creation, yet almost none can be found in any public, school, or university library. The Citizens for an American Way are correct - censorship is alive and well in America’s libraries.

1. All of these examples of censorship (and many more) are documented in an article called the Censorship of Information on Origins, Jerry Bergman, Creation ex Nilhilo Technical Journal, Vol. 10, no. 3, (1996). However, it is extremely unlikely you will find this well-written and peer reviewed research journal in libraries.

Read More

Watch Out for the Snow Job

By Bruce Malone:

Phillip Johnson in his book, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, suggests that whenever the word evolution appears in schools, textbooks, nature programs, or museums, a red light should go off in our heads flashing, “snow job alert...snow job alert”. This is because the same word, evolution, is used to convey completely different meanings and the definition shifts without notice.

The most general use of the word evolution is “change.” No one can argue with this - things do change. The second meaning of the word is also agreed upon by everyone. This is when evolution is used to mean micro-evolution or minor variations within a type of animal. Examples of this are different breeds of dogs and cats. Micro-evolution also happens in nature to produce such relatively minor changes as different beaks on finches (which Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands). Notice that dogs are still dogs and finches are still finches.

The switch occurs whenever evolution believers switch to the third definition without mentioning that they are shifting definitions. Macro-evolution is the concept of one animal turning into a completely different type. Believers in evolution repeatedly use the same word (evolution) to mean both minor variations and major transformations. Can minor variations create completely new biological features or creatures? The information needed for micro-evolution is already present within a creature’s genetic code. Macro-evolutionary change requires new functioning information. Furthermore, the fossil record reveals no evidence that any creature has ever turned into a completely different type of creature. In any other type of scientific endeavor or debate using the same word to mean completely different things and changing the definition without notice would be intolerable. Yet, this is exactly what public school science textbooks and evolution believers routinely do.

Many examples of this bait and switch can be sited:

· Almost all high school biology texts use examples of micro-evolution such as finch beak variations as an example of evolution, yet nothing really new is ever created. How can breeding existing characteristics transform a bird or a dog into some completely different type of creature?

· In 1996, Danny Phillips, a high school student in Denver, Colorado, wrote a lengthy defense of creation after being required to watch a government funded Nova television series which presented evolution as fact and glossed over the problems. The response to his request that such propaganda for an atheistic worldview be removed from the classroom was that the “scientific establishment” came down on him like a ton of bricks. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, felt that he needed to personally respond to Danny in a Denver Post editorial. His primary evidence to prove that evolution is a fact...finch beaks show variations!

· Francis Crick argued for evolution with these words, “Richard Dawkins (in The Blind Watchmaker) shows that man, by selection, has produced an enormous variety of dogs.” 2 Lost to this brilliant scientist is the obvious fact that the dogs remained dogs - what is not already present in this animal’s DNA, can never be produced by random changes.

The next time you see the word “evolution”, examine how it is being used. Is it the modification of already existing features (which proves nothing about the origin of those features), or is it a bait and switch where micro-evolution is used as “proof” of macro-evolution (for which there is no proof)?

1. Bruce Alberts, The Denver Post, September 10, 1996, p.B9. 

2. Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, 1988, p.29.

Read More

Science Defined to Exclude Creation

By Bruce Malone:

The following strategy is repeatedly used by those who advocate “evolution only” education. They:

1. Define science to exclude the possibility of a creator.

2. Claim that all the evidence for our designer is “not science” and, therefore cannot be shown.

3. Repeat, like a mantra, statements such as “evolution is the basis of science” and imply that

microbes to man evolution is a proven fact.

4. Then give examples of minor changes within organisms as “proof” that one organism can change

into a completely different type, while using the same word, ‘evolution’ for both the small and the

enormous changes.

Actual scientific evidence for any major evolutionary transformation is non-existent. No experiment ever performed has come even remotely close to showing how life could form from chemicals. Major problems with origin of life experiments are systematically hidden from students – after all, we can’t have students considering the only other alternative (creation), can we?

No experiment has shown how useful functioning information can be added to the DNA molecule by random changes. Yet, it can be experimentally demonstrated that every known mutation results in a net loss of original functioning information. Why aren’t we training students to ask the big question - where did all of this original functional information come from? Acknowledgment of a designer gives a mechanism that agrees with known scientific observations; evolution relies on faith that denies experimental reality.

It is commonly parroted by evolution believers that creation is not science because it is not testable or repeatable. In actuality, the creation model is far more testable than the concept that microbes turned into man by random mutational changes. Any sequence pattern even remotely similar in form or function to the DNA code, beamed to earth from outer space, would immediately be acknowledged as evidence of an intelligent originator. Yet, the same evidence for a designer, found in every DNA molecule, cannot be acknowledged as such in classrooms! Mutation rates have been accelerated a million-fold with fruit flies, yet no new creature or even any new functioning feature has ever developed. Fossils are an undeniable record of the sudden appearance of distinctly different animal forms with huge gaps between enormously diverse creatures. 

The Biblical creation model explains the fossil record as a consequence of a real worldwide flood and the reality of this ancient global flood has been repeatedly confirmed by careful scientific observations. Yet, these evidences are systematically suppressed because of a dogmatic faith in evolution, which survives by defining “science” so that it leaves out the better creation alternative. Those setting the standards for our public school science curriculum have merely replaced the acknowledgement of our Creator’s existence with a definition of “science” that excludes the possibility of God’s interaction with His creation. In essence modern man has decided to use the public education system to pretend that there is no God (at least not one worth mentioning). In reality what is being taught is that there is no God except naturalism. God, who desires for us to have a personal relationship with Him, has a response to this sad situation. Psalms 14:1 states, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ” We have become a nation of fools in the way we have allowed our children to be educated.

Read More

Natural Selection to the Rescue?

By Bruce Malone:

It is assumed by believers in evolution that some mutations find a useful purpose. It is proposed that even a slight advantage will be passed onto the next generation, which, exceedingly slowly, transforms one type of creature to another. This process is known as natural selection, but how does natural selection hold up under the light of scientific scrutiny as the directing force behind life’s origin and diversity? Dr. John Sanford, retired Cornell University geneticist, inventor of the “gene gun” and 25 other patented discoveries, uses the following illustration to expose the fallacy of this evolutionary belief.1

According to Dr. Sanford, the amount of information required to transform a single-celled organism into a human being would be greater than the information required to transform the manufacturing plant for a Little Red WagonTM into the Star Ship Enterprise -- complete with warp drive engines and holodeck! Can natural selection, acting on accidental changes to the assembly directions of the little red wagon, accomplish this transformation?

Natural selection is similar to the quality control department at the wagon assembly plant and our genetic code is similar to a document containing the entire manufacturing process for the red wagon. Everything needed to manufacture the wagon, including the specifications for all of the materials of construction...all of the individual components...the processes needed to manufacture them...all of the metal press specifications...all of the robotics and programming language...the assembly instructions...the paint specifications...the employee benefits manual... EVERYTHING needed for the wagon’s construction needs to be attached as a manual to the bottom of the wagon. The next wagon to be produced must use only the information in the existing wagon to make the next copy. The quality department (natural selection) can only see the finished wagon, not the enormous amount of information in the manufacturing manual (the genetic code of the wagon). The question is: can random changes in the assembly manual (the genetic code) allow the quality control department (natural selection) to transform the little red wagon into a better wagon and ultimately into the USS Enterprise?

The amount of information contained within the simplest single cell organism (similar to the information required to build a wagon assembly plant) would fill a small library. Suppose you started with a perfect set of instructions in this library and randomly changed hundreds of individual letters throughout the instructions. Very few of these changes would be critical for assembly or cause a faulty wagon which the quality control department (natural selection) would reject. It is far more likely that almost all of the random changes (these are called mutations in living organisms) would result in no noticeable change and the wagons would roll off the assembly line with mistakes in their manuals intact -- to be used in the creation of the next generation of wagons. This next generation would then have another set of barely noticeable mistakes added, one random letter mistake at a time.
Given enough generations of the wagons, and with every increasing letter-by-letter mistake in their assembly manuals; eventually the point would be reached when wagons could no longer be produced from the instructions because there are so many tiny mistakes present. Large mistakes can be eliminated by natural selection, but not the small mistakes because, one wrong “letter” at a time, they are essentially undetectable in the final product. Yet, in the end they will drive the manufacturing process to extinction the same way one rust molecule at a time will destroy a car. This is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation.

It would seem that neither mutations, nor natural selection, can remotely justify the dogmatic belief in evolution as the explanation for either life’s development or its origin.

1. Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, 2005.

Read More

Darwin’s Magic Potion

By Bruce Malone:

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, he brought scientific credibility to the concept that man developed slowly from previous life forms. Most people do not realize that the concept of evolution did not actually originate with Darwin, but predates him by thousands of years. As far back in history as the ancient Greeks there were ideas about life coming from previous forms of life. Even the mechanisms proposed by Darwin can be attributed, in a large part, to others.1 What sets Darwin apart is the timing of his work. The intellectual community of Northern Europe was ripe for a naturalistic explanation of life. The distortion of Biblical Christianity was bringing faith in the supernatural under increasing ridicule, and humanism (man making himself the center of all things) was rapidly replacing the Christian belief in absolute truth.

Thus, when an alternative to creation seemed to have been found, it was rapidly accepted as fact. The easiest way to reject the authority of a creator is to remove the existence of that creator. In actuality, Darwin proved neither where life came from nor how it developed. He merely proposed a method whereby this transformation from beast to man seemed possible. With the exception of mutations as the source of new genetic information, the belief in evolution as the explanation for our origin has progressed little in the last 150 years. The concepts popularized by Darwin continue to be taught with the fervor of religious dogma.

Darwin proposed several things concerning the origin of the enormous variety of life on our planet. The first was that “the species are not immutable” (i.e. we came from a previous simpler form of life). Darwin’s second proposal was that this trans-formation of one life form into another was driven by a process called natural selection (popularized as “survival of the fittest”). His third assumption was the rejection of a Biblical time frame and a world wide flood as an explanation for the geology of the planet. This allowed him to accept the increasingly popular huge time periods needed for this transformation to take place. Believers in evolution still assume that given enough time, there is essentially no limit to biological variation. But can this seemingly magical force transform amoebas into man?

Almost every biology textbook has the following example of natural selection in action. In England, before the industrial revolution, it was common to find the peppered moth in proportions of 95 percent light-colored to 5 percent dark-colored. This was believed to be caused by the majority of the trees in a certain area being light so the light-colored moths were better camouflaged. Thus fewer light-colored moths were eaten by predators. After the industrial revolution, the trees became primarily dark-colored (due to pollution) and the light-colored moths were now at a disadvantage to the predators. Thus, the peppered moth population shifted from light colored to 95 percent dark. This is a classic example of the powerful ability of natural selection to adapt an organism to its environment. But how far does this go to explain the development of completely different types of animals? We started with light and dark moths and we ended up with...light and dark moths. Nothing new developed. The population merely shifted.

There does not exist even one example of natural selection producing a new type of animal, a new organ, or even a major permanent change in an existing organism. This is because “natural selection” is just that - selection. It can create nothing new. It can only select the most advantageous information which is already present in the molecular blueprint of the organism. Natural selection cannot cause new useful information to be added to the DNA of an animal. Darwin was simply wrong when presenting this mechanism as the explanation for life’s development.

1. Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, 1987

Read More