The theory of evolution is heavily based on the assumption
that genetic mutations (accidental copying mistakes) can
improve an organism’s genetic code (i.e., that mutations can
create new genetic information). But a random mutation is
not likely to improve an organism’s genetic code any more
than firing a gunshot blindly through the hood of a car is
likely to improve engine performance.
Indeed, all of our real-world experience would indicate
that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate the
information required to create complex structures like wings
and eyes is the stuff of wishful thinking, not science.
However, because creatures can adapt to changing environments,
evolutionists use such changes to show “evolution
happening.” Yet these types of changes do not support evolution
— they are either genetically neutral or genetically downhill,
being losses of information instead of the required gains.
Losing bits of genetic information a little at a time does not
explain how the genetic code was built in the first place; you
can’t build a business by losing a little bit of money at a time.
Since we never observe an addition of new genetic information
when a creature adapts to its environment, but always
a shift or loss of already-existing information (genes), it is reasonable
to believe that a Creator pre-programmed creatures
with enough genetic potential to adapt to future environmental
And despite popular belief, there is not one location on
earth where the fossil record shows “a clear vector of progress”
as dogmatically proposed in textbooks. In fact, the fossil record
seems to fit the creation model well — it is characterized by
abrupt appearances of fully formed organisms, with large systematic
gaps (lacking transitional forms) between different
types of creatures.
If the fossil record offers little support for the theory of
evolution (with only a handful of disputed transitional forms),
and if virtually all of the observed examples that allegedly show
evolution happening do not really support evolution at all
(i.e., no example shows an addition of new genetic information,
which is required to support the idea that a simple cell
could have evolved into a human being) — if these two points
are true — then what compelling reason is there to believe in
evolution as the sole explanation for our origins, other than
out of philosophical necessity?
And though the majority of scientists accept the theory
of evolution as true today, should not we be reminded that
the majority of scientists also once thought the sun revolved
around the earth?
Incidentally, the “biblical scenario for the creation of life
turns out to be not far off the mark.” It has been demonstrated
that the biblical creation model is not unreasonable to
believe as a fact of history. The creation model stands up to an
objective analysis: not only is it reasonable, it is also consistent
with what is observed around the earth today (i.e., it can
satisfactorily explain things such as fossils and dinosaurs). As
such, the biblical Book of Genesis does not need to be looked
at as just a “story” — there is good evidence to warrant a
literal interpretation of the events narrated.
But not only do creationist scientists argue that the biblical
creation model is scientifically sound, they also argue that
living things are ordered in such a way as to exhibit evidence
of intelligent design. The high information content in the
DNA of living things, equivalent to millions of pages of the
Encyclopedia Britannica, indicates that rather than a random,
purposeless evolvement, an intelligent source was ultimately
In the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI),
the discovery of a radio signal from outer space with a high level of specified complexity would be hailed as evidence for
an intelligent source. So why shouldn’t the discovery of high
specified complexity in the DNA of living things, equivalent
to millions of pages of Encyclopedia Britannica, also be hailed
as evidence for an intelligent source?
Some of the world’s most distinguished scientists, such
as Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick who made possibly
the most important discovery of 20th century biology, have
thus come to the conclusion that life could never have developed
without the aid of a Master Designer.
But others, because of their presuppositions, refuse to
come to such conclusions despite the weight of the evidence.
One of today’s leading evolutionary biologists clearly expresses
this dominant mindset:
But if science is a search for the truth no matter what the
truth might be, then shouldn’t the door remain open to whatever
truth is there to be revealed?
It is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material [naturalistic]
explanation of the . . . world, but, on the
contrary . . . we are forced by our [presuppositions]
. . . to produce material explanations . . . for we
cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.