Using these basic ideas. scientists have proven that all plants and animals have evolved from the basic chemicals that were here on this planet after it was originally roused. Or have they? Scientific thought is based on fact. “Unverifiable assumptions are not permitted. Assmptions made must be consistent with what is already known, and they must be clearly stated so that others can see, test and challenge them.“ ³ In other words you can state most anything you want, but it must be stated clearly and not only you, but others must be able to repeatedly prove it.

Darwin's theory states, "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." ⁴

It follows that if changes occur over a period of time that we would be able to observe them. At first glance this indeed would seem to be true. Let us take as an example DDT resistant insects such as flies and antibiotic resistant germs. These would seem to be perfect examples of evolution at work, but are they? Theodosius Dobzhansky found in his research that DDT resistant flies take longer to develope, thereby reducing the "fitness" of the new strain. He also states, "Why, then are most colon bacteria found outside of the laboratories still susceptible to bacteriOphage attacks and sensitive to streptomycin? Why have the resistant mutants not crowded out the sensitive genotypes? The theory leads us to infer that the resistant mutants must in some respects be at a disadvantage compared to sensitive bacteria in the absence of phages and antibiotics. ⁵ He goes on to say that almost 60 percent of the streptomycin - resistant mutants are also streptomycin dependent. In other words, the mutant bacteria are inferior to the normal bacteria except where streptomycin is present.

If the mutants had evolved into a superior organism as evolutionary theory predicts, streptomycin would have long ago been discarded as non-effective. Obviously, this is not the case.

DDT resistant flies are a similar case. DDT has been in use for many years and is still very effective, but due to pressure from environ- mentalist groups it has been almost totally phased out. ⁶

Some bacteria can reproduce in as little as 30 minutes giving us over 17,500 generations in a year, yet we find in some fossils the same pathological conditions of the bones, caused by the same disease-producing microbes that are active today. ⁷ Under evolutionary theory these bacteria should have evolved into other, superior things. But have they?

Change through time . . . Evolution . . . obviously things change through time. People change. Dogs change. Fish change. Everything changes. This is a provable scientific fact, and that proof is a repeatable and testable proof.

OK, so things change, but does one form of organism change into another form that is totally different from the 1st? Evolutionary theory says yes. But how do we prove this? According to Darwin changes are very small and very slow. Now let us take a moment here and just forget completely that our findings with bugs and bacteria don't corrolate with the accepted theory.

Let us go back to evolution, change through time, very small, very slow. Where do we start? The only things we have from the distant past are fossils, so we will look at thoses. What do we find?

Anthony Hallan after years of study of bi-valve molluscs states "And time and time again, with hundreds of species, one observes statis with an average species duration of something on the order of as much as twelve million years. And then a species disappears and it's replaced by something similar, but decidedly different. ⁸

Dr. Duane T. Gish states, "Furthermore, the fossil record fails to produce transitional forms between the major invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates and between the major fish classes." ⁹

Here again evolutionary theory leaves us with its hypothesis unproved. What about the horse? Surely, here is an excellent example of evolution at work. Or is it?

There are 350 known species of horses. The five examples normally given were classified according to age, not according to where they were found. In other words, we did not dig through millions of years of rock at one site finding the most recent horse on top and earlier and smaller ones deeper down. A horse here, and a horse there from 350 species all over the world were taken and put together as the Horse's lineage. ¹⁰

Even with the horse the missing link syndrome appears. "The transition from the foot form characteristic of the miniature Eohippus into the larger three-toed meohippus was so abrupt that it left no record in the fossil deposits." ¹¹

What might explain this problem of the missing links between species? A new theory has been put forth; Francis Hitching states "Large-scale evolution is not the accumulation of many small changes brought about by intense selective pressure on crowded population. Rather, it happens in conjunction with severe environmental upheaval followed by relaxed population pressure." ¹²

In other words, a global cataclismic event occurred, say a flood; and organisms, amphibious creatures, were thrown into a new environ- ment, land. These creatures, under the stress of the new environment, strange diet, new climate, gave birth to offspring that had many varied chromosonal changes. Most of these died, but after a few generations several genetic varieties became viable with little population pressure. This one should be easy to prove. Simply take a lot of something, dump them somewhere other than their natural environment, and wait. One suggestion might be the grunion, a fish which comes ashore at certain times or the year to lay its eggs. Throw the little fish a bit further inland. Well . . . maybe we should try it with frogs. Of course, if the fish didn't make it, where did the frogs (amphibians) come from?

Let us stop for a moment and try to visualize exactly what we have said so far. We have an hypothesis, that is Darwin's six postulates. we have decided to view things in a scientific manner, or as the Bible states in I thessalonians 5:21, "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." ¹³

We have sought to scientificaly prove some of Darwin's postulates and have looked at another postulate that seems to be gaining ground.

Have any of these postulates been proven? The answer is NO. We can show that a certain amount of change can occur with an individual species. This can be shown to occur with our DDT resistant flies and streptomycin resistant bacteria. Another example would be the different breeds of dogs. But there still is that tendency for the mutant to die off, or rather the strain returns to its natural state. we have already seen that this occurs in flies and bacteria and if all dogs were left to their own accord in nature, we would see it there too. If you doubt this, simply compare ten "pure breeds" to ten mutts from the pound. The mutts will have fewer dietary problems, fewer injuries, and in many cases are easier to train.

We can show that evolution can occur on a micro scale, but not on a macro scale. In doing research for this report, I have read no less than nine books and many articles on evolution, and nowhere has either the slow steady changes predicted by Darwin, or the sudden changes predicted by the "new biology" ¹⁴ been scientifically shown to be true.

Now if you followed the news media in the last year or two, you will know there is a theory called "Scientific Creationism." ¹⁵ This theory states that God created the earth, all the asserted creatures, and man. All were created fully formed and were all separate individuals. That is, one species did not come from another species. Many people object to calling this idea a scientific theory on the grounds that it is a religious doctrine. I suggest those people consider this:

Webster's dictionary states that religion is:

1. “any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc. often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy."
2. "any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system (humanism as a religion)." ¹⁷

Webster's defines humanism as:
    "any system of thought or action based on the nature, dignity, interests and ideals of man: specif. a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that man is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism." ¹⁷

All forms of evolutionary theory propose that life formed out of naturally occurring chemicals and processes and that if those process are preformed in the correct order and with the correct chemicals in the correct amounts life will automatically occur with no help whatsoever from any supernatural agency. Evolution is a necessary part of the humanistic religion even as creation is a neccesary part of the Bible.

Now let us look at some interesting facts. Creationism holds that the earth is far younger than geologists feel is true. One of the dating techniques used by scientists is Potassimn argon dating. Is it an accurate form? I think not. The Kaupulehu lava flow of 1800-1801 was dated by the potassium argon method to be 1 to 2.4 billion years old.

This same lava flow when dated by helium dating gave ages of 140 million to 670 million years old. ¹⁸ C. S. Noble and J. J. Naughton used potassium argon to date an under water lava flow and got dates of 12 to 21 million years old, however they Judged from the unweathered appearance of the rock that it was less than 200 years old. ¹⁹

The Salt Lake Crater yielded dates of 92-1117 million, 140-680 million, 930-1580 million, 1230-1960 million, 1290-2050 million, and 1360-1900 million. ²⁰ As you can see it is not the most accurate method. The uranium dating techniques are not much better. One sample of beolite from Colorado yielded ages of 3180 million, 2065 million, 110 million, and 1640 million with U238, U235, U232 and Lead-Lead dating methods. Carbon 14 is not any better. John Lynde Anderson found that when he altered the electric charge on a plate which contained carbon 14, the decay rate radically altered. Yale University dated an antler three different times and got three different dates: 5,340 years, 9,310 years, and 10,320 years. ²¹

It would seem these dating techniques are not too scientific for they are not repeatable with any degree of accuracy. It has been stated by some authorities that potassium argon dating was not good unless the sample was at least 250,000 years old, yet how do you check on something 250,00 years old? ²²

As we can see current dating methods are not as reliable as we are led to believe.

Is there evidence for a younger earth than previously believed, as creation theory states? Judge for yourself. If a speck of a radioactive substance, such as uranium 238, is trapped in a rock the speck will send out alpha particles which destroy the crystal structure of the mineral. The particles are emitted at a specific speed and can travel only so far in the rock. When they stop they discolor the rock. As uraniun decays to lead, it passes through fifteen steps, dur1ng this process alpha particles with five distinct velocities are given off. Therefore, five rings or halos are formed in the rock.

Two factors are required for a halo to form:

1. A speck of radiative substance must be in the molten rock before it cools.
2. The rock must solidify into a crystal before all of the radioactivity is ended.

Two and three halo rocks have been found. These halos correspond with the rings made by isotopes of polonium. The three halo rocks indicate polonim 218 was present and then decayed. Polonium 218 has a half life of about three minutes. The two halo rocks show the presence of polonium 214, which has a half life of .00016h second. This means the rock would have had to cool in less than 1/1000 th of a second. No known process in nature can cool a rock to a solid form that fast. Polonium is only found today, mixed with uraniun 238 which decays into the isotopes of polonium. It cannot be stored because of its short half life, yet there were no halos for uranium, only for polonium. It would seem they were created instantly! ²³

A double halo, one oval halo covered by a circular one, has been found in coalified wood fragments. This coal is believed to be 100 million years old. R. V. Gentry feels that the oval halo was originally formed as a circle and compressed into an oval shape as the wood was compressed into coal. Then the circular halo was formed on top of the older oval one.

He deduced that the oval halo was formed while the wood was alive. He then dated the speck of uraniun and found that "such extraordinary values (dates) admit the possibility that both the initial (uranium) infitration and coalification would possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years." ²⁴ He and his team conducted the same tests on coalified wood found in Devonian Chatanooga shale, believed to be 350 million years old, and found it could not possibly be that old. If we accept radioactive dating as valid, we must also accept some very young coal.

The creation theory states that each species was created fully formed and complete. This certainly fits the fossil record and very nicely explains the gaps therein. The fact that we have never been able to force breed a completely different species of any kind also supports creation.

So, we have positive proof that evolution is false and creationism is true, right? Wrong! What we have are two theories, neither one of which can be proved by scientific study. Why can't we prove one or the other? Because neither can be subjected to repeatable, verifiable tests. So now what? There is a way to make a rational decision and answer the age old question: "Where did we come from?". This will be called the “Principle of the validity of the source".

As we look into science, both past and present, we find some very disturbing things; for example, the Piltdown men. For whatever reasons this hoax was perpetrated, and the fact remains that for forty years the presiding experts of human evolution believed it to be genuine.

The late Sir Cyril Burt (1883-1971) was considered England's most eminent psychologist. He used falsified date to support his policy recommendations for schools in England. ²⁵ Vincent Sarich, who advocates the molecular clock hypothesis of evolution "suggests that if flossils are discovered that seem to relate to human evolution, but are earlier than his time schedule, they should be ignored." ²⁶ A useful technique! Just ignore any evidence that contradicts your ideas.

Lastly, can anyone forget that horrible winter a few years ago when we all died of the Swine Flu? Does this mean that scientists are all liars? Of course not! 90% of all scientists are honest hardfiworking people. But it does mean that when science makes an assuption or says "Trust me", we should be especially wary.

Let us now turn to the source of creationism, the Bible. The validity of the Bible has been investigated many times, always with positive results. It is amazing how many people say "We all know that the Bible is full of errors." But when confronted with the question, “Where?" the vast majority will say, "Well, you know." Common knowledge based on no facts at all!

Some people have pointed out that there are two accounts of creation in Genesis. If you understand Near Eastern literary practice, then you would know that it was common for an author to first introduce his story with a short statement summarizing the whole story, then follow it with a more detailed account. ²⁷ If you examine one of the reports in Science magazine, you will see that they do the same thing.

Let us look at some other interesting evidences of validity for the Bible. Homer wrote the Iliad around 900 B. C. The earliest copy dates from 400 B. C., 500 years after the first writing. There are 643 manuscripts in existence. There are no other works of antiquity with more copies in existence except one, the New Testament. The New Testement was written from 40 -100 A. D.. The earliest copy date was 125 A.D., or 25 years after the first writing. There are over 24,OOO manuscripts in existance. ²⁸

Lastly, I would like to call your attention to a group of people, the Jews. The Bible predicted that they would be a great nation, be a blessing to all nations, that they would be scattered across the whole earth as strangers in a strange land and eventuafly returned to their land. ²⁹ They were a great nation and they were scattered throughtout the world. Every nation that the Jews have lived in has prospered as long as the Jews were treated kindly. But when a nation persectuted them things did not go well for that nation. Examples of this would be: Spain, during the inquisition, and Germany, during World War II.

Everywhere they went they held their Jewish identity. Have you ever heard of a German Babylonian, a Russian Moabite, or a Palestinian Spaniard? How about a German Jew, a Russian Jew, or a Spanish Jew?

I have only touched the smallest portion of the tip of the iceberg in the debate of Evolution vs. Creation. I have been very disappointed by the extreme lack of true scientific evidence for evolution on a macro scale. I am also dismayed at the way in which creationism has been dismissed by a number of scientists who have not bothered to consider it and then try to cloud the issue by calling it a religious doctrine, ignoring the fact that evolution itself is part of the religion of humanism.

Current scientific thought is so locked in to evolution that any contrary evidence is automatically considered false, and not worthy of any further investigation. For many years, it was an accepted fact that the planet Mercury had a rotation period around the sun of 88 days. It has now been found that the correct rotation period is 176 days. Jay M. Pasachoff states "No harm was done by the scientists misconception of Mercury's rotational period for all these years, but the story teaches all of us a lesson: we should not be too sure of so-called facts, even when they are stated in all the text books. Don't you believe everything you read here, either." ³⁰

¹ Charles Darwin, The Origin in of Species (New York: New American Library, 1958), p. ix.

² Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Reasons why Skeptics Ought to Consider Christianity (San Bernardino, California: Hare's Life Publishers, 1581), p. 149.

³ Philip Appleman, ed., Darwin (New York: w. w. Norton &Co., 1979) p. 371.

⁴ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 171.

⁵ Josh McDowell amd Don Stewart, Answers to To questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith (San Bernardino, California: Here's Life Publishers, 1980), p. 152.

⁶ Joseph D. Acree, chemical engineer with Stauffer Chemical Co., unpublished presentation.

⁷ Fred John Mbldua, Wh We Believe In Creation Not Evolution (Denver, Colorado: Christian Victory Publishing Co., 1931), p. 121.

⁸ "Did Darwin Get It Wrong," Nova, (Boston: WGBH Educational Fbudation, 1981), p. 5.

⁹ Duane T. Gish, Evolution The Fossile Say No! (San Diego, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1973), p. 51.

¹⁰ McDowell and Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions, p.182.

¹¹ J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (3rd. ed.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981): P. 87

¹² Francis Hitching, "Where Darwin Went Wrong," Reader's Digest, September, 1982, p. 14.

¹³ Holy Bible - King James Version.

¹⁴ Hitching, "Where Darwin Went Wrong," p. 14.

¹⁵ Gish, Evolution the Fossils Say NO! , p. 9.

¹⁶ David B. Guralnik, ed., Webster's New World Dictionary (2nd. college ed.; New York: William Collins + warld Publishing Co., 1974), p.1200.

¹⁷ Ibid, p. 683.

¹⁸ McDowell and Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions, p. 112.

¹⁹ C. S. Noble and J. J. Naughton, "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and the Uncertainties in Age Dating,“ Science, vol. 162, (October, 1968). p. 265.

²⁰ McDowell and Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions, p. 113.

²¹ Ibid, p. 176.

²² Richard R. Snyder, Lecture for Introduction to Physical Anthropology, September 22, 1982.

²³ McDowell and Stewart, Answers to To Tough Questions, pp. 118-119.

²⁴ Ibid, p. 120.

²⁵ John M. Darley, Sam Glucksburg, Leon J. Kamin, and Ronald A. Kinchla, Psychology (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1981), pp. 260-261.

²⁶ Birdsell, Human Evolution, p. 97.

²⁷ McDowell and Stewart, Answers to Tough Ouestions, p. 179.

²⁸ Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, California: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1979), p. 43.

²⁹ Holy Bible - King James Version, Genesis 15.

³⁰ Jay M. Pasachoff, Contermorary Astronomy (2nd ed.; New York: Saunders College Publishing, 1981), p. 277.

1. Appleman, Philip, ed. Darwin. 2nd ed. New York: N. w. Norton & Co., 1979.
2. Birdsell, J. B. Human Evolution. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981.
3. Crane, H. R. "Radiocarbon Dates I.“ Science, vol. 162,0otober 12,1956, pp. 664-667.
4. Darley, John M.; Gluckaburg, Sam; Kamin, Leon J.; and Kinchla, Ronald A. Psxchology. New Jersy: Prentice - Hall, 1981.
5. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. New York: New American Library, 1958.
6. "Did Darwin Get It Wrong." Nova. Boston: WGBH Educational Foundation, 1981.
7. Dillon, Lawrence D. Evolution: Concepts and Conseguences. Saint Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1973.
8. Gentry, Robert V. “Radiohalos: Some Unique Lead Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science, vol. 173. August 20, 1971, pp. 727-730
9. Gish, Duane T. Evolution the Fossils Sax No!. San Diego, California: Creation-Life Publishers, 1973.
10. Gould, Stephen Jay. Ever Since Darwin. New Yerk: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977.
11. Guralnik, David B., ed. webster's New World Dictionary. 2nd college ed. New Yerk: William Collins + world Publishing Co., 1977.
12. Hitching, Francis. "Where Darwin Went Wrong." Reader's Digest, September, 1982, pp. 9-16.
13. Holy Bible: King James Version. Great Britian: Cambridge University Press.
14. McDowell, Josh. Evidence That Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, California: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1979.
15. McDowell, Josh. More Than a Carpenter. Wheaten, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers Inc., 1952.
16. MsDowell, Josh, and Stewart, Don. Answers to Tough Question Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith. San Bernadino, California: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1980.
17. McDowell, Josh, and Stewart, Don. Reasons Why Skeptics Qught to Consider Christianity . San Bernardino, California: Here's Life Publishers, 1981.
18. Meldau, Fred John. Why We Believe In Creation Not Evolution. Denver, Colorado: Christian Victory Publishing Co., 1961.
19. Morris, Henry M. Studies in the Bible and Science. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966.
20. Noble, C. S., and Naughton, J, J. "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating." Science, vol. 162, October,1968, pp. 265-266.
21. Pasachoff, Jay M. Contemporary Astronomy . 2nd ed. New York: Saunders College Publishing, 1981.
22. Pierce, Kenneth M. "Putting Darwin Back in the Dock." Time, March 16, 1981, .pp. 80-82.
23. Snyder, Richard R. Lecture for Introduction to Physical Anthropology, September 22, 1982.
24. Whitcomb, Henry M., Jr., and Morris, Henry M. The Genesis Flood. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1961.