MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown (a creationist) in his book In “The Beginning ” points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria. One thing for sure is that life requires intelligent creation and doesn’t come by chance. NASA knows all this but looking for life on other planets is a powerful way to motivate people to want their government to give more and more money to NASA. NASA, after all, is a business with hefty salaries at stake.

All the scientific evidence only supports the possibility of life coming from previously existing life. It is not scientific to believe that life can arise from non-living matter, at least not spontaneously (by chance). It was once thought by evolutionists that life arose spontaneously from garbage until it was shown that the reason for this is because of insects having previously laid their eggs in the garbage. Thus, the belief that life arose by chance (spontaneously) from chemicals in garbage was successfully refuted. But, evolutionists didn’t give up. They just got more sophisticated.

Stanley Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they’re not in the right sequence the protein molecules won’t work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

Also, what many don’t realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller’s experiment.

In Nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won’t function. There won’t be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

In the midst of all the arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn’t help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.

Even in the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don’t actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is just another form of genetic engineering. But God was the first genetic engineer. Remember that always!

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

The cell seems to be irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They’re all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how did life come about naturally when there was no directing mechanism in nature.

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

Many think that natu

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

In fact, all of the fossils, with their fancy scientific names, that have been used to support human evolution have eventually been found to be either hoaxes, non-human, or human, but not both human and non-human. Yet, many modern school textbooks continue to use these long disproved fossils as evidence for human evolution. Evolutionists once reconstructed an image of a half-ape and half-man (known as The Nebraska Man) creature from a single tooth! Later they discovered that the tooth belonged to an extinct species of pig! The “Nebraska Man” was used as a major piece of evidence in the famous Scopes Trial in support of Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

The Piltdown Man was an actual fraud that fooled the world for over forty years! It was eventually discovered that the Piltdown Man was a forgery of ape and human bones ingeniously placed together to convince the scientific community that the “missing” link was found.

A true transitional link or form would be something like a fish having part fins…part feet. This would show that the fins actually turned into feet. There’s nothing like this in the fossil record. All traits of animals and plants in the fossil record are complete and fully-formed. There are no real or true transitional forms (i.e. “missing” links) among the fossils or living creatures for that matter.

Many times, evolutionists use similarities of traits shared by different species as a basis for claiming a transitional (“missing”) link. But, the problem for evolutionists is that all the traits which they cite are complete and fully-formed. And evolutionists are not consistent. The duck-billed platypus, for example, has traits belonging to both mammals and birds but even evolutionists won’t go so far as to claim that the duck-billed platypus is a transitional link between birds and mammals!

In many other cases, however, evolutionists will use shared similarities of traits between various species as an example of a transitional (or “missing”) link, but these are not true “missing” or transitional links so long as the traits are complete and fully-formed.

At times evolutionists have used various bones gathered from many yards of each other and classify them as belonging to the same creature (even when there’s no proof). They then reconstruct from these bones whatever will support their hypotheses. The fossil case “Lucy” is an excellent example of this. Scientists have only forty percent of the bones for Lucy. The bones were found yards from each other, some were found even a mile or more away! The knee joint (the main evidence used) was found two hundred feet below ground from the rest of the bones. Many of the leading scientists doubt that the bones all belong to the same species or individual. And, some of the key bones are crushed. Yet, from all of this evolutionists have reconstructed a drawing of an ape-man creature (in full color) for display in textbooks and museums! Many experts are not convinced that Lucy was an ape-man because they’re not convinced all of the bones belong to the same individual or even the same species. Many leading authorities have said that “Lucy” is really an extinct ape, but not an ape-man. Those scientists who are convinced that Lucy was an ape-man are the ones that receive all the attention from the mainstream media.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don’t observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years if their vital organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn’t fully evolved yet?

Scientist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book “In The Beginning”, makes this point by saying “All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.”

A lizard with half-evolved legs and wings can’t run or fly away from its predators. How would it survive? Why would it be preserved by natural selection? Imagine such a species surviving in such a miserable state over many millions of years waiting for fully-formed wings to evolve!

Some evolutionists cite the fossil of an ancient bird known to have claws as an example of a transitional link. However, there are two species of birds living today in South America that have claws on their wings, but even evolutionists today do not claim that these birds are transitional links from a reptilian ancestry. These claws are complete, as everything else on the birds.

What about all those spectacular and popular claims reported in the mass media of evolutionists having discovered certain transitional forms in the fossil record? Such claims have not been accepted by all evolutionists and, after much investigation and analysis, these claims have been found to have no hard basis in science. This has been the case of every so-called “missing link” and “transitional” form discovered since Darwin.

Recently it was thought they had discovered fossils of dinosaurs with feathers until they found out that the so-called feathers were really scales which only had the appearance of feathers. Scientists theorize the scales took upon a feather-like appearance during some brief stage of decomposition before being fossilized. Even if they were feathers, this still wouldn’t be any kind of evidence to support macro-evolution unless they can show a series of fossils having part-scale/part-feather structures as evidence that the scales had really evolved into feathers.

The recent news about a footprint found to be 1.5 millions years as evidence for human evolution is based on circular reasoning. First, many don’t realize the evolutionary assumptions involved in dating fossil layers, but that is another story. Readers who wish to pursue the subject may find the Pravda article “Are Fossils Really Millions Years Old?” of interest. Many have wrongly believed that evolutionists use infallible scientific dating methods. Concerning the recent discovery of a 1.5 million year footprint, it is assumed that because humans did not exist 1.5 million years ago that this footprint, which evidence shows belongs to a creature who walked erect, must have belonged to a simian being that was in the process of evolving into a human. This conclusion, actually, is based on a whole series of assumptions.

Evolutionists claim that genetic and biological similarities between species are evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation. Another interpretation is that comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the various species and forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

It is not rational to believe that genetic information can come about by chance (i.e. random mutations) so it is much more logical to believe that genetic and biological similarities between species are because of a common designer rather than common ancestry. The Creator designed similar genes and biological functions for similar purposes in all of the various forms of life. God was the first Genetic Engineer!

Not only are there no true transitional links in the fossil record, but the fossils themselves are not in the supposed geological sequential order as evolutionists claim in their textbooks. Of course, evolutionists have their various circular and unsupported arguments or reasons for why this is so.

If evolution across biological kinds (known as macro-evolution) really occurred then we should find billions of clear and indisputable transitional forms (“missing” links) in the fossil record (i.e. fossils of fish with part fins, part feet). Instead we find only a few very disputable “transitional” forms that even all evolutionists cannot agree upon.

The MSM (Main Stream Media) is very good at only reporting the opinions and analysis of those scientists who believe a fossil find supports macro-evolution. The MSM suppresses information and news of scientists who disagree that a particular fossil supports macro-evolution. There are many scientists who don’t agree with Darwinian macro-evolution.

The Creation Research Society (www.creationresearch.org), for example, has a membership of thousands of scientists with a Master’s or Ph.D in the natural sciences who all reject Darwinian macro-evolution. Many such scientists have suffered losing grants for research and even their very jobs because of they reject Darwinian macro-evolution. These scientists do believe that micro-evolution (variations within biological kinds such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) occurs in nature but not macro-evolution (variations across biological kinds).

Again, the point needs to be emphasized that species cannot wait millions of years for their vital (or necessary) organs and biological systems to evolve.

In fact, it is precisely because of these problems that more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don’t see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced “instantaneous” changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection is a passive process in nature. Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce any biological traits or variations.

The term “Natural Selection” is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any conscious or active selection. If a biological variation occurs which helps a member of a species to survive in its environment then that biological variation will be preserved (“selected”) and be passed on to future offspring. That’s what scientists mean by the term “natural selection”. Since natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible, the real question to ask is what biological variations are naturally possible. Natural selection is just another way of saying “Survival of the Fittest”. But, this is exactly the problem for the Darwinian theory of macro-evolution.

How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for micro-evolution (or horizontal) evolution within biological “kinds” such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc., but not macro-evolution (or vertical) evolution which would involve variations across biological “kinds”), especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human).

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits. Random forces in nature have no ability to perform genetic engineering so as to bring about entirely new genes. Mutations produce only variations of already existing genes. They do not produce entirely new genes.

Random genetic mutations caused by environmental forces will not produce entirely new genes anymore than randomly changing the sequences of letters in a cookbook will change it into a book on astronomy.

Even if a new species develops but there are no new genes or new traits then there still is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the new species would remain within the same biological “kind” even though, for whatever biological reasons, it no longer has the ability to breed with the original type.

Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes) then macro-evolution will never be possible.

Although the chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in all varieties of plant and animal kinds, the DNA or genetic program that exists in each plant or animal kind will only direct those chemicals into making more of the same genes or variations of the same genes but not entirely new genes.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called “tailbone” is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

Abortion clinics have been known to console their patients by telling them that what they’re terminating isn’t really a human being yet but is only a guppy or tadpole!

But, didn’t we all start off from a single cell in our mother’s womb? Yes, but that single cell from which we developed had all of the genetic information to develop into a full human being. Other single cells, such as bacteria and amoeba, from which evolutionists say we and all other forms of life had evolved don’t have the genetic information to develop into humans or other species.

There is no scientific evidence that random mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will increase genetic information and complexity which is what ultimately would be necessary to turn amoebas into humans. In fact, the law of entropy in nature would prevent random mutations from being able to accomplish such a feat!

Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.

The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code produced by random environmental forces such as radiation, over time, will produce entirely new genetic sequences or genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon resulting in entirely new biological kinds or forms of life . Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.

However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.

Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Most biological variations occur because of new combinations of already existing genes – not because of mutations.

Mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won’t change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

How come we find dark people as natives in tropical countries? Obviously those in humanity who inherited genes for dark skin migrated to warmer climates where their skin complexion was of greater help and aid to them.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that’s no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity’s first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity’s first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

Science cannot prove we’re here by creation, but neither can science prove we’re here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life’s origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn’t mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there’s no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is “A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible” (http://icr.org/article/3140/).

The author’s article “Textbook Biology’s Origin of Life Deception” may be accessed at: http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/opinion-textbook-biologys-origin-life-deception.

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, “transitional” links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc.) at greater depth on his website at www.creationscience.com.

On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological disturbances in the Earth’s past which easily could have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah’s Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.)at www.ChristianAnswers.net.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity’s first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity’s first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race – the human race – within which exists myriad variations and permutations.

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological “kind” such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological “kinds”, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (vertical evolution).

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.

We have varieties of dogs today that we didn’t have a couple of hundred years ago. All of this is just another example of microevolution (horizontal evolution) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Modifications and new combinations of already existing genes for already existing traits have been shown to occur in nature but never the production of entirely new genes or new traits. This is true even with genetic mutations. For example, mutations in the genes for human hair may change the genes so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won’t change the genes for human hair so that feathers, wings, or entirely new traits develop. Mutations may even cause duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, etc. even in another part of the body!), but none of these things qualify as new traits.

Evolutionists believe that, if given enough time, random or chance mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will produce entirely new genes for entirely new traits which natural selection can act upon or preserve.

However, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that random mutations have the ability to generate entirely new genes which would program for the development of entirely new traits in species. It would require genetic engineering to accomplish such a feat. Random genetic mutations caused by the environment will never qualify as genetic engineering!

Mutations are accidents in the sequential molecular structure of the genetic code and they are almost always harmful, as would be expected from accidents. Of course, just like some earthquakes that don’t do any damage to buildings, there are also mutations that don’t do any biological harm. But, even if a good mutation does occur for every good mutation there will be hundreds of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Furthermore, only those mutations produced in the genes of reproductive cells, such as sperm in the male and ovum (or egg cell) in the female, are passed on to offspring. Mutations and any changes produced in other body cells are not transmitted. For example, if a woman were to lose a finger it would not result in her baby being born with a missing finger. Similarly, even if an ape ever learned to walk upright, it could not pass this characteristic on to its descendants. Thus, modern biology has disproved the once-held theory that acquired characteristics from the environment can be transmitted into the genetic code of offspring.

Most biological variations within a biological kind (i.e. varieties of humans, dogs, cats, horses, mice, etc.) are the result of new combinations of already existing genes and not because of mutations.

For those who are not read-up on their biology, a little information on genes would be helpful here. What we call “genes” are actually segments of the DNA molecule. DNA, or the genetic code, is composed of a molecular string of various nucleic acids (chemical letters) which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters found in the words and sentences of a book. It is this sequence of nucleic acids in DNA that tells the cells of our body how to construct (or build) various proteins, tissues, and organs such as nose, eyes, brain, etc. If the nucleic acids in the genetic code are not in the correct sequence then malfunctioning, or even worse, harmful proteins may form causing serious health problems and even death.

There is no law in science that nucleic acids have to come together in a particular sequence. Any nucleic acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason for why nucleic acids are found in a particular sequence in the DNA of the cells of our bodies is because they are directed to do so by previously existing DNA. When new cells form in our bodies the DNA of the old cells direct the formation of the DNA in the new cells.

The common belief among evolutionists is that, if given millions of years, radiation and other environmental forces will cause enough random changes (mutations) to occur in the sequential structure of the genetic code of a species so that entirely new sequences for entirely new genes will develop which in turn will program for the formation of entirely new biological traits, organs, and structures that natural selection can then act upon.

Would it be rational to believe that by randomly changing the sequence of letters in a cookbook that you will eventually get a book on astronomy? Of course not! And if the book were a living being it would have died in the process of such random changes.

Such changes, as transforming one book into another or the DNA of one species into the DNA of another, especially one more complex, simply cannot occur by random or chance alterations. It would require intelligent planning and design to change one book into another or to change the DNA of a simpler species into the DNA of a more complex one.

Yes, it is true that the raw biological materials and chemicals to make entirely new genes exist in every species, but the problem is that the random forces of nature (i.e. radiation, etc.) simply have no ability to rearrange those chemicals and biological materials into entirely new genes programming for entirely new traits. Again, mutations only have the ability to produce variations of already existing traits. It would require intelligent manipulation of genetic material (genetic engineering) to turn a fish into a human being. The random forces of the environment cannot perform such genetic engineering!

If the environment doesn’t possess the ability to perform genetic engineering and if macro-evolution really did not occur then how else can one explain the genetic and biological similarities which exist between various species and, indeed, all of life. Although it cannot be scientifically proven, creationists believe that the only rational explanation for the genetic and biological similarities between all forms of life is due to a common Designer who designed and created similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life from the simplest to the most complex. Even humans employ this principle of common design in planning the varied architecture of buildings!

If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!

Many have confused natural selection with evolution itself. Yes, Charles Darwin did show that natural selection occurs in nature, but what many don’t understand is that natural selection itself does not produce biological traits or variations.

Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are produced and which have survival value. The real issue is what biological variations can be naturally produced. What biological variations are naturally possible? When a biological change or variation occurs within a species and this new variation (such as a change in skin color, etc.) helps that species to survive in its environment then that variation will be preserved (“selected”) and be passed on to offspring. That is called “natural selection” or “survival of the fittest”. But, neither “natural selection” nor “survival of the fittest” has anything to do with producing biological traits and variations.

The term “natural selection” is simply a figure of speech. Nature, of course, does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. Darwin did not realize what produced biological variations. Darwin simply assumed that any kind of biological change or variation was possible in life. However, we now know that biological traits and variations are determined by the genetic code.

Natural selection works with evolution but it is not evolution itself. Again, since natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are possible, the real question to be asking is what kind of biological variations are naturally possible. How much biological variation (or how much evolution) is naturally possible in Nature? As we have seen all biological variation or evolution is limited to within plant and animal kinds.

Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible in Nature is because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species – not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!

How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn’t fully evolved yet?

Scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown, in his fantastic book “In The Beginning”, makes this point by saying, “All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.”

Usually what is meant by the term “biological kind” is a natural species but this may not always be the case. The key to keep in mind here is that in order for evolution in nature to occur from one biological “kind” to another biological “kind” entirely new genes would have to be generated and not just merely modifications and/or recombination of already existing genes. If, for example, offspring are produced which cannot be crossed back with the original stock then there is, indeed, a new species but if no new genes or traits developed then there is no macro-evolution (variation across biological kinds) and the two distinct species would continue to belong to the same “kind”.

Science cannot prove we’re here by creation, but neither can science prove we’re here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.

What we believe about life’s origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn’t mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there’s no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct and organize molecules to form into more cells. The question is how did life come into being when there was no directing mechanism in Nature. An excellent article to read by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish is “A Few Reasons An Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible” (http://icr.org/article/3140/).

There is, of course, much more to be said on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. fossils, so-called transitional links, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the Earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website at http://www.creationscience.com.

On his website, Dr. Brown even discusses the possibility of any remains of life on Mars as having originated from the Earth due to great geological disturbances in the Earth’s past which easily could have spewed thousands of tons of rock and dirt containing microbes into space. In fact, A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

An excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org) in San Diego, California. Also, the reader may find answers to many difficult questions concerning the Bible (including questions on creation and evolution, Noah’s Ark, how dinosaurs fit into the Bible, etc.)at http://www.ChristianAnswers.net.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article “The Natural Limits of Evolution” at my website http://www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the issue.

The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but that eternal punishment ultimately is not eternal suffering.

Few in society realize just how much ancient Greek philosophy influenced early Christian thought on hell.

The ancient Greeks believed and taught that the human soul is immortal and indestructible. When early Christianity adopted this belief then it became only logical to believe that those who go to hell must suffer eternal torment.

More than anyone else, the early Church bishop Augustine influenced early Christianity’s adoption of this ancient Greek belief about the nature of the soul. Augustine was a great admirer and follower of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato even after converting to Christianity. It was Plato who systematically formulated ancient Greek belief and thought concerning the nature of the human soul.

The Bible, however, teaches that man by nature is completely mortal and that immortality is a gift of God to be realized only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their faith and trust in God’s Son Jesus Christ for salvation because Christ’s death on the Cross fully paid for our sins and His resurrection from the grave is the guarantee of future immortality for all who believe in Him.

Although the wicked in hell, for a period, will suffer consciously for their individual sins, the ultimate penalty for sin itself will be the eternal death of soul and body and the eternal loss to immortality. That is what the Bible means by eternal punishment – the eternal loss to immortality and life. Interestingly, even Adam and Eve were not created as immortal from the beginning. That is why there was placed the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden of Eden.

If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he no longer feels pain. If he did then he wouldn’t be dead. One thing for sure is that a murderer put to death by society no longer feels any pain from society. Does that then mean that society has not punished him since he no longer feels any more pain from society?

In Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) and God also told Adam that if he did eat of it he would die on that very day. Specifically, God said to Adam, “For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” But the Biblical record shows that Adam did not physically die on the very day he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit. Because Adam did not physically die on the very day that he disobeyed God most Christians believe that God was referring to spiritual death and not physical death.

However, in the original Hebrew, in which the Old Testament was written, the grammatical tense of the word “die” in Genesis 2:17 is in the imperfect mood. The imperfect mood denotes a process. Thus, what God was actually saying to Adam is that he would start dying on the day he ate the forbidden fruit. The literal translation from the Hebrew of what God said to Adam is: “Dying you will die.” God was not, therefore, referring to spiritual death but to physical death. The fact that God later prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24) so that they would not live eternally proves that God was referring to physical death and not spiritual death.

There are good Scriptural reasons to believe that the soul also is physical but distinct from the rest of the body, but that is another subject. Whether physical or not physical, man’s soul, along with the rest of man, was created completely mortal and that is the primary point being addressed here.

The penalty for sin, then, is the death of both soul and body so that man will not live forever in sin. Not only is God not cruel in His eternal justice, but a holy God will not allow His moral creatures to exist eternally in sin. God will not immortalize sin and evil by making the wicked in hell immortal! All of this contradicts the traditional doctrine and teaching, taught in most churches, about the wicked having an immortal soul and body in hell.

What about “eternal fire”, “unquenchable fire”, “weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever”, the account by Jesus about the Rich Man and Lazarus, and other similar passages in the Bible that seem to teach eternal torment? The key, in many cases, is in understanding the context in which these and other similar phrases are used in various parts of Scripture.

For example, figures of speech such as “unquenchable fire” are used in the Bible to mean that the process of destruction is unstoppable or irreversible. We see an example of this in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel 20:47-48 where God says that when His judgment comes on the land even every green tree will burn and that the fire “will not be quenched”. Obviously, those trees are not still burning. It is important to understand just why God uses such terms in Scripture as “unquenchable fire”.

In the Bible, there were some judgments of God in which His wrath was quenched or stopped such as in the case when Moses interceded and pleaded before God for the rebellious Israelites in the desert. When Moses did this God stopped or quenched His wrath against the rebellious Israelites. Thus, when God says, in Scripture, that the wicked in the end will be destroyed with unquenchable fire what He simply means is that nothing can intervene to prevent Him from carrying out His wrath fully through to its completion. Over and over in the Scriptures God is described in judgment as being a consuming fire. God’s righteous wrath in judgment is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

Unlike the burning bush in Exodus that Moses observed was not consumed by the fire but was preserved by God, the Scriptures teach that God, in the end, will not preserve the wicked in the fire of hell but instead will completely consume and destroy them!

Contrary to popular belief and interpretation, the phrase in Scripture “where their worm dieth not” is not a reference to the undying human soul or conscience. We have already seen statements in Scripture that God will destroy, not preserve or keep alive, the bodies and souls of the wicked in the Day of Judgment. The worm and fire were figures that people in Jesus’ time could readily identify and understand because in that time the dead bodies of those who suffered dishonor in society were all commonly thrown into a certain valley where fire and worms devoured these bodies. Jesus simply seeks to convey, in figurative language, that in hell (gehenna) neither the fire nor the worm will cease until the wicked are totally consumed or destroyed!

The word “forever” is another example. In Scripture the word “forever” does not always mean endless or eternal duration. For example, in Exodus 21:6 (KJV Version) we read that certain people were to be servants “forever”. Obviously this cannot mean eternity. The word “forever” or “everlasting”, in the original Hebrew and Greek languages of Scripture, simply means the entire length or duration of something. If that something is immortal then the word “forever” must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word “forever” cannot mean eternity.

Thus, when the Bible teaches hell as being “forever” it cannot mean eternity because the same Bible teaches that those who go to hell are mortal and will be totally consumed or destroyed. The word “forever” in this case must mean the entire length that the wicked suffer consciously for their individual sins before they are finally and eternally destroyed. Hell is not eternal but the result produced by hell is eternal!

Scripture says in Jude 7 that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by eternal fire. These cities are no longer still burning. How, then, can the fire be called “eternal”? Because the result that the fire produced is eternal – these cities have never existed again, nor will they.

When the Bible talks about eternal judgment, or eternal damnation, or eternal destruction, it is in reference to the result and not the process! It is not the punishing that is eternal but rather the punishment! It is not the destroying that is eternal but rather the destruction! It is not the dying that is eternal but rather the death. Just as eternal redemption in the Bible does not mean that the process of redeeming is eternal but rather its result (no one would be saved if the process of redeeming were eternal) so too the eternal judgment of the wicked refers to the result of their judgment being eternal and not the process.

The context of Holy Scripture teaches that the eternal punishment of the wicked is ultimately their eternal annihilation and not eternal torment or suffering as the traditional doctrine of hell teaches. As one preacher has put it: “Eternal punishment is the eternal loss of life not an eternal life of loss”.

Eternal life in Scripture has the same meaning as immortality (i.e. Romans 2:7) which Christians will possess only in the future on Resurrection Day. Various Scripture passages teach immortality and eternal life to be a future possession for Christians. Why then did Jesus use the present tense when saying those who believe in Him have eternal life? The answer is that sometimes in the Bible the present tense is used to describe future events for the purpose of demonstrating their certainty. Scripture says God “calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Romans 4:17).

The Bible says Jesus Christ “hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Timothy 1:10). The opposite of eternal life (or immortality) is eternal death (the eternal and literal death of soul and body) – not eternally living in torment and suffering! “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting (eternal) life” (John 3:16). The issue is not what we think eternal punishment ought to be. The issues are God’s character, God’s definition of ultimate justice, and God’s eternal purposes.

Some have argued that because man was created in the image of God then all humans must possess an immortal soul. However, being created in the image of God doesn’t necessarily mean that we must possess every attribute or even possible attribute that God possess. For example, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent – but we are not. The Bible is clear that immortality is an attribute that will be given only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their trust in Christ for salvation.

We must base our views of hell and the after life on what the Bible teaches, not on tradition or mere human philosophies and opinions. We must not impose our philosophy of what God ought to be upon Holy Scripture! Not many people realize the fact that in the New Testament there are different Greek words for the word “hell.” But unfortunately the English Bible translates these different words for hell as one word, and this has been a cause of much confusion for those who wish to study the subject. The New Testament Greek words for hell are “hades” and “gehenna” and they both have different meanings. Hades means the unseen world of the dead and is only a temporary abode. It has nothing to do with punishment or reward. It is equivalent to the Hebrew word “sheol” in the Old Testament in its meaning. Gehenna, on the other hand, is the abode of eternal punishment of the wicked.

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 has often been used by many Christians, especially preachers, as a depiction of the punishment that the wicked will suffer in hell. But this is not the case. In the first place when Jesus refers to the Rich Man being in torment in the flame of hell the Greek word for “hell” in the passage is not “gehenna” (the place of final and eternal punishment), but rather it is the Greek word “hades” (which in Scripture is the temporary abode of the dead). The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, like the other series of parables before it, was used of the Lord to illustrate or depict the end of the rule of the Pharisees and to depict the end of the Jewish Era and dispensation (as represented by the Rich Man being in torment) and it was also used of the Lord to depict or illustrate the elevation of Gentile Christendom (as represented by Lazarus). Actually, Lazarus represented the poor Jews of Jesus’ time who were ignored by the self-righteous religious leaders of Israel and he also represented the gentiles who, although rejected by the Jewish leaders, would nevertheless be accepted into the bosom of Abraham through their new found faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The religious leaders of Israel had lived only for themselves and ignored the spiritual needs of the spiritually sick and starving people around them.

The concept that hades was a place divided into two compartments, one of suffering for the wicked and the other of bliss for the righteous, was a Jewish belief that had developed during the intertestamental period, the period of time in between when the Old and New Testaments were written. Thus, this particular view of hades was not canonical, that is it was not something that God Himself had revealed to the Jews through Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture that hades is a place where the wicked suffer while awaiting their final and permanent judgment in gehenna. Such a concept of hades developed as a result of ancient Greek influences on Jewish thinking about the nature of the soul. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus was simply borrowing this popular Jewish folklore of hades to use as an illustration to make a point to the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day, but He was not necessarily endorsing the folklore as being doctrinally valid or correct. There are various passages in the Old Testament, such as in Psalms, that tell us that there is no consciousness in sheol (the Hebrew equivalent of hades in the Old Testament).

Some argue that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because Jesus did not formally introduce it as a parable. But, Jesus did not always formally introduce His stories as parables, and there are various examples of that in the Gospels. Now, it is true that in His parables Jesus used things that actually existed to fill in for illustrations and figures, but in the particular case of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the Lord used a popular existing Jewish myth about hades for the purposes of constructing a story. Jesus simply used the Pharisees’ own superstitious belief about hades against them!

Why didn’t Jesus rebuke the Pharisees’ belief about hades as being wrong? Jesus didn’t go around always rebuking every wrong doctrine. For example, in Jesus’ time it was a common Jewish belief (from the influence of Greek philosophy) that souls could commit individual sins before birth. That is why we read in John 9:1-3 that Jesus’ disciples believed a certain man was born blind because he may have committed some great sin before his physical conception in the womb. Jesus didn’t respond by telling His disciples that such a belief is doctrinally wrong but instead healed the blind man.

By no means is all of this new teaching. A minority of Christians, of various denominations, have held to this view of hell throughout the centuries. Even some very prominent Christians of the past have held to this view and there are a number (albeit a minority) of Christian theologians and scholars in the present who hold to this view. However, this view on hell, unfortunately, is known so little outside the Christian community and even inside the Christian community for that matter.

Many of the early Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther, held to the view that man, by nature, is entirely mortal (including the soul), but the great Reformer John Calvin opposed this view and specifically wrote against it and insisted that all of the Reformers present a united front. An excellent Internet site containing information on all of this is “Champions of Conditional Immortality In History”.

I highly recommend to all readers Dr. Edward Fudge’s thoroughly biblical and scholarly work “The Fire That Consumes”. The book is foreworded by the great evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce. This book should be required reading in every seminary and Bible school!

I encourage all to read my larger article “The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell” for more comprehensive and in-depth coverage of this subject. Other questions and arguments, not raised here, are answered thoroughly in my larger article. I also hope that this information will shed new light in reading the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.

Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the earth’s age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.

For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the earth’s atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

Complicated as the subject of the earth’s age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the earth will, indeed, determine one’s view of the earth’s age. Contrary to popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric dating.

Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth’s crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the earth.

There are many problems, however, with the local flood theory as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the earth’s past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.

Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

The fossils in the earth are found to exist in various layers of the earth’s crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

Furthermore, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

There are numerous examples of layers containing “mixed” fossils where fossils of creatures that are supposed to have existed millions of years apart from one another are found right next to one another within the same layer or stratum (i.e. dinosaur and human foot prints crossing each other’s paths!). Evolutionists simply ignore these fossils and continue with their dogmatic beliefs. Some excellent Internet resources to consult for documentation of these facts are: www.icr.org , www.creationscience.com, www.answersingenesis.org , www.christiananswers.net.

Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. For example, there are no fossils of fish with part fins, part feet to show that fish evolved into land animals. In fact, the fossils show only complete and fully-formed species. There are no partially-evolved dinosaurs or anything else to indicate macro-evolution in the fossil record. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

The recent discovery of dinosaur fossils containing actual soft tissue is powerful evidence that the fossil layers are not millions of years old because such tissue cannot possibly be preserved through millions of years. Read about this fantastic discovery at http://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-soft-tissue-issue-here-stay/.

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

Highly respected scientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the earth’s magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

According to evolutionists, our moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the moon’s surface over billions of years, there should be many feet of lunar dust on the moon’s surface. Unlike the earth, the moon has no atmosphere to burn up meteors so massive collection of dust was a major concern for scientists and they were concerned that the lunar module, carrying the astronauts, would sink into many feet of dust. But, when we actually landed on the moon the astronauts discovered only a very thin layer of dust. This is strong evidence that our earth/moon system is young after all.

There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research .

An excellent article on the subject is Evidence for a Young World: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

Another site with information on how the most reliable radiometric dating methods show the earth to be thousands and not millions or billions of years old may be accessed at: www.icr.org/rate/.

I am also a Christian. I converted from Hinduism when I was fourteen. As a Christian, therefore, I am deeply troubled that there are still quite a number of people who believe that there was a biblical justification for enslaving the black people of Africa. Those who hold to this view say that Noah, in the Book of Genesis, cursed Ham and that the black people of Africa being descendants of Ham were justifiably enslaved and treated with contempt. This belief is far from being extinct in our society so it is important that this belief is examined in the light of what the Bible actually teaches.

The particular passage in Genesis 9:25 has been grossly misinterpreted. First of all, Noah never cursed his son Ham. The actual curse was on Canaan the oldest son of Ham. Ham also had other sons but they were not cursed by Noah. The servitude (or subjugation) of the Canaanites occurred at various times in history under various rulers. Their ultimate subjugation came under the Romans (who were descendants from the line of Japheth) when the Romans destroyed their final stronghold which was the ancient city of Carthage (a Phoenician or Canaanite colony) in North Africa, thus fulfilling Noah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:27 that Canaan would serve Japheth. The Canaanites were also once slaves of the Hebrew people (descendants from the line of Shem) who themselves were once slaves of the Egyptians and, thus, fulfilling the Biblical prophecy that Canaan’s descendants would be a “servant of servants.” The Canaanites were also at one time ruled by their brothers the Egyptians. Thus, the Biblical prophecy concerning the curse of the Canaanites had been completely fulfilled long ago.

The Bible teaches that the Black (or Negro) people are descendants of Ham (who was one of the three sons of Noah). Obviously, Noah and his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth each carried the genes for producing several races since ultimately all the races of mankind had descended from them. Genetically, it was possible for Noah and his three sons to carry the genes for producing different races just as it is genetically possible today, for example, for a person of European origin to carry genes for producing children with different color hair. The principle is the same. Although you and I today may not possess genes for producing different races of people, Noah and his three sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth did possess such genes.

According to the Bible the ancient Egyptians were descended from Ham through the line of Mizraim. Ham had four sons: Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan (Genesis 10:6). The name “Mizraim” is the original name given for Egypt in the Hebrew Old Testament. Many Bibles will have a footnote next to the name “Mizraim” explaining that it means “Egypt.” The name “Egypt” itself actually comes to us from the Greeks who gave the Land that name (i.e. “Aegyptos” from the Greek). In addition to the name “Mizraim,” the ancient Egyptians also referred to their land as “Kemet” which means “Land of the Blacks.” Western historians, however, say that the word “Kemet” refers to the color of the soil of the land rather than its people. But, the word “Kemet” is actually an ethnically derived term being a derivative of the word “Khem” (Cham or Ham) which means “burnt” or “black.” Ham, who was one of the three sons of Noah and the direct ancestor of the Egyptians, was black. The Bible, in the Old Testament, repeatedly refers to Egypt as the “Land of Ham” (i.e., Psalm 105:23, 27; 106:22). The ancient Egyptians in their writings used their word for “black” to describe themselves and not just the color of their soil. Ham was named “black one” by his father Noah from birth. In other words, Ham was born black, long before any curse. His being black had nothing to do with a curse. The so-called curse of Ham was actually on Ham’s son Canaan and not on Ham himself. This will be discussed later.

Regarding the ancient Egyptians, there is also considerable historical evidence, aside from the Holy Bible, that they were of Black or Negro origin. Even today the true Egyptian is not to be found in the cities but in the country sides and farmlands of Egypt. Most of the Egyptians in the cities carry a mixed ancestry of European and Asian, but mostly Asian from the immigration and invasions of various people into Egypt throughout the centuries. Very few people realize that Cleopatra was of Greek origin because the Greeks once ruled Egypt and she was descended from one of those Greek rulers. The true Egyptian found in the countryside, however, has dark brown to black skin and very pronounced Negro features. This is particularly true the further south one travels in Egypt. It was from the south that the original pharaohs and the people of Egypt settled the land. The original rulers and builders of Egyptian civilization were of completely Black.

In all fairness, it must be mentioned that there is considerable archaeological and anthropological evidence that ancient India was the source of ancient Egyptian civilization. The ancient black Indians, known as “Dravidians”, (who in ancient times were also known by the Greeks and Egyptians as “Ethiopians”) built and laid out ancient Egyptian civilization and, no doubt, in the process also mixed with their black brethren in Africa. The ancient Egyptians, themselves, admitted in their writings that they received their civilization and culture from the Ethiopians, another black “race”.

The ancient Egyptians in their writings described that they had come “from the South”, and from a land which was reached by crossing the Great Sea, a land which they called “Punt”. Some have said “Punt” refers to ancient Somalia but this cannot be for various reasons, among them being the fact that the description of the animals and plants given by the ancient Egyptians as being native to the land of Punt match only with that of the southwestern coast of India (known as Malabar). Also, Somalia doesn’t lie across any great sea.

In ancient times there were known to be two types of Ethiopians, Western Ethiopians, in Africa, (who were black with woolly hair and fine features) and their brethren, the Eastern Ethiopians, of India, who also were black with fine features but possessed straight hair. Both Western and Eastern Ethiopians were descended from the biblical Cush, one of the sons of Ham. An excellent website offering substantial scholarship and historical documentation and evidence that ancient India was the source of Egypt’s ancient culture and civilization is “India and Egypt”: <span style=”font-style:italic;”>http://www.hinduwisdom.info/India_and_Egypt.htm.</span>

In ancient times, India was inhabited by various people, the Aryans, Dravidians, Veddoids (also known as Australoids), and Negritos. Today, the majority of India’s population is a mixture of both Aryan and Dravidian with pure Aryans mainly in the extreme North and pure Dravidians mainly in the extreme South. The Veddoids mainly live in the hill regions of India and the Negritos mainly live off coast in the Andaman and Nicobar islands.

Contrary to decades old popular belief, a plethora of evidence now shows that the Aryans did not invade India from the outside but were all along native to India along with other races. Technically, “Aryan” and “Dravidian” are linguistic groups and not necessarily races. An excellent website providing useful information on this is: <span style=”font-style:italic;”>http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vedic-upanisads/aryan-invasion.html.</span>

Now, to get back to Africa and Egypt. An interesting piece of evidence showing how the ancient Egyptians viewed themselves is found in the tomb of Ramses III (1200 BC). On the wall of this tomb is a painting of four human figures. Each figure stands at a certain relation to the Egyptian god Horus. The figures that were closest the god were considered by the Egyptians to be superior to the ones positioned further away. Each of the figures is identified with a particular race or group of people with whom the Egyptians at that time had known. One figure is that of a finely clothed man with a dark red skin complexion having long braided hair and he represented the ancient Egyptians. Another figure is that of a finely clothed m black with woolly hair who represented the Black nations south of Egypt. Another figure is that of a finely clothed light brown-skinned man who represented the Semitic or Asiatic people. The fourth figure is that of a barely clad fair-skinned or fair-complexioned man who represented the Europeans. There is no such thing as dark red skin, of course, but the ancient Egyptians sometimes used red paint as a ceremonial symbol to set themselves apart from others. American used red paint in a ceremonial way also and, thus, were often times called Red Indians by the American settlers. In other paintings, the ancient Egyptians painted themselves as fully black and not just dark red. The ancient Egyptians saw themselves as being Black, although distinct from other the black nations of Africa. And, no doubt, from the position of the figures the ancient Egyptians definitely saw other African blacks as being superior to the Asiatics and the white-complexioned Europeans.

It is important to understand, however, that the Negro or Black race is not monolithic. I realize that there are many scholars who make a distinction between being Negro and having black skin complexion because they take into consideration physical features (i.e. shape of nose, texture of hair, etc.) into their criteria for determining race and not just the criterion of skin color or skin complexion. However, these are all quite artifical criteria. In fact, the very classification of human races is in itself artificial since there really is only one race – the human race within which there are variations and permutations. Even the Bible has no terminology for race. Instead, the Bible refers to the divisions found in mankind in terms of tribe, language, or nation – but never race. However, since in our modern times the word “race” is so popular in designating divisions of mankind we are going to use the term. But, it should be kept in mind that there are wide varieties of characteristics even within a single race. Even among white Europeans, for example, you have varying shades of skin tone, hair color, and other physical traits or characteristics. The same is true of the Black race, but to a much wider degree.

DNA analysis of blacks in Africa confirms that African blacks possess a greater margin of genetic variability. It seems that black Africans carry a greater number of alleles – genetic variations of the same gene(s) in their DNA as compared to Europeans and others. Thus, it is not surprising that there are much wider physical varieties among blacks. For example, in Sudan, Somalia, and South India (where I am originally from) the blacks have more fine features. In fact, even blacks of ancient Nubia (also known as Kush) comprised individuals who had both straight hair as well as woolly hair. Just as whites have varying hair color (i.e. brown, red, blond, and brunette), so too blacks have varying hair texture (i.e. woolly, straight, wavy, and curly). The black aboriginals of Australia, for example, have curly/wavy hair. Many of the aboriginals even have blond hair. Such is the wide diversity within the Black race. Ancient Egyptian statues and paintings depict a wide variety of these Black types. Also, in certain characteristics of language and culture ancient Egypt is uniquely linked to other Black cultures of Africa and this reinforces the Black identity of ancient Egyptian civilization since these unique linguistic and cultural characteristics are not found among Indo-European peoples. For example, the ancient Egyptians like their African brethren were matriarchal whereas Indo-Europeans were and are patriarchal. An exception to this were the ancient Etruscans of Italy. Although the ancient Etruscans, who were Indo-European, were matriarchal, their matriarchal culture and budding civilization was actually due to the influence of trade with the ancient Phoenicians (Canaanities) who were Hamitic and matriarchal. The ancestors of the ancient Egyptians, therefore, were not the patriarchal Indo-Europeans from the North as white supremacists would have us believe but rather the matriarchal black Africans from the South (Upper Egypt). Geographically speaking, the southern regions of ancient Egypt are referred to as “Upper Egypt.” The reason for this is explained below in another paragraph.

It should be understood that the people of North India and Europe share a common linguistic and racial heritage and that is why they are referred to on the whole as being “Indo-European.” The people of South India (comprising four states and making up roughly twenty-five percent of India’s total population) are linguistically and racially known as Dravidians. The Dravidians of India had dark brown to black skin complexion and straight or wavy hair. Both archaeological and linguistic evidence shows that the ancient Dravidians had built the Indus Valley civilization (also known as the Harappan Civilization which was one of the world’s four oldest civilizations. There is evidence that civilization existed in the Indus Valley region long before the Harappan civilization was established. The ancient Harappan civilization existed in what is now Pakistan. The Dravidians of the Indus Valley advanced further south in their conflict with the Aryans, and that is why the linguistic and racial make up of South India is different from that of North India. Of course, over the centuries there has been so much amalgamation between the two peoples that neither the North now is purely Aryan nor the South purely Dravidian anymore.  

An excellent, scholarly, well-documented, and highly acclaimed book for study on this subject is The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality by well-known West African scientist, scholar, and Egyptologist Cheikh Anta Diop. The book is generally available at bookstores or may be ordered through any bookstore. The book may also be purchased over the Internet (i.e. amazon.com). Unfortunately, Dr. Diop does not raise or discuss the possibility of Eastern Ethiopians (the Dravidians of India) as being the founders of ancient Egyptian civilization.

Although I agree with much of what Dr. Diop says in his book, I strongly disagree with his support of Darwinian evolutionary theory concerning human origins and his belief that Judaism and its offspring Christianity is a by-product of Egyptian civilization. There is no doubt that some Judeo-Christian themes, principles, and truths existed in civilizations and cultures much older than that of the Hebrews (the Jews). The concept of one God, for example, was also believed and promoted in ancient Egypt by a certain pharaoh before there ever were Hebrews or Jews who possessed this truth. Elements of God’s original truth have been scattered in all cultures of the world including that of ancient Egypt, but I believe (and with good reason) that God uniquely revealed Himself to the Jews in such a way that He gave them His truths unmixed with any errors. The Christian Scriptures teach that the Jews were not selected by God because they were deserving or because they were a great people, but precisely because of the opposite. God delights in using the lowly, undeserving, and insignificant to accomplish His great purposes, and it was God’s marvelous plan and purpose to use the lowly, undeserving, and insignificant Jews as His instrument to bring all mankind unto Himself so that both Jews and Gentiles in Christ become equally His children with eternal promises and blessings. It should be noted, however, that almost none of the Jews in modern Israel are descendants of the original Jews of Palestine thousands of years ago. Most of the Jews in Israel today are descendants of Europeans who had converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages (known as Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews).

It is important over-all to remember that there were both primitive and advanced black societies in ancient Africa just as there were also both primitive (barbarian) and advanced white societies in Europe during ancient times. 

One must realize that geographers refer to northern Egypt as “Lower Egypt” and to southern Egypt as “Upper Egypt.” The reason for this is because the Nile River in Egypt, unlike other rivers of the world, flows from the south to the north. So up the Nile is actually going south and that is why the southern part of Egypt is called “Upper Egypt” and down the Nile is actually going north and that is why the northern part of Egypt is referred to as “Lower Egypt.”

In ancient times the border of southern (or “Upper”) Egypt was much further south than where it is today. Upper Egypt in ancient times extended well into what is now the country of Sudan (known in ancient times as Nubia or Kush). It was from Upper Egypt (Nubia or Kush) that the first pharaoh of Egypt Narmer (also known as Menes) went out to conquer and unify all of Egypt into one nation or kingdom. It was from here (the South) that the original ancestors of the Egyptians, following the direction of the Nile River north, settled the land of Egypt. The Egyptians themselves recorded in their writings that their ancestors came from the south. For example, the Edfu text (which is an inscription still found in the Temple of Horus at Edfu) states: “Several thousand years ago, we were led by our king from the South to settle up the Nile Valleys.”

Western Egyptologists and historians continue to ignore such evidence and will certainly not publish it in school history textbooks. Western Egyptologists and historians continue to use the specious argument that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians (also known as Cushites) could not have belonged to the same race because they were separate countries and throughout history they fought one another for supremacy. But, ancient history shows us that separate nations that were white also fought one another (i.e. the ancient Romans and Gauls), but no one would argue that because of this the people of those nations didn’t belong to the same race. Egypt was originally a colony of Nubia (Kush or Cush) but eventually separated from Nubia and became independent and even stronger than Nubia. In fact, the 18th dynasty of Egypt was a Cushitic (Ethiopian) dynasty when Ethiopia finally over-powered and conquered Egypt.

Throughout history both nations (Egypt and Cush) fought one another for political dominance even though both belonged to the same Black race. When the Jews were enslaved in Egypt they adopted many of the Egyptian customs including the Egyptian prejudices towards the Cushites. That is why we read in the Bible that after the Jews left Egypt Miriam (Moses’sister) criticized Moses for marrying a Cushite woman. The language of the ancient Egyptians was related to the black nation of Kush (Nubia) to the south. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the language of the ancient Egyptians that is related to Indo-European or Semitic. Ancient Egyptian language was not Afro-Asiatic as Western historians presently claim. It was entirely Hamitic.

Today Egypt is referred to as an Arab nation, but this is only because the Arabs conquered Egypt centuries ago and imposed upon the original people their Arab language, culture and Moslem religion. Many modern Egyptians of today are really the descendants of Arab, Persian, Greek, and other non-African peoples that entered into Egypt over the many centuries. The ancient or original Egyptians, however, were of African or Black (Negroid) descent, and this is still mostly true of the bulk of Egypt’s rural population, especially in the south. Long before the Arabs invaded and conquered Egypt the famous and ancient Greek historian Herodotus (who is known as the Father of History) visited Egypt and wrote concerning the Egyptians: “They have burnt skin, flat noses, thick lips, and wooly hair” (Herodotus, Book II, p. 100, translated by George Rawlinson, New York: Tudor, 1928). Readers may wish to obtain the book Return to Glory. The book, written by white author and professional speaker Joel F. Freeman, discusses the historical and archaeological evidences for ancient black Egyptian civilization.

Now to get back to our subject. Even though Noah had pronounced a terrible curse on Canaan, the curse did not apply to the blacks of Africa who were taken as slaves to the Americas because those blacks were not descendants of the Canaanites. It must also be understood that the curse applied to the Canaanites in a national sense only. That is clear from the context of Scripture. Individual Canaanites in history who trusted in the true God were delivered from the curse (i.e. Rahab the harlot mentioned in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament. The same Rahab is mentioned in the New Testament as being an ancestor of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ). As to why Noah pronounced a curse on Canaan for a sin that his father Ham had committed is not clearly explained in the Bible. In one sense it could be said that Ham was punished in his son Canaan. It also might be that Noah foresaw by revelation from God that Canaan would more likely follow and take after in the immoral footsteps and behavior of his father Ham. We know from history that the Canaanites practiced very gross sexual and other forms of immorality – even to the point of sacrificing their children in the fire to their idols which they worshipped and for this they were ultimately cursed with extinction as a nation.

Entropy does occur in open systems. We discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun. However, entropy applies only to spontaneous or chance processes.

The spontaneous (unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder — not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder, which exists in all matter, can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order.

When a seed becomes a tree, for example, there is no violation to the law of entropy because the seed contains a directing genetic code and very highly complex biological mechanisms to overcome entropy so that a seed can evolve into a fully developed tree. In other words, the development of seed to tree is not a spontaneous (or chance) event. The question for evolutionists is how did biological life and order on Earth come into existence in the first place when there was no directing code and mechanism in Nature for overcoming entropy. The only rational answer is that an intelligent power outside of Nature was responsible for the original order.

The theory of evolution teaches that matter has an innate tendency to evolve towards greater and greater complexity or order. We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that Nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, does not work the same way.

Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.

For example, a few amino acids have been produced spontaneously, but there is already a natural tendency for molecules to form into amino acids if given the right conditions. There is, however, no natural tendency for amino acids to come together spontaneously into a sequence to form into proteins. They have to be directed to do so by the genetic code in the cells of our bodies. Even the simplest cell is made up of billions of protein molecules. An average protein molecule may comprise of several hundred sequentially arranged amino acids. Many are comprised of thousands of sequential units. If they are not in the precise sequence the protein will not function!

The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, but without RNA there cannot be DNA. Without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, but without proteins there cannot be either DNA or RNA. These complex molecules are all mutually dependent upon one another for existence!

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and various biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The question is how did life come about when there were no directing mechanisms.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet. It is not rational to put faith in such odds for the origin of life.

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are due to a common Designer rather than common biological ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won’t be by chance so it still wouldn’t help support any argument for evolution.

Even in the recent case, as reported in the news, involving the creation of what is called synthetic (or artificial) life, scientists don’t actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first. Remember that!

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn’t that prove evolution? No. It wouldn’t be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet – Earth! In the Earth’s past there was powerful volcanic activity, which could have easily spewed dirt-containing microbes into outer space, which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Ultimately, however, scientists concede that the law of entropy (the process of progressive energy decay and disorder) will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left to itself, will end in total chaos (the opposite direction of evolution!). In fact, the law of entropy contradicts the Big Bang theory which teaches that the universe spontaneously went from disorder to order.

The mighty law of entropy in science simply teaches that the net direction of the universe is always downward towards greater and greater disorder and chaos — not towards greater and greater order and complexity.

Furthermore, because of the law of entropy the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity since all the useful energy in the universe will some day become irreversibly and totally useless. The universe, therefore, cannot be eternal and requires a beginning. Since energy cannot come into existence from nothing by any natural process, the beginning of the universe must have required a Supernatural origin!

Science cannot prove we’re here by creation, but neither can science prove we’re here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

Many have been taught to think that because Darwin had shown natural selection to occur in nature that evolution must be true. Natural selection does occur in nature, but natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological variations. It is an entirely passive process in nature. Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a variation (i.e. change in skin color, etc.) occurs which helps an animal to survive in its environment then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on to future generations. That is what scientists mean by “natural selection”. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term “natural selection” is simply a figure of speech. Furthermore, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.

Whatever evolution and natural selection that occurs in nature is limited to within biological kinds (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but, evolution across biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human), is not possible unless Nature can perform genetic engineering.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called “tailbone” is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

But, didn’t we all start off from a single in our mother’s womb? Yes, but that single cell from which we developed had the complete genetic information to develop into a full human being. Other single cells, such as bacteria and amoebas, which evolutionists say we had evolved from don’t have the genetic information to develop into humans or other species. There is no scientific evidence that random mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will increase genetic complexity which is what ultimately would be necessary to turn amoebas into humans. The law of entropy in nature would prevent random mutations from being able to accomplish such a feat!

What we believe about our origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn’t mean there is no Supreme Designer. Would it be rational to believe that there’s no designer behind airplanes because science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

There is, of course, so much more to say on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. thermodynamics, fossils, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website at www.creationscience.com. Another excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) in San Diego, California.

It is important to understand that belief in neither evolution nor creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can understand the human body and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of nature or of a Supreme Designer.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools, which receive funding from taxpayers, who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article “The Natural Limits of Evolution” at my website www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the issue.

For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the earth’s atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

Complicated as the subject of the earth’s age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the earth will, indeed, determine one’s view of the earth’s age. Contrary to popular belief, the age of the fossils is not determined by radiometric dating.

Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth’s crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the earth.

There are many problems, however, with the local flood theory as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the earth’s past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.

Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

The fossils in the earth are found to exist in various layers of the earth’s crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

Furthermore, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

There are numerous examples of layers containing “mixed” fossils where fossils of creatures that are supposed to have existed millions of years apart from one another are found right next to one another within the same layer or stratum (i.e. dinosaur and human foot prints crossing each other’s paths!). Evolutionists simply ignore these fossils and continue with their dogmatic beliefs. Some excellent Internet resources to consult for documentation of these facts are: www.icr.org, www.creationscience.com, www.answersingenesis.org, www.christiananswers.net.

Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. For example, there are no fossils of fish with part fins, part feet to show that fish evolved into land animals. In fact, the fossils show only complete and fully-formed species. There are no partially-evolved dinosaurs or anything else to indicate macro-evolution in the fossil record. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

Highly respected scientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the earth’s magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

According to evolutionists, the Moon is nearly as old as the earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the Moon’s surface over billions of years, there should have been many feet of lunar dust on the Moon. But, when we landed on the Moon we discovered only a thin layer of dust. The Moon has no atmosphere to burn up such meteors as the earth does so such collection of dust was a major concern for scientists before the astronauts landed there.

There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org.

An excellent article on the subject is Evidence for a Young World at: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

Another site with information on how the most reliable radiometric dating methods show the earth to be thousands and not millions or billions of years old may be accessed at: www.icr.org/rate/

I mention the above illustration to make a point to those who harbor racism. I hope that you will repent of your sin of racism, which is a great sin against God Who created all men in His image and has commanded all men to love one another, and that you will receive the love and forgiveness of God which is in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior Who paid the penalty for all our sins through His death and shedding of His blood on the Cross of Calvary and Who rose again from the dead to give us eternal life.

You see, just as a co-signer to a bad loan takes the full legal blame and liability to pay the entire debt on the loan so, too, Jesus Christ, God’s eternal and only begotten Son, took upon Himself the full legal and moral liability to pay the entire debt for our sins.

The Bible says that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth and that on the Cross He bore our sins in His own body and received the punishment from God (the Father) that we deserve for our sins and then He rose again from the dead. The Bible teaches that the penalty for even one sin is so great that we could never completely pay the penalty. Only God Himself is capable of fully paying for our sins and Jesus Christ Who is God (the Son) did just that on the Cross of Calvary. It was for us that Christ suffered and died on the Cross! Christ took it upon Himself to pay our debt. Because Christ took the blame and punishment for our sins, God (the Father) can be just in freely forgiving us of our sins when we genuinely repent and put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone to save us.

You know, people often ask how all the different races of men could have descended from Adam and Eve. But, in principle this is no different than asking how children with different color hair can come from the same parents. Just as some couples today carry genes to produce children with different color hair, so too Adam and Eve, our very first parents, ultimately carried the genes to produce descendants with different color skin and physical features. Of course, you and I today don’t possess the genes for producing all the varieties of humans as Adam and Eve did. Just as you can get a pure bred from a mutt but not a mutt from a pure bred, so too all varieties of humans were able to come from Adam and Eve our first parents.

All varieties of humans belong to one natural species since all varieties of human beings are inter-fertile, and this is biological proof that we are all descendants of a common human ancestor. This is why the Bible says that God “hath made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth …” (Acts 17:26, KJV). The Bible clearly teaches that God created all human beings in His image. Therefore, as one of my former pastors, Dr. Carl E. Abrahamsen, Jr., so truthfully and eloquently stated, to hate a fellow human being who has been created in the image of God because of the way he or she looks is a great and serious sin and offense against God which needs to be confessed and repented of before the Almighty.

The Bible says that we cannot earn or deserve salvation because no one is able to meet perfectly God’s holy standards as revealed in the Ten Commandments. We have all sinned in our thoughts, words, and deeds. Although the Ten Commandments are good, they cannot save us, but can only show us our need for salvation by making us realize how far we fall short of God’s perfect standards. That is why God’s Word says in Romans 3:20, “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified [or declared righteous] in his [God's] sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Again, the Bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace [God's undeserved favor] are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast [or take credit].” A gift is something not earned. If we could deserve or earn our way to heaven salvation would not be a gift.

The marvelous and glorious gift of salvation was purchased on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ who was Almighty God in the flesh. On the cross, the Bible says, the Lord Jesus Christ bore our sins in His own body (1 Peter 2:24) and received the punishment and judgment from God the Father that we justly deserve for our sins. “He was wounded for our iniquities [sins]; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes [or wounds] we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5). The Lord Jesus Christ shed His precious blood, which had infinite value in God’s sight to pay for our sins. On the Cross He took the punishment from God the Father that we deserve for our sins so that God can be just in forgiving us of our sins when we genuinely repent and put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Just as a co-signer to a loan takes upon himself another’s liability and debt so too Christ took upon Himself the infinite liability and debt of our sins. It is because Christ Himself was sinless and Almighty God in the flesh that He alone was able to make atonement for the sins of the world.

However, you must receive the salvation Christ bought on the cross personally in order to be saved and to be forgiven of your sins. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons [children] of God” (John 1:12). Confessing your sin before God, you need to cry to the Lord for mercy, taking hold of the promise in His Word: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13). Jesus says in John 3:3, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Being “born again” is not just mere reformation, as many people think, but regeneration. To become God’s child one must be born of His Spirit. Until a person is born again he has only a creature-Creator relationship with God. Without experiencing this regeneration of spiritual birth, which can come only from God and not from anything within us, a person is spiritually lost. If he remains and dies in such a state the Bible says his soul will eternally perish. O dear reader, may that not be true of you, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

You say it is too simple to be saved the way of the Bible. True, dear friend, salvation is free, but it is not cheap because it cost the life of the eternal Son of God in the flesh. The Lord Jesus Christ conquered death through His bodily resurrection to prove that He has completely paid the penalty of death for our sins. The Bible says in Romans 6:23, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

There is no religion, organization, philosophy or good works that can save you. Only Jesus and Jesus alone can save. Only Christianity is unique in that it teaches we cannot earn our salvation. All other religions teach that through our good deeds we can earn or purchase salvation and redemption. All the religions of the world are fundamentally the same except for Christianity which teaches that salvation can be found only outside of ourselves, in the Person of the God-Man Jesus Christ Who alone was worthy to pay the full penalty for our sins. Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” He is not a way, He is the way. “Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Yes, it is important to do good works, but good works cannot save. A genuine faith in Christ will produce good works, but good works can never produce faith in Christ. Right now call on Him and ask the blessed Savior to come into your heart.

The Bible says, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). Do not wait for tomorrow. You are not promised a tomorrow. “Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth” (Proverbs 27:1). And Jesus said, “For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36-37). My friend, the Lord Jesus Christ bids you to receive Him as your Savior. He says in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Are there any more beautiful words? God Almighty will enter your heart and life if you will only ask Him.

Do not be deceived into thinking that there might be another way to be saved or that there is no hell and that the Bible may contain error. Do not rely on your personal feelings or experiences to determine what is true or false. Trust in God’s written Word, the Holy Bible. If your experiences contradict what the Bible says, they are not of God. Scripture says that Satan has tremendous supernatural power and that he can even appear as an angel of light and deceive people with all sorts of experiences in their lives to make them believe that the Bible is not all true. The Psalmist David said, “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven” (Psalm 119:89). Either you place your faith in the unchanging Word of God or you place your faith in the ever-changing word of men.

There are many questions and problems which cannot be discussed or answered in an essay this size, but do not let anything prevent you from receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. Join a Bible-believing church in your community where you may receive Christ-centered teaching as well as enjoy fellowship and worship with believers who know the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. God bless you, my friend!