August 19, 2017

Evolution is not Necessarily True

By David D'Armond

Editor's Note: Mr. DArmond is a geologist who is affiliated with the Midwest Center (a division of Institute for Creation Research). In a statement from him he said, "I became aware of the serious scientific deficiencies of evolution as a result of changing majors from mathematics to geology my junior year. Mathematics is very scientifically rigorous compared to historical geology where flights of imagination reign supreme. This occurred years before I ever considered thinking about a Creator. Therefore, my strongest arguments are scientific and less susceptible to attack for being 'religiously motivated.'"

This article will provide a brief summary of why the philosophy of evolution need not be taken as a serious obstacle to Christianity.

1. Evolution is neither science nor scientific:

A definition of science shows that something is scientific only if it can be observed and verified. Neither is true of evolution (or Creation, for that matter). It cannot fit into the Scientific Method. According to the Scientific Method, evolution cannot even qualify as a scientific theory, but only as an hypothesis, certainly not as a fact.

2. Evolution abandons the Rules of Logic:

Evolutionary philosophy is built upon assumptions that pre-suppose that evolution is fact. Thus the results of this reasoning can only tend to "prove" the initial assumptions. This is a clear violation of the Rules of Logic. The violations are in circular reasoning, faulty premises, faulty analogies and syllogisms, and in wishful thinking.

3. Scientific facts and evidence are against evolution:

A. Genetics-Evolutionists have tried for years to cross-mutate between genetic kinds, without any success.(1) In fact, genetic material is not progressively more abundant in the higher species, as previously supposed. For example, a toad has more genetic material than man(2)some small invertebrates have more chromosomes than man(3) , etc.

B. Fossil Record-Paleontologists have recognized that the "transitional gaps" between different species are further apart now than ever(4), and this happens with more and more fossil evidence available(5). For example, Archaeopteryx is now recognized as been 100%bird, and warm-blooded (it had feathers).(6) The famous horse series with supposed evolution of fewer toes has no corresponding pattern in numbers of ribs-rib numbers (pairs) change at random.(7) Furthermore, Eohippus may have been a large rodent! All the so-called missing links between man and ape have now been recognized as completely either man or ape (or fraud).(8) Thus, the gaps are now wider than ever between kinds.

C. Biology-The old concept of similar embryos of different species has been thoroughly discredited. In fact, the recapitulation theory has been demonstrated by many scholars to be wrong, and is neither convincing nor even interesting to modern biologists.(9)

D. Radio-active dating-This has been demonstrated to be very unreliable, because of the many assumptions made assuming a priori proof of evolution. In addition, the ranges of ages given by radio-active methods are so variable as to make a guessing game out of the dating game.(10) Examples: Real live clams, dated as dead for 3,000 years(11) Live hardwood trees, dated as 10,000 years old(12), Archeologists have felt that C-14 dating is "archeologically unacceptable"(13); Lava flows not yet 200 years old have been dated over again at up to 3 BILLION years old(14) And on and on . . .

E. Physics-The Second Law of Thermodynamics simply states that evolution is impossible. This law has been proven over and over again, in open and closed systems, and shows that all processes go to a greater state of randomness.(15) How, then, can the random chances of evolution produce increasing complexity (less randomness)? Evolution would try to have us believe that this scientific law is a farce!!!

F. Mathematical Probability-If we are ignorant of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then we can compute the probability of forming, accidentally, a protein molecule of only 100 components (it takes at least 400 to even be considered "life-like"). If we try 100 chances of combination a billion times in each second of time, for every second of 30 billion years (supposed age of the universe) we still do not have enough chances to assure producing ono fractional protein molecule.(16) What, then, about the millions of different life forms? No way, even if the Second Law of Thermodynamics could be neutralized, which it cannot be.

G. Astronomy-Astronomers have found the same basic building blocks of matter at one end of the universe as at the opposite end. This, they admit, resembles manufactured items, with no chance of these ever forming by accident, and then getting distributed throughout the universe.(17) Other problems come from the earth's magnetic field decay (implying a young age of earth), the life of comets and their formation, expansion of the universe, etc.

H. Moon rock samples-Samples showed that the moon was not made by the same process, nor of the same crustal materials as earth. They therefore have two separate histories, not one common evolutionary history as popularly thought. Furthermore, there is no indication of great time spans. According to evolutionists, meteor dust was to have been at least 54 feet deep on the moon surface. It was not, of course. It was between one inch to three feet in impact drifts. Furthermore, an old moon was to never have a magnetic field or moonquakes. However, both were found in abundance. Ever wonder why we don't hear about the moon anymore? Evolutionists are baffled.(18)

4. Conclusion:

Evolution is a philosophy that has it behei,ers, and it requires religious-type faith. It requires great faith because of the scientific evidence that bears heavily against it. (Remember, people bt~lieved in a flat earth despite scientific -evidence for a long thlie, until some people staked their lives and survival on that evidence.)

Thousands of such cases and examiples can be cited and completely documented by the Institute for Creation Research. Thousands of scientists have rejected evolution oil the basis chat it is scientifically implausible.

You may choose to believe in evolution, but don't call it scientific. Remember what the Greek philosopher, Demosthenes, said about beliefs: "People will believe whatever they want to believe." This is true in spite of evidence, in many cases. However, evidence should form the basis for our beliefs.


1. Goldschmidt, R. B.,American Scientist, Vol. 40, 1952.

2. Moore, John N., Ph. D., in The Christian, February 13, 1972.

3. Sparrow, Underbrink, and Sparrow, "Chromosomes and Cellular Radiosensitivity", Radiation Research, Vol. 32:915-945, 1976.

- Makino Sajiro, An Atlas of Chromosome Numbers in Animals 2nd Edition, (First American Edition) Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press 1951.

- Ortiduff, R., Editor, Index to Plant Chromosome Numbers for 1966, Utrecht, Netherlands: International Bureau for Plant Taxonomy and Nomenclature of the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, June 1968.

4. Heribert-Nilsson, N., Lund University, Sweden, Syntheiische Arthildung, 1953. (See Scientific, Creationism, cited below, page 80.)

- Moody, Paul A., Introduction to E,,olutinn, (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 503.

- Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953). 360.

5. George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective", Science Progress, Vol. 48, (January 1960), p. 1.

6. Gish, Duane T., Ph.D., Evolution: The Fossils Say No! 2nd Edition (San Diego: ICR Publishing Co., 1973), pp. 59-64.

- Olson, E. C., The Evolution of Life, (New York: The New American Library, 1965), pp. 181, 182.

7. Gish, Duane T., Have You Been Brainwashed? (Seattle: Life Messengers), p. 14.

8. Morris, Henry M., Ph.D. Editor, Scientific Creationism, (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1974), pp. 171-178.

- Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! Chapter VI.

9. Bock, Walter J., "Evolution by Orderly Law", Science, Vol. 164 (May 4, 1969), p. 684.

- Waddinton, Professor C. H., University of Edinburgh, Principles of Embryology, 1965, p. 10.

10. Morris, op. cit., pp. 137-149.

11. Creation Research Society Journal, June 1970.

12. Creation Research Society Quarterly, Erich A. von Fange, Time Upside Down, pp. 13-26.

13. Piggott, Stuart, Ph.D., "The Radio-Carbon Date frorn Durrington Walls," Antiquity, XXXIII. No. 132 (December 1959), p. 289.

14. Funkhouser, J. G. and Naughton, J. J. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol, 73, (July 15, 1968). p. 4606.

15. Blum, H. F., Time's Arrow and Evolution, Princeton University Press, (1951), p. 201

- Asimov, Isaac, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even," Journal of the Smithsonian Institute, June 1970.

16. Morris, op, cit., pp. 59-62.

17. McCrea, W. If., "Cosmology After Half a Century," Sc ience, Vol. 160 (June 2, 1968), p. 1298.

18. Slusher, Harold, "Space Probes: New Threat to Evolutionists", Moody Monthly, Sept. 1975.

Truth Magazine XX: 39, pp. 614-615
September 30, 1976