Institute for Creation Research Logo
Institute for Creation Research
A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

God created the universe

Main Menu

Online Store  
About ICR  
Acts & Facts  
Back to Genesis  
Days of Praise  
Dr. John's Q&A's  
Good Science  
Impact Articles  
President's Column  

ICR Network

Grad School  
ICR Adventures  

ICRA Rated

ICR Home ø Email Page ø Print Page ø Newsletters ø Search ø Contact ø Donate

by Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology)

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

Ever since Darwin, secular scientists have been at a loss to find compelling empirical evidence for macroevolution. The latest cause for celebration (premature as it turns out) has been the results of the Human Genome Project. By some twisted logic, evolutionist Arthur Caplan and others, sees this research as a major point in favor of evolutionism, saying that Darwin has been vindicated and that "we are descended from bacteria."

But no, as usual, upon closer inspection, the facts of science have thrown a wet towel on evolutionary naturalism.

The human genome is made up of the chemical compound, DNA. The building blocks of DNA are units called nucleotides, composed of a sugar, phosphate and a nitrogenous base. All the origin of life scenarios fail to explain how such nucleotides can form naturalistically in the manner that would then cause them to form a string of nucleotides.

Then there's the issue of the origin of DNA molecule itself. Sir John Maddox, former editor of the prestigious Nature magazine, in 1994 lamented, "So it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code [DNA] is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."

One scientific reason why we didn't evolve from lower life forms over the alleged "millions of years" is the genetic repair system found in the nucleus all living cells (and in prokaryotes that don't have a nucleus). This complex system continuously monitors the DNA molecule for mispaired bases and damage and is a major roadblock in allowing genetic mistakes (mutations) to establish themselves in DNA. Unfortunately for the materialist, it is these random mistakes upon which the cryptic macroevolutionary process depends. If neo-Darwinian theory were true, then natural selection would clearly select against these efficient repair mechanisms.

Our alleged bacterial ancestry is without scientific support. If such a bizarre progression occurred, it left no fossil evidence, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown" said evolutionist A.G. Fisher in 1998. Editor of the American Scientist book, 'Exploring Evolutionary Biology', stated, "The fossil record has always been a problem." A problem for macroevolutionists perhaps, but certainly not for the creation science model which predicts the abrupt appearance of life in the sedimentary rock units. Humans are a good example. According to evolutionists Villee, Solomon & Davis, "We appear suddenly in the fossil record, or so it seems to many paleontologists." In 2000 two evolutionists, Collard and Wood admitted, "existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable. Accordingly, new approaches are required to address the problem of hominin [evolution]." The same can be said for animals, "Despite a century of work on metazoan phylum-level phylogeny using anatomical and embryological data, it has not been possible to infer a well-supported [evolution of the animal kingdom]" Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994.

Speaking of Darwin, we are all familiar with his infamous 1859 book The Origin of the Species. Ironically, one thing he never addressed was the origin of the species! Indeed, over a century later evolutionists are still mulling over the species issue, "The formation of species has long represented one of the most central, yet also one of the most elusive, subjects in evolutionary biology" S.R. Palumbi, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 1994. Natural selection, usually attributed to Darwin and Wallace, cannot explain why we have bears and beetles, bacteria and buffalo, "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist [creation]; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs [evolution]" Parasitology, 6th ed. Noble & Noble, Lea & Febiger publishers. British science writer Richard Milton said the primary problem of neo-Darwinism is the improbability of spontaneous genetic mutations leading to beneficial novelties in form. In 1992 anti-creationists Orr & Coyne stated in American Naturalist, "We conclude - unexpectedly - that there is little evidence for the neo-Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak." More recently, evolutionist D.L. Stern asked in the pages of Evolution 54(4), "One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. Which mutations generate evolutionarily relevant phenotypic variations? What kinds of molecular changes do they entail?" What do secular biologists really know about vertical evolution (macroevolution) that is true?

Throughout his article, Caplan assures the reader that evolutionism has been validated via genome mapping with phrases like, ".. . Darwin was right - mankind evolved . . . . we are descended from bacteria . . . our genetic instructions have evolved . . . " etc. But there's a distressing lack of hard, empirical evidence. Only through constant repetition does Caplan tell us what could be said in a single sentence, 'Our genes document our bacterial ancestry - Darwin was right.' Meanwhile, as we have seen, science says something quite different.

What did the Human Genome Project actually show? It would be best to go to the source, to someone who actually did the work such as Gene Myers of Celera Genomics in Maryland. Myers put together Celera's genome map and said, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life . . . the system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed . . . there's a huge intelligence there" - from an article by Tom Abate, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 19, 2001.

Creation scientists concur, if one were to go where the evidence leads in this massive mapping project, he would indeed come away saying there's a huge Intelligence involved.

This is the point of creation scientists everywhere. Design means a designer; creation means a Creator. The Apostle Paul stated in Romans 1:20 that God's creation is "clearly seen." One would be hard pressed to explain the exquisite design features of DNA, and the multitude of plants, animals and people that it codes for, to mere chance, time and natural selection. There's but one alternative to such naturalism, and that's supernaturalism, which is anathema to the Darwinist...

© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All rights reserved.
 Return to Top ø Email Page ø Print Page ø Newsletters ø Donate
Looking for Something?  

Nothing on this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from ICR

ECFA Member
Click the above link to be taken to ICR's profile on the website of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability

Our site is best viewed at a resolution of 800 x 600 or higher.