Creation Science FAQ


The "Creation Science FAQ" web page was one of the very first web sites dedicated to creation science on the internet (it started in 1993). Over the years, the internet has grown and in many ways improved. Content has flowed in an exponentially increasing way. The old style of "lone wolf" information sites whose content is updated essentially by a single person, especially in the realm of science, is no longer adequate. Sites run by dedicated organizations with full time staff offer some of the best content. The collaborative "Wiki" style sites can also be a good resource (depending on who is enforcing the quality standards). I would urge readers who have stumbled upon this web site to explore other resources as well, that offer more comprehensive and timely information on the creation subject matter. The best sites that I am currently aware of are:

Answers in Genesis
Creation Ministries
Conservapedia: Evolution article
The True.Origin Archive

I fully recognize that most Christians, and most scientists, believe that the earth is billions of years old and that all life evolved from microbes over long periods of time. From a Christian perspective, the actual way in which God created our world is not essential to the faith, nor can anyone say definitievely how it all happened. There are various interpretations of the scientific evidence, with the young earth recent creation camp in a clear minority (many would also say they are delusional as well). To learn more about my personal beliefs, see my about me page.

Creation is a discipline of science concerning the origin of life on Earth as well as the origin of our planet and the universe. The creation model consists of the hypothesis that the Earth, the universe, and life itself was created out of nothing in complete and fully functional forms. This can be scientifically verified, and represents a better model for origins than the evolution hypothesis. Scientific creation essentially refutes Darwinism and much modern evolutionary thought in nearly all disciplines of science, especially biology, paleontology, and geology. It is worth noting, however, that creationists do not simply dismiss the work of evolutionists. Creation is NOT "anti-science", furthermore 99% of the research by evolutionists has nothing directly to do with evolution even if you do see the word bandied about in their journals, papers, and magazines. The creation evolution controversy is more of a framework or foundational mindset difference; often its only bearing is in the INTERPRETATION of observation and the proceeding conclusions. A scientist can objectively study a virus, search for the cure to cancer, map a genome, even study how organisms have changed over time, all without any regard to their predisposition for creation or evolution.


This Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document was intended to present the creation model of origins and to answer frequently asked questions about it. I grant permission to all to reproduce and distribute the content of this document for educational purposes as long as it is done free of charge and without modification.



What is evolution?

The Model

What is the scientific creation model?
What are "kinds" ?
Where does a "kind" fit into the accepted taxonomic classification system?
What observations does the creation model explain?
What are the weaknesses of the model?

Problems with Evolution

What is wrong with the mutation/natural selection explanation of speciation?
Does bacterial resistance to antibiotics demonstrate evolutionary change?
Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Do creationists deny the "evolutionary" processes that promote variation?
Are there transitional fossils?
How old is the earth?

Human Evolution

What does the fossil record tell us about human evolution?
Do skull sizes and morphology indicate evolution?
Should Homo erectus really be classified as a separate species?
Are australopithecines ancestors to humans?
Does fossil evidence confirm the creation model?
But aren't humans 97% chimp?

But is Creation Science Really Science?

Doesn't the scientific creation model fall outside of the realm of science?
Does the scientific creation model require the existence of a supernatural deity?
But isn't scientific creation just a back-door method of getting Biblical creation introduced?
So what exactly is the difference between scientific creation and Biblical creation?
Why can't evolution be regarded as the method of creation?
Why should such a small minority as the creationists expect to impose their beliefs on others?
American news media is almost completely opposed to creation, doesn't this prove that a significant part of the population opposes creation?


Myth: The question of origins is not important.
Myth: There are very few hominid fossils.
Myth: Evolutionists are always fair and scientific.
Myth: Only Protestant fundamentalists are concerned with creation.
Myth: No "real" scientists are creationists.
Myth: Creationists do not publish in the standard scientific journals or do any original research.
Myth: Creationists constantly quote evolutionists out of context.
Myth: The hominid fossil evidence virtually proves human evolution.
Myth: Darwin withdrew or renounced his theories in old age.


What is evolution?

Evolutionists have attempted to define evolution as "a change in the gene pool of a population over time." By this definition, EVERYONE is an evolutionist. You may encounter a textbook, professor, or scientist who will tell you that evolution is an indisputable observed fact. Oddly, many of the SAME sources will add to the semantic confusion with the popular "evolution is both a fact AND a theory" line. The problem, of course, is the terminology. The "change over time" definition is so general that it adds nothing to the creation/evolution debate.

By this definition every time an individual organism is born or dies evolution occurs (because the gene pool has changed). Of course by this definition, "evolution" is an obvious indisputable fact -- which is exactly what many evolutionists want to establish so that they can lay the groundwork that leads the general populace to blindly accept everything else they call evolution or evolutionary processes.

I will use the definition for evolution as it is commonly understood by most people the world over. The term evolution in this FAQ refers to the "molecules to man" (common descent) hypothesis. When I say "evolutionist" I refer to anyone who believes that new genetic information has arisen over time producing life from non-life and the appearance of new families, genera, etc. of organisms from other organisms.

The purpose of this terminology is NOT to focus on "small" vs. "large" changes, but rather that evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (from rocks to humans or "molecules to man" as it is often referred). What we observe in nature is sorting and LOSS of information. We do not observe increases in information, although such changes should be observed if evolution were true. Conversely, we do occasionally observe "large" changes that involve no new information, for example when a control gene is switched on or off or when an animal with damaged DNA is born with two heads or missing limbs. The type of change we observe demonstrates the net effect of deterioration of the gene pool over time which is consistent with the creation model. The universe, and life itself is in a slow process of net deterioration. While mankind benefits from the accumulation of knowledge (technology, nutrition, medicine, etc.) our gene pool continues to deteriorate. This can be observed; note the prevalence of many genetic defects such as myopia, acne, and male pattern baldness as well as the progressively earlier average onset of puberty and dentition.

The Model

What is the scientific creation model?

Scientific creation is the theory which proceeds from the claim that it is possible to employ the results of natural science to demonstrate that the universe and all life was created in a mature and fully functioning form; that the concept of intelligent design can be validated by the results of scientific investigation.

The model states that life on Earth originated as the result of one or more creation events (if you prefer, you can call this 'big bang biology'). A creation event may be identified as the instantaneous appearance of new matter out of nothing including but not limited to, fully functional, completely developed organisms. Creation events did not transform existing organisms, but produced entirely new creatures. These creation events included for example:

o Creation of the first cells, those without a nucleus.

o Creation of cells with a nucleus, the dominant kind today.

o Creation of the first kinds of Multi-celled animals and plants

o Creation of the first kinds of Vertebrates

o Creation of the first kinds of Mammals

o Creation of the unique kind: Homo Sapiens.

These creation events are no longer occurring. As such, they are not observable or repeatable. This may sound unusual for a scientific model, but it has all of the corresponding weaknesses (from a scientific standpoint) as evolution.  For example, macroevolution (transition between kinds) cannot be observed, and is not repeatable in a lab. Similarly, the first occurrence of life, or the emergence of life from non-life (abiogenesis) has not been observed or reproduced in a lab.

Essentially, the heart of the controversy comes down to the origin and condition of first life. The observance of microevolution does not extrapolate to macroevolution. Microevolution is an important part of the creation model, it is the mechanism by which created kinds have been able to fill the earth and adapt to all of its various ecological and climatological conditions.

What are "kinds" ?

According to the model, living creatures were not created individually, but in groups known as a "kind". Creatures in a kind were created with a set of characteristics and a potentiality for a limited range of variation. A species (the taxonomic term used by biologists and paleontologists) is NOT synonymous with a kind. Some kinds will include many species as well as higher order taxa, while other kinds (such as humankind) may only include one species.

After the creation, creatures of a kind bred either among themselves generally, or in segregated sub-kinds, species. Breeding causes the appearance of variant forms of the creatures, which is limited by the genetic variation built into the kind when it was created.

At the time of its creation, each kind was created with sufficient genetic potential, or gene pool, to give rise to nearly all the varieties within that kind that have existed in the past and those that are yet in existence today. Genetic mutations can cause variation in a kind, but they have the net effect of deterioration of that kind over time. Mutations do not produce new kinds or more complex kinds, they distort previously existing genetic information.

This model denies the transformation of one kind into another kind, but does not deny speciation, nor are species "fixed" in time. As long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures belong to the same kind. Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind. Using the hybridization criterion as an operational definition would allow researchers to list known kinds today; however it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur that given creatures are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize can be the result of degenerative mutations). For the same reason, we do not classify people who cannot have children as a different species, let alone a different kind.

Some examples of probable kinds:

o Horse

o Cattle

o Dog, wolf, coyote (several species in this kind)

o Cats, tigers, lions (many species in this kind)

o Spiders (many species and kinds)

o Flying insects -- many kinds.

o Fish -- many kinds.

o Dinosaurs -- many kinds.

o Humankind (one species consisting of many races)

Some kinds, such as the Dinosaur kinds, have become extinct.

Evolutionists use straw man arguments to imply that creation teaches a ‘fixity of species’. Materials from the Online Course for Teachers: Teaching Evolution is explicit: "In Creationism, species are described as 'fixed' in the sense that they are believed not to change their form, or appearance, through time." In fact, creation does not deny speciation which is an important part of the model.

(See What is the Biblical creationist model?)

Where does a "kind" fit into the accepted taxonomic classification system?

It is often difficult for productive dialog to commence between individuals that hold distinctly contrasting worldviews. This is especially true in the area of anthropology. For example, the word hominid is used by the evolutionist community to mean humans and their evolutionary ancestors. It includes the genus Homo, the genus Australopithecus, and all creatures in the family Hominidae. As an evolutionist term it is meaningless in a creationist worldview. The creationist counterpart would be the term human, referring to all descendants of the first created man and woman.

It may be surprising to some to learn that there is no clear-cut, accepted scientific definition for any of the taxonomic categories, including Homo sapiens. While there is some consensus on these categories, there is enough uncertainty to cause quite a lot of confusion even among experienced taxonomists. Fossil finds are sometimes placed into one classification, only to be switched into another when the evolutionist finds that it does not fit well into evolutionary theory.

The scientist who set up the currently used classification system was a creationist. Carolus Linnaeus intended the species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the Latin word for kind.

The problem with the criterion is that it is difficult to carry out. Performing breeding experiments on organisms with long lifespans such as elephants is impractical or impossible. Biologists tended rather to base their extension of Linnaeus' ideas on external characteristics rather than genetics.

Hence, the dog, the wolf, and the coyote are classified as separate species because of their external physical characteristics. However, they can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Therefore, they should all be placed in the same species and the same kind.

Some feel that it may be possible to alter the system of taxonomy used by biologists and paleontologists to group species into kinds. As yet, no one has done this in a systematic fashion. Others feel that the current setup is so entrenched that it would be almost impossible to change all of the classified organisms based on genetics.

What observations does the creation model explain?

Kinds appear in the fossil record suddenly, with no evidence of pre-existing creatures showing the characteristics of the newly-created kind.

Even when two kinds are seen to share some characteristics, there is little evidence of "transitional forms" in the fossil record. Such forms would show a set of characteristics intermediate between the set belonging to one kind and the set belonging to another.

One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups--classes and phyla--in full-fledged form, in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. This would suggest a sudden acquisition of skeletons by the various groups, in itself a problem. Paleontologists are not certain whether the soft-bodied forms of the Precambrian Ediacaran fauna are in fact ancestral to modern groups. Most species are seen to appear abruptly, to maintain their typical form for most of their history, and to vanish as suddenly as they appeared. This failure to trace coherent lineages of ancestors and descendants is easily explained via the creation model.

What are the weaknesses of the model?

Just as it is impossible to tell from fossil records if one fossil is truly transitional, or representative of a distinct form, the ability to make clear distinctions among kinds is required in order to determine whether a form which appears to be transitional between species, actually represents the creation of a new kind. By the very definition of evolution, there must be transitions, and by the definition of creation, there cannot be transitions. So every "transitional fossil" an evolutionist sees is seen by the creationist as a distinct kind or a member of the same kind. Created kinds, by their nature, leave no other traces besides the appearance of what was created.

Another serious challenge to the creation model is the issue of when it occurred.  Creationists have studied and detailed evidences for a young earth, but have not proven their case beyond all doubt. Note that radioactive decay rates may not have been constant. This issue will be dealt with separately in the FAQ.

Problems with Evolution

Evolutionists commonly criticize creationists for picking faults with evolution instead of letting the creation model stand on its own merit. What they do not understand is that there are only two models of origins.  If life did not evolve, then it was created. Therefore evidence against evolution is evidence for creation, and evidence against creation is evidence for evolution.

What is wrong with the mutation/natural selection explanation of speciation?

The biggest problem with this widely held theory as the mechanism for evolution is that mutations presuppose creation. Mutations are only changes in already existing genes. Before a gene can mutate, it must exist. The results of all mutations are a varied form (allele) of an already existing gene, which is the variation within created kinds that is expected in the creation model. The number of defects in human beings that are the result of genetic mutations is increasing with time, which is exactly what is expected in the creation model in which created kinds started with flawless genes that continue to degrade over time. This same type of long term increase in disorder and decay (entropy) is seen in all closed systems, and in most open systems as well.

Evolution theory also fails to adequately explain many observations such as the evolution of symbiotic relationships, the evolution of stereoscopic vision and other parts of anatomy that would require thousands of compounding, complementary, beneficial mutations. Profound structural changes, no matter how slow to occur, simply are not observed, but are instead the result of illogical extrapolation. This is precisely why Darwin put so much importance on finding transitional fossils in the fossil record to "prove" macroevolution (See chapters 6 and 9 of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin).

In a nutshell, the evolutionist logic goes like this:
Birds catch more dark moths from a light background and more light moths from a dark background, therefore fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into reptiles, and reptiles evolved into birds and mammals, including man.

Does bacterial resistance to antibiotics demonstrate evolutionary change?

Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.

(See Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? by Kevin Anderson, Ph.D. [originally published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 41, No. 4])

Does evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?

The short answer is no. However most people (evolutionists and creationists) do not understand this law, its implications, or this creationist argument. I will attempt to briefly clarify the problem.

    "...we know from the second law of thermodynamics that all complexity, all life, all laughter, all sorrow, is hell bent on leveling itself out into cold nothingness in the end. They -- and we -- can never be more then temporary, local buckings of the great universal slide into the abyss of uniformity."

      -Richard Dawkins (Oxford evolutionist author and speaker. See The Humanist Vol. 57, No. 1 Jan/Feb 1997)

The second law of thermodynamics specifically states that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. The law pertains to CLOSED systems. The earth, and therefore evolution, is NOT a closed system (there is essentially unlimited energy from the sun). Furthermore, the whole concept of a closed system is purely hypothetical -- there is no such thing anywhere on earth. So in no way can any living system on Earth DIRECTLY violate the second law.

Despite the lack of a closed system, creationists still have strong arguments related to the second law of thermodynamics and entropy in general. Almost from the moment of conception, loss of information and order in living systems via deterioration, injuries, and disease begins. This process slows during development, accelerates during aging, and finally results in death. The long term accumulation of information over billions of years necessary for the increase in complexity and capacity of DNA in the molecule to man theory of evolution is unlike any process we know. Is it reasonable to believe that this process has successfully continued for billions of years (violating the concept of gambler's ruin)? Or is it more reasonable to believe that life began in complex basic forms (created kinds) which are in the state of overall long term decay?

Evolutionists make the argument that order can come from disorder in nature, for example snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning. However, none of these examples represent the accumulation of information. They sometimes also cite living examples, like a tree growing from a seed. This also does not represent increasing information or complexity, the information was there all along, in the DNA of the seed. Similarly, a fertilized egg is as complex perhaps more complex, than any cell in the adult organism.

Crystal formation is another common reference, because of the supposed increase in order and complexity. Contrary to what is commonly believed, however, there are many imperfections in the lattice structures of crystalline solids. These imperfections are thermodynamically stable because the entropy of the solid is increased by their presence. A process that accumulates information over long periods of time (billions of years) producing man from molecules would be absolutely exceptional and unlike any process observed in the history of science.

Those who hold to the general evolution model postulate that the present universe and all that it contains began in some primordial disordered state. Evolutionary forces have been at work throughout the billions of years since that state existed, it is believed, and have acted in such a way that the highly structured universe and a vast array of incredibly complex organisms have arisen here on the earth. Thus, there has occurred, according to this thinking, at least in the observable part of our universe and particularly on the earth, an immense increase in order and complexity. This supposedly has taken place solely according to mechanistic, naturalistic processes which can be attributed to properties inherent in matter.

If the above were true, then matter obviously must have possessed an inherent ability for organization into higher and higher levels of order and complexity. Scientists should have been able to recognize this universal inherent property of matter and to construct natural laws which describe it. As a matter of fact, scientists have NOT been able to recognize any such property of matter.

However, scientists have recognized just the opposite tendency in matter. The more probable state of matter is always the more random state. Every change in nature that takes place spontaneously always results in a loss of order. Natural processes always occur in such a way that the complex tend to become less complex, ordered states tend to become disordered. Therefore, this universe is constantly becoming more disordered.

(See "A Decade of creationist research" by Duane Gish, Ph.D. in the Creation Research Society Quarterly 12(1):34-46 June, 1975)

For the evolutionist perspective on the second law see: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability" by Frank Steiger. Note that he does not understand the creationist position and he is well refuted by Timothy Wallace's "Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism"

Do creationists deny the "evolutionary" processes that promote variation?

No, these processes are an essential part of the creation model. It is the evolutionist who improperly introduces mechanisms such as the founder principle, geographic isolation, and genetic recombination into the alleged evolutionary framework. While these are legitimate processes, they are not evolutionary processes. They do not create new genetic information nor do they discriminate between creation and evolution. These processes do account for variation, but they cannot produce evolutionary changes that result in increased complexity which would demand the creation of entirely new genetic information.

At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel's conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Mendel went largely unappreciated for 35 years, but by the end of the 19th century, other research had so clearly confirmed the principles discovered by his work that evolutionists had to incorporate these principles into their theories. Essentially there are four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation. A combination of these four sources can explain any and all differences between any one creature and another.

Environment includes all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one may have darker skin than another simply because he is exposed to more sunshine. Or one may have larger muscles because she exercises more. These environmentally-caused variations may have great importance for the individuals who possess them, but they have no importance to the history of life, because these variations die with their owners; they are not inherited. Charles Darwin believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. This fallacy no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another.

The second source of variation is recombination. This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble very closely their parents but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel studied seven pairs of traits in the garden pea. In each of these he showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were never lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

Many varieties of chickens have been produced from the wild jungle fowl, a lot of variation. But no new varieties are being produced, because all of the genes in the wild jungle fowl have been sorted out into the existing varieties -- limited variation. From the science of plant breeding we have the example of the sugar beet. Beginning in 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why is that? Simply because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

Finally, let us consider an example of recombination provided for us by Charles Darwin. During his voyage around the world which began in 1831, Darwin observed many fascinating plants and animals. But none were more fascinating that those he saw on the Galapagos Islands. Among these were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today's finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today.

Now consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has an intricate molecular machinery designed for the copying of DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000-100,000 copies a gene will contain a mistake. The cell also has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all. The genetic code has a certain amount of redundancy, so that some slight changes in the DNA produce no change in the end result. Other mutations produce so small a change in the end result that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners. Based on the creation model, we would expect virtually all random mutations to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction has been convincingly demonstrated.

For a thorough study of the effects of mutations Drosophila melanogaster, the common fruit fly, is unsurpassed as a source of information. Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly.

Natural selection is no more or less than the label we give to what now seems to be the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and that they will contribute more offspring to future generations. As populations encounter changing environments, or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection increases the combinations of traits which will make the creature most successful in its new environment. Natural selection also plays a role in the elimination or minimization of harmful mutations when they occur.

A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation. For example, there occurred in Florida in 1914 a mutation in the tomato which caused a change in its growth pattern, making the tomatoes much easier to harvest. Because of human selection for this mutation, it has been spread throughout the cultivated tomato. The mutation for antibiotic resistance in bacteria is certainly beneficial for those bacteria whose environment is swamped with antibiotic. Of course, none of these types of mutations are relevant to any ideas about one kind of creature changing into another.

A type of change of a rather more significant nature involves the decrease or loss of some structure or function. Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. Similar would be the case of sightless cave fish. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would reduce that vulnerability. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss and never gain. One never observes wings or eyes being produced by organisms in which they had not previously existed.

The fourth and final source of variation is creation. Why is it a necessary part of the history of life? Simply because the first three sources of variation are utterly inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves, and foxes from the same kind. As each kind multiplied, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.

The evolution model has done a poor job of predicting the results discovered through recent advancements in genetic research. New evidence supports what has long been predicted by the creation model. Chase W. Nelson writes more on this in Genetics and Biblical demographic events.

(See "Genetics: Enemy of Evolution" by Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Creation Research Society Quarterly 31:4)

Are there transitional fossils?

As stated previously, one of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups--classes and phyla--in full-fledged form, in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. This would suggest a sudden acquisition of skeletons by the various groups, in itself a problem. Paleontologists are not certain whether the soft-bodied forms of the Precambrian Ediacaran fauna are in fact ancestral to modern groups. Most species, are seen to appear abruptly, to maintain their typical form for most of their history, and to vanish as suddenly as they appeared. This failure to trace coherent lineages of ancestors and descendants is easily explained via the creation model.

Many evolutionists will readily admit that the fossil evidence is NOT very supportive of the theory of evolution (this is why transitional fossil evidence has been removed from or largely abridged in most modern biology textbooks). These same individuals nearly always make statements such as "the fossil record is inessential to proving evolution -- this has been done by other disciplines." Other evolutionists emphatically assert that the fossil record does support the theory of evolution, claiming hundreds of transitional fossils. For more information on this evolutionist perspective see the Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ which is dissected and refuted here.

The reason this question will not go away is because even when two kinds are seen to share some characteristics, this does not prove that one BECAME the other over time. The fossil record does show change, but it is NOT evolutionary change, it's the kind of change one would expect to find under the creation model, variation within kinds. In fact, many of these so called transitional fossils have been discarded due to more detailed information over the years (some of the more famous examples being the evolution of the horse in North America and the giraffe in Africa). Finally, the concept of a transitional fossil BEGS THE QUESTION -- something most evolutionists do not contemplate.

When an evolutionist sees a new hominid in the fossil record (such as australopithecine) he or she is more likely to give it a subjective title such as "the ancestor of humans", while the creationist calls it by what it really is -- an extinct ape-like creature. Most evolutionary changes supposedly occurred over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years, and the evolutionist would expect there to be hundreds or thousands of intermediate forms between kinds. This just isn't the case. For example with human evolution, to go from the ape-like australopithecines to modern humans, there are only a handful of supposed intermediate forms (these are Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and archaic Homo sapiens). Few evolutionist propaganda is as humorous as the charts (trees) supposedly showing the paths of evolution; the only things shown as definite are the leaves, with a bunch of question marks and uncertain speculative paths connecting in between.

Perhaps the most famous example of a touted transitional form is Archaeopteryx (pronounced ar'-key-op'-ter-iks), an extinct bird (genus Archaeopteryx) of the Jurassic Period, that had teeth, a lizard like tail, and well-developed wings. Lacking are any fossils demonstrating a smooth transition between Archaeopteryx and more modern looking birds, or between reptiles and Archaeopteryx. Despite several other fossils such as Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, and Protarchaeopteryx evolutionists have failed to demonstrate a convincing transition between species and many questions remain unanswered. Archaeopteryx is no more than a distinct created type with a beautiful mosaic of complete and fully functional traits.

In many ways Archaeopteryx is like the platypus which is a small, aquatic, egg-laying monotreme mammal (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) of Australia and Tasmania, with webbed feet, a beaverlike tail, and a ducklike bill. The platypus is not transitional, but instead it is an evolutionist's nightmare -- a mosaic of supposedly distant species. For example, no evolutionist believes that ducks are closely related to beavers.

Search this article for 'Archaeopteryx' to find more information.
Click here to read about feathered dinosaur FAKES that are being produced RIGHT NOW.
Bird evolution is a major sore spot for evolutionists, as even Scientific American has recently admitted.

How old is the earth?

Well the answer depends on whom you ask. Evolutionists tend to change the answer every few years. Some say it is 4.5 billion years old, while others maintain that it is much older. Creationists generally believe that the earth is MUCH younger, only 6,000 to 20,000 years old. This invariably brings up the question of radiometric dating. The evolutionist relies heavily upon radiometric dating techniques to establish the long ages necessary for evolution to occur. Therefore it is necessary to examine the assumptions that are involved with all such dating methods.

The following are isochron assumptions made by the uniformitarian evolutionist:

1. Geological evidence is sufficient to establish that the suite of rocks being analyzed is a cogenic unit. The term cogenic unit implies that time during which the suite of rocks was formed is sufficiently short, compared to the true age of the rock, to allow an age to be estimated.

2. All samples had uniformity, with respect to the daughter isotope, when the cogenic unit formed. This means that over its whole area of occurrence, the geological unit was sufficiently mixed, with respect to daughter isotope, that the slope =0 can be assumed to be the initial conditions of the rock.

3. Deviations from uniformity, with respect to the daughter isotope, has been caused within the suite of rocks, only by radioactive decay of parents. In other words, the rock remained closed to loss or gain of daughter since the rock was formed.

4. The number of parent atoms has not been altered in the suite of rocks, by any geological process, except radioactive decay. In other words, the rocks remained closed to loss or gain of parents since the rocks formed.

5. The decay constant of the parent is known accurately, and has not changed during the existence of the rocks.

6. The abundance of parents and daughters have been determined accurately (laboratory measurements of Pt and Dt are accurate).

If any of these assumptions are incorrect, the dating method is absolutely worthless and yields incorrect results. Furthermore, using various radiometric dating techniques on the same samples often produce wildly differing results. It is also impossible to calibrate (verify) the dating method for anything older than approximately 5,000 years.

(See Grand Canyon Monument To a Catastrophe, Edited by Steve Austin, Ph.D. p119)

Here is an excellent article: How Old is the Earth by Dr. Jonathon Sarfati (link also includes informative videos).
For an in depth critique of modern dating methods, see: Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe
For additional information about radiometric dating check out these sites:
RATE group reveals exciting breakthroughs!
The Radiometric Dating Game
RADIOACTIVE AGE ESTIMATION METHODS - Do they prove the earth is billions of years old?

The following is a list of young earth and universe evidences (in no particular order). Note -- some of these are better than others. Also, none of these are 100% conclusive. As I have stated before, creationists have not proven beyond reasonable doubt the young age of the earth, however, there is a great deal of evidence for a young age.

Young Earth Evidence

1) Exponential decay in the earth's magnetic field (half-life of 1400-2000 years). This half-life cannot be extrapolated back more than about 10,000 years without the field becoming intolerably powerful. Creationists have been criticized for taking the original work on this matter out of context and failing to show that the magnetic field is cyclic (decaying then strengthening). However, it turns out this criticism was unfair as the original work on the subject had concocted data in an imaginary hypothetical cyclic extrapolation. It was the creation theorists who used ONLY the existing empirical evidence to devise a theory that truly explained the available data. Since that time new data has become available and creationists remain active in this field of study. For more details see THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD IS YOUNG.

2) Despite inferior medical and nutritional practices of the past, evidence indicates that the human species should have populated the earth much more quickly if we had existed on Earth for millions of years.

3) Earliest known human civilizations are only a few thousand years old.

4) Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, cannot be traced back more than several thousand years.

5) Dating of Niagara falls. Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old.

6) Dating of Mississippi river delta. Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old.

7) Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio. This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet.

8) Erosion rate of the continents. Continental mass divided by net erosion rate (that is, despite accretion due to volcanism, tectonic activity, and geosyncline) would wash all of the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years.

9) Amount of salts in the ocean divided by rate of influx. This is actually many dating methods - one for each salt which can be measured. For example, all the sodium chloride in the ocean would have been washed in about 62 million years, if the ocean was pure water to begin with.

10) Amount of water on earth's surface / rate at which it is expelled from below ground. Enough water is expelled from deep below the earth via volcanoes, etc. to rapidly produce more than all the water on the earth's surface.

11) No plausible explanation for the pressure in oil reservoirs remaining so high for millions of years.

12) Existence of uranium halos.

13) Existence of polonium halos. Some believe that polonium halos disqualify radiometric dating as a reliable dating method because they may indicate that the rate of radioactive decay has not been constant throughout history. Others feel these halos indicate a rapid (instant) creation of the earth.

14) Helium retention in zircons.

15) Existence of C-14 in diamonds and other "ancient" samples.

16) Red blood cells and hemoglobin found in dinosaur bone. These could not be more than a few thousand years old.

17) Helium is constantly added to our atmosphere from radioactive decay, but little escapes. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000 of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. In fact so much helium remains in rocks that they could not possibly be billions of years old, it all would have leaked out.

See: The 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm A Young Earth

Evidence for a Rapidly Formed Geologic Column

The geologic column (representing all the earth's observed sedimentary rock) in classical geology represents hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history. Evidence that this column formed rapidly rather than over millions of years is therefore evidence for a young geologic column and a young earth. It should be noted that the "geologic column" is purely hypothetical and cannot be found in a complete form anywhere on earth other than in a textbook.

1) Lack of meteorites in the geologic column. If the geologic column is billions of years old one would expect to find meteorites throughout.

2) Ripple marks, rain drops, and animal tracks in sedimentary rocks. This implies very rapid burial and hardening because these fragile features could not survive even trivial erosion.

3) Polystrate fossils. These are fossils which cut across multiple geologic layers that were supposedly laid down millions of years apart. Fossilized trees and animals are often found in tact and spanning supposedly millions of years of geologic layers.

4) Regional deposition. Current known geologic processes don't account for regional deposits (covering multiple U.S. states, for example). This applies to certain types of rocks, as well as coal and oil reserves.

5) Deformation of strata implies it was soft when deformed and hadn't hardened into rock.

6) Absence of bioturbation in the geologic column. Biological activity soon disturbs sedimentary deposits formed by modern catastrophes (hurricanes and floods) but is not evidenced in the geologic column. This implies that the geologic column was buried very deeply and rapidly.

7) Lack of recognizable soil layers in the geologic column. Soil material is seldom found in the geologic column. One would think that the earth had soil layers in the past, and if it was slowly buried, some would be preserved.

8) Undisturbed bedding planes. Different geologic rock layers often show sharp, knife-edge breaks between layers, with no evidence of erosion between. This is not realistic if the layers formed over long periods of time.

9) Clastic dikes. Clastic dikes are formed from soft sand squeezed up through newer layers of rock. This implies that the sandy older (lower) layer was still soft enough to squeeze sand up (like squeezing a toothpaste tube) through the younger upper layers.

Young Universe Evidence

1) Insufficient number of supernovas / rate at which they occur. A new supernova event is observed about every 30 years, and we see only a few thousand in existence. Along similar lines, supernova remnants should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, yet there are no very old, widely expanded remnants, and few moderately old ones in our galaxy or in its satellite galaxies. This is what we would expect if these galaxies had not existed long enough for wide expansion.

2) Absence of field galaxies. With stellar evolution, it would seem that some galaxies would not be gravitationally bound and would just spread out in a "field".

3) Gravitationally bound star clusters with stars of different ages. If a star cluster is gravitationally bound, under stellar evolution theory one would expect all the stars would be the same age.

Young Solar System Evidence

1) Existence of short-period comets. They can only last a maximum of several thousand years because they give off copious material with each orbit.

2) Continued presence of small meteorites in the face of the Poynting/Robertson effect. Poynting-Robertson effect should sweep the solar system clean of small particles.

3) Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last.

4) Extensive tectonic activity on Jupiter's moon Io. Inadequate heat sources for a small moon so far from the sun to still be geologically active.

5) Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any.

6) Rock flow and lunar craters - Rock flow should have eliminated old craters on the moon.

7) Recession of the moon from the earth. The moon is slowly receding from earth about 4 cm per year (rate would have been faster in the past). Even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance (it certainly did not separate from the earth at a rate of 4 cm per year).

8) Shrinking sun - Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without affecting earth's environment.

9) Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos. Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun.

10) Heat level of the sun's corona. Not sustainable for extended time period.

11) High concentration of Uranium-236 on the moon. Should have decayed.

12) High concentration of Thorium-230 on the moon. Should have decayed.

(See article by Craig Davis of the 9 Feb 1997 CRSnet Digest)

Human Evolution

I DONT THINK SO!"I don't think so..."

(See the Myths section for more information related to this subject)

What does the fossil record tell us about human evolution?

It is impossible to go into great detail in this FAQ, but I strongly urge the interested reader to consult Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow which thoroughly examines the human evolution controversy and demonstrates its conclusion -- that the fossil evidence is so contrary to human evolution as to effectively falsify the idea that humans evolved.

The fossil known as KP 271 (the distal end of a humerus found in 1965 by Bryan Patterson of Harvard University in an excellent state of preservation) has been given by evolutionists a date of 4.5 million years ago, thus it becomes virtually the oldest hominid fossil ever found -- older than Lucy and all of the australopithecines. Much to the evolutionist's surprise, this oldest respectable hominid fossil ever found, representing a part of the anatomy where it is relatively easy to discriminate between humans and the other primates -- both living and fossil, is virtually identical to that of Homo sapiens (modern humans). This suggests that true humans existed before the australopithecines appear in the fossil record. KP 271 could not be distinguished from Homo sapiens morphologically or by multivariate analysis by Patterson, his partner, or by many others who have analyzed it since then. Yet not surprisingly, this fossil has been called Australopithecus africanus. It was called Australopithecus because of its age, in spite of the scientific evidence. Evolutionists "know" it is impossible for true humans to have lived before the australopithecines, even though the fossil evidence would suggest otherwise, because humans are supposed to have evolved from the australopithecines, so they come to the unreasonable conclusion mandated by evolution theory.

Evolutionists ignore the morphology of fossils that do not fall into the proper evolutionary time period, and wave their magic wand to change the taxon of these fossils. Thus, it is impossible to falsify the concept of human evolution (proof that it is not a scientific theory). To the evolutionist, the value of data does not depend upon its intrinsic quality but upon whether or not it supports evolution and its time scale. Good data is that which supports evolution. Bad data is that which does not fit evolution, and it is to be discarded or manipulated.

The fossil record shows us that anatomically modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries at one time or another. None of them evolved from a more robust to a more gracile condition; in fact, in some cases (Neanderthal and archaic Homo sapiens) the more robust fossils are the more recent fossils in their respective categories. All of the fossils ascribed to the Homo habilis category are contemporary with Homo erectus. Thus, Homo habilis not only did not evolve into Homo erectus, it could not have evolved into Homo erectus.

As far as we can tell from the fossil record, when humans first appear in the fossil record, they are already fully human. It is this abrupt appearance of our ancestors in morphologically human form that makes the human fossil record compatible with the creation model. This fact is evident even when the fossils are arranged according to the evolutionist's dates (which are believed to be grossly in error under the creation model). In other words, even when we accept the evolutionist's dates for the fossils, the results do not support human evolution. The results, in fact, are so contradictory to human evolution that they effectively falsify the theory. Paleoanthropologists reinforce the notion that human evolution is a philosophy, not science, when they refuse to let observation get in the way of evolution theory.

(See Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 57, 178-179)

Do skull sizes and morphology indicate evolution?

In seeking to establish the concept of human evolution, the evolutionist leans heavily on skull morphology and, to a lesser degree in recent years, on skull size. Both are spurious arguments and prove nothing. Typical of the charts and illustrations used by evolutionists is a display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City:

Increasing Brain Size

Homo sapiens 1450 cc [cubic centimeters]

Neanderthal 1625 cc

Pithecanthropus 914 cc

Australopithecine 650 cc

Gorilla 543 cc

Gibbon 97 cc

So what is the point of such a display? The evolutionist is obviously trying to establish that the hominid brain has enlarged by evolution over time. However, no evolutionist in the world believes that it happened in the way the chart implies it did. No evolutionist believes the evolution went from gibbon to chimpanzee to gorilla to the australopithecines to Homo erectus to Neanderthal and then to modern humans. Evolutionists believe that we evolved from some transitional form that was the ancestor to both humans and living primates (despite the fact that this transitional form, if it ever existed, would readily be called an ape by anyone who saw it). This type of display is nothing more than a cheap form of propaganda to convince the uninformed public of the "truth" of evolution.

The truth is that relative brain size means very little. The relationship between brain size and body size must be factored in, with the crucial elements being organization and complexity, not size. The human brain varies in size from approximately 700 cubic cm to 2200 cubic cm with no differences in ability or intelligence -- that's a difference of over 300 percent! (See Races, Types, and Ethnic Groups by Stephen Molnar, pg. 57)

Basing an evolutionary sequence on skull morphology is just as futile. For example the archaic Homo sapiens fossil Rhodesian Man has pronounced brow ridges making it the most "primitive", "savage", or "apelike" human fossil in existence. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this fossil is that it was found about sixty feet underground at the far end of a shaft in a lead and zinc mine. He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were being mined by other humans -- indicating a very high degree of civilization and technology. Not surprisingly, many evolutionists report that Rhodesian Man was found in a cave. While not an outright lie, one has to consider if calling a mine shaft a cave is not a crude attempt to minimize the technical abilities of ancient humans.

In spite of this evidence, evolutionists continue to base much of their evidence for human evolution on the alleged primitive-to-advanced contours of fossil skulls. Creationists maintain that in light of the evidence of the wide genetic diversity in the human family, skull contour is an inadequate basis for determining relationships. The Selenka Expedition to Java, for example, succeeded in revealing the nature of the human fossil record -- that the human family had wide morphologic diversity (even more so than today) and that Java Man was not our evolutionary ancestor.

(See Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 82-85, 118-119)

Should Homo erectus really be classified as a separate species?

A number of evolutionists have expressed the fact that Homo erectus, while slightly different in morphology, is not so different from modern humans as to warrant a separate species designation. The range of variation of many features of Homo erectus (such as Java and Peking) fall within that of modern man. When considering the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong within the single species Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Homo erectus belongs among this same diverse species. Changes in locomotor anatomy from Homo erectus to modern man are relatively minor, and by earliest Homo erectus times body size was essentially modern.

Furthermore, many anthropologists believe that a modern man and a million-year-old Homo erectus woman could together produce a fertile child. In other words this species distinction is based solely on the time element, which is an evolutionary concept -- valid only if evolution is valid. If one million years would not produce significant genetic change to inhibit conception, then the differences between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are not the result of evolution but instead represent genetic variation within one species. Although I am genetically isolated from my great grandmother because of time, this does not mean that she and I are different species. A species distinction based primarily on time is an absurd evolutionary necessity.

(See Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 134-137)

Are australopithecines ancestors to humans?

This is yet another evolutionary fable, and an example of the inevitable circular reasoning behind evolutionary theory. The australopithecines had nothing to do with human origins, they are simply extinct primates. There is already evidence which shows that humans appeared in the fossil record before the australopithecines and lived as contemporaries with the australopithecines throughout all of australopithecine history.

The case for the australopithecines as human ancestors has been based on three evolutionist claims: that they were relatively big brained; that they were bipedal; and that they appear in the fossil record at the relevant time. In reality, the fossil record shows us that the australopithecines do not appear in the fossil record at the relevant time -- they are far too recent. Although brain organization is more important than brain size alone, the significant gap between cranial capacities of the largest australopithecine and the smallest human has not been bridged. There is no smooth transition from nonhuman to human fossils in this regard.

The evidence for australopithecine bipedality is controversial. First it should be noted that bipedality does NOT indicate a human relationship. Birds are bipedal, but no one suggests that they are closely related to humans. Evolutionists make much of the alleged australopithecine bipedality because to make a case for human evolution they must demonstrate the origin of bipedality from a primate stock.

If indeed the australopithecines were bipedal, there is strong evidence that their locomotion was significantly different from that of humans (consequently most paleoanthropologists agree that if they did in fact walk, it was not in a human manner). This brings us to the infamous Laetoli footprints, discovered by associates of Mary Leakey beginning in 1978, thirty miles south of Olduvai Gorge in northern Tanzania. The strata above the footprints has been dated at 3.6 million years ago, while the strata below them has been dated at 3.8 million years ago (K-Ar). These footprint trails, preserved in fresh volcanic ash by a unique combination of circumstances, are one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the twentieth century.

Mary Leakey described the footprints as "remarkably similar to those of modern man." (National Geographic, April 1979, p. 446) Three parallel trails are seen, made by three individuals, with one individual walking in the footprints of another. There are a total of sixty-nine prints extending a length of about thirty yards. Virtually everyone agrees that these prints are strikingly similar to those of modern humans, yet in spite of this fact, evolutionists have ascribed them to the Lucy-type hominid known as Australopithecus afarensis. Obviously this is totally unprovable.

The most extensive recent study of these footprints was done by specialist Russel H. Tuttle at the invitation of Mary Leakey. Not only did he confirm the remarkable humanness of the Laetoli hominid feet, but he described them as "indistinguishable from those of habitually barefoot Homo sapiens." He also said that "none of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are." (see American Journal of Physical Anthropology, February 1991, p.244) He not only rejects the notion that the Laetoli footprints were made by Australopithecus afarensis, but he found that the former work on the footprints which led to this conclusion was flawed.

So WHY then do evolutionists not ascribe these fossil footprints to Homo? Because that would not fit the evolutionary timeline. According to the theory of evolution, those footprints are too old to have been made by true humans. It is a classic case of interpreting the facts according to a preconceived philosophical bias. Evolutionists refuse to call extremely old fossils by their proper names, in order to protect evolution theory. Hence, it is obvious we are dealing not with science but with a philosophy.

(See Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 166-168, 173-176)

Does fossil evidence confirm the creation model?

One way to discriminate between the two models of human origins is to place all of the relevant fossil material on a time chart according to the probable dates for each of the fossil individuals and to evaluate the results as to whether the evidence favors an evolutionary or a morphological continuum. When this is done, the evidence is strongly in favor of a morphological continuum, both horizontally across species, and vertically over time. The horizontal continuum shows that anatomically modern Homo sapiens, Neanderthal, archaic Homo sapiens, and Homo erectus all lived as contemporaries over extended periods of time. The vertical continuum shows that as far back as the human fossil record goes, the human body has remained substantially the same and has not evolved from something else.

This is what the creation model would predict, that is, it is what we would expect if creation were true. The evidence, in fact, is so strong for the creation model of human origins that it is extremely unlikely that any future fossil discoveries would weaken it. New fossil discoveries have only strengthened the creationist position, which is why it is understandable that evolutionist books no longer carry this type of human fossil chart. Charts of bits and pieces of the human fossil record abound in evolutionary books, but one will not find a time chart that depicts all of the relevant human fossil material according to the morphological description of the individual fossils.

(See Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 139-140)

Read about the Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470 .

But aren't humans 97% chimp?

The notion that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA seems to be common knowledge. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99%, depending on who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims and does the data actually indicate little difference between chimps and humans? The following concepts will assist with a proper understanding of this issue:

1. Similarity ('homology') is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution) or against a common designer (creation). Think about a painter. Why do his or her various paintings have so many similarities? Because they had the same creator. Whether similarity is morphological or biochemical is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

2. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, or indeed if every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal a creator to us? No. If anything, it might indicate the existence of multiple creators instead of one.

3. If humans were entirely different from all other living things, how would we survive? We must eat food to provide nutrients and energy to live. What would we eat if every other organism on earth were fundamentally different biochemically? How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different from the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is necessary for our survival.

4. We know that DNA in cells contains the information necessary for the development of an organism. In other words, if two organisms have similar features we would expect there to be some similarity also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be more alike than the DNA of a cow and a bacterium. If it were not so, then the whole idea of DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned. Likewise, humans and apes have a lot of morphological similarities, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

5. Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of humans. Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share similarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example those that code for the MHC (Major Histocompatibility Complex) proteins, are almost identical.

6. What of the 97% (or 98% or 99%) similarity claimed between humans and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications (and even some respectable science journals). DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C,G,A,T. Groups of three of these at a time are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of 20 different types of amino acids to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has at least 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in sequence. The first draft announcements of the human genome were published (in Science as well as Nature) in February of 2001. The announcement of first draft chimp DNA sequencing occured in August of 2005. The data show at least 10 times as many differences between chimp and human DNA compared to the number of differences between any two given humans. The differences between humans and chimpanzees include approximately 35 million DNA bases that are different, approximately 45 million in the human that are absent from the chimp and another 45 million in the chimp that are absent from the human. And even the analysis behind these figures is wrong, if you take a broader look at both sets of DNA instead of cherry picking a subset of the data, the similarity has been calculated as low as 70%.

What if human and chimp DNA was even 99% homologous (which it is not), what would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 1% different this still amounts to 30 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 3 million words, or 10 large books of information. This is an unlikely barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

7. Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

(See: Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.))

(See: A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity))

(See: Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D., Creation Ex Nihilo 19(1):21-22, Dec 1996-Feb 1997 )

But is Creation Science Really Science?

Doesn't the scientific creation model fall outside of the realm of science?

To answer this question, one must first understand what a model is. Webster's New World Dictionary defines a model as "a generalized, hypothetical description, often based on an analogy, used in analyzing or explaining something." Like macroevolution from the evolutionary model, creation events have not been observed in modern times, and cannot be simulated in a laboratory experiment and hence fall outside of the realm of the natural (observable) sciences. This fact alone does not invalidate the usefulness of the evolution or creation models. The scientific model of creation, like any good scientific model, is useful in explaining and predicting observations. It is the premise of this document that the scientific creation model is better than the evolution model because it explains already known observations without complex adjustments, it is simpler, and it readily predicts future observations.

Does the scientific creation model require the existence of a supernatural deity?

Without a doubt the creation theory was inspired by the Biblical account from the book of Genesis. Clearly many creationists believe this account is literal and true. However, it is important to understand that creation can be studied from a purely objective, scientific basis. This FAQ was intended to address questions that pertain to scientific creation, which makes no assertions about religion. I've even considered using a new name for creation science such as "Big Bang Biology" for the purpose of distinguishing it from Biblical studies. Scientific creation is concerned with genetics, biology, paleontology, geology, physics, anthropology, and other sciences. The Biblical account of Genesis which is common to Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other faiths supplies more specifics to the creation model such as the timetable of creation events and insights into the creator. Biblical studies are not appropriate for public school science classes because they require teachers to be competant Bible scholars. The Genesis account of creation is suitable for teaching in churches, synagogues, mosques, and private schools -- best taught by biblical scholars who have a scientific background.

Most creationists would be satisfied if public schools (and the books they use) simply acknowledged and taught the scientific evidence for AND against evolution. As it stands today most institutions do not even recognize dissenting opinions WITHIN the evolutionist camps. This is an insult to anyone expecting objective teaching in our public schools.

Evolutionists assign dates to matter, and an approximate date on the creation of the universe, but they do not mention what initially created that matter, or where it came from. Similarly, the scientific creation model does not address such issues. Many individuals believe God guided the process of evolution. Likewise, one could conceivably believe an atheistic approach to creation where kinds were created fully functional and developed spontaneously and instantaneously out of nothing with no help from any deity. The fact is, theistic beliefs are irrelevant to the purely scientific study of creation.

Essentially there are only two models of origins: creation and evolution. Each model is a complete world view, a philosophy of life and meaning, of origin and destiny. Neither can easily be confirmed or falsified by the scientific method, since neither can be tested or observed experimentally, and therefore they must both be accepted on faith. Nevertheless, each is also a scientific model, since each seeks to explain within its framework all of the real data of science and history. Evolutionism is at least as "religious" as creation, these are two fully comparable systems.

But isn't scientific creation just a back-door method of getting Biblical creation introduced?

It could just as easily be asked, "Isn't evolution a back-door method to introducing atheism, humanism, or naturalism?" Creation can be studied independently of the Bible.

So what exactly is the difference between scientific creation and Biblical creation?

Scientific creation is based on scientific evidence. Biblical creation is based on Biblical teachings. The Genesis record includes an account of a six day creation, the names of the first man and woman, the record of God's curse on the earth because of human sin, the account of Noah's ark, the origin of certain languages, and other such details which probably could not be determined scientifically. Scientific evidence can point to the fact of a creation period for example, but it is unlikely that the specific duration of that period could be determined. Scientific creation deals with such physical entities as fossils, whereas the Bible never refers to fossils at all.

(See What is Creation Science? by Morris and Parker, p.297-298)

Why can't evolution be regarded as the method of creation?

It is important to define terms, especially on this issue. The belief that God used evolution to make man is properly called "theistic evolution", not creation. Evolution purports to explain the origin of living organisms by natural processes, creation by preternatural processes; and it is semantic confusion to try to equate the two. Theistic evolution says there is a God behind the natural processes which cause evolution; atheistic evolution says there is not. Both forms of evolution assume the same framework of evolutionary history and the same evolutionary mechanisms, so there is no scientific way to discriminate between the two, as there is between creation and evolutionism. Theistic evolution must be judged on the basis of theological criteria, not scientific. The creation and evolution models, on the other hand, CAN be compared and evaluated on strictly scientific criteria. Creationists maintain that evolution is a poor model of origins, strictly on the basis of scientific criteria.

Why should such a small minority as the creationists expect to impose their beliefs on others?

Those favoring the presentation of opposing viewpoints and teaching alternative hypotheses are not a small minority. A 1981 poll commissioned by the Associated Press and NBC News showed that over 86% of the population favored having creation taught in schools. Surprisingly, despite years of evolutionist propaganda and indoctrination attempts, it appears the number of Americans who support teaching creation in public schools is actually increasing. Nevertheless, creationists only request FAIR treatment, not favored treatment. We would like ALL science to be taught objectively, with the presentation of empirical evidence for and against various models and hypothesis. This should be a very reasonable and rational request but the resistance is shocking. The attitude of the liberal humanistic establishments in science and education, in trying to maintain an exclusive indoctrination in evolutionary humanism seems unreasonably intolerant and arrogant in a free society. There is a disturbing trend of evolutionists who favor censorship when they run into ideas they disagree with. This is not only in relation to creation science, but also to dissent within their own circles. This was brought to light recently in the outrageous PBS 8 hour Evolution series. Despite this production being an absolute embarrassment to the evolutionist community, it is being used to indoctrinate children across the country.

(See "The Attitude of Various Populations toward Teaching Creation and Evolution in Public Schools" by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. in Vol. 13, No. 2 of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal)

American news media is almost completely opposed to creation, doesn't this prove that a significant part of the population opposes creation?

There has recently been a tremendous (healthy) swing towards more conservative journalism with the exploding popularity of the "Fox News" channel providing strong evidence that Americans prefer conservative news coverage over liberal when given a choice because it is more agreeable to their values and beliefs. Unfortunately, the news ratings are still dominated by the broadcast networks (CBS, ABC, NBC). There is firm evidence that the leaders of the news media are completely out of touch with the opinions of the American people, which is unfortunate since they are supposed to be the opinion makers. An article in Public Opinion magazine reported on detailed interviews with the 240 leading editors, reporters, columnists, TV anchormen, producers, correspondents, and film editors -- the people deemed most responsible for deciding what news to report and how to report it. Only 8% of them regularly attend either church or synagogue, and over half have no religious affiliation whatever.

There is a lot of opposition (by liberals) to this "liberal media" label, yet the statistics strongly confirm it:

The Media's Bias

  • 89% of Washington reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.
  • 7% voted for George Bush in 1992.
  • 61% called themselves "liberal" or "moderate to liberal."
  • 9% "conservative" or "moderate to conservative."
  • 50% said they are Democrats.
  • 4% are Republicans.
  • 59% called the Contract with America "an election year campaign ploy."
  • 3% thought it was "a serious reform proposal."
  • Source: Roper Center poll for the Freedom Forum. Survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, released April 1996.
  • 9 White House correspondents surveyed voted for Clinton in 1992;
  • 2 for George Bush
  • 12 for Michael Dukakis in 1988; one for Bush
  • 10 for Walter Mondale in 1984; zero for Ronald Reagan
  • 8 for Jimmy Carter in 1980; two for Reagan
  • Source: U.S. News & World Report White House reporter Kenneth Walsh in a personal survey for his 1996 book, Feeding the Beast.
  • 44% of reporters polled nationwide considered themselves Democrats
  • 16% identified themselves as Republicans
  • 34% as independents
  • Source: Freedom Forum-sponsored poll of 1,400 journalists across the country, 1992.
  • 2% of journalists nationwide identified themselves as "very liberal."
  • 20% as "liberal."
  • 4% as "conservative" and one percent as "very conservative."
  • 64% claimed they were "moderate."
  • 81% of reporters didn't think coverage of the Republican Congress has been "too cynical, too negative and has nit-picked too much."
  • 19% agreed.

(See Times Mirror Center for the People & the Press, May 1995 survey of 248 members of the national media)

Admissions of Bias

  • "There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. It comes naturally to most reporters."
    -- CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
  • "Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents."
    -- Walter Cronkite at the Radio and TV Correspondents Association dinner, March 21, 1996.
  • "There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias."
    -- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

With this kind of profile, it would be surprising to find even the smallest semblance of sympathy for creation in the media. As a result, the creation movement and arguments are almost always misrepresented and distorted, often viciously, in newspaper and magazine articles and in radio and television coverage. Ironically, an August 2001 Zogby Poll shows overwhelming public support, 81 percent, for the position that "When public broadcasting networks discuss Darwin's theory of evolution, they should present the scientific evidence for it, but also the scientific evidence against it." Only 10 percent support presenting "only the scientific evidence that supports" Darwin's theory.

For more related information see: Why should such a small minority as the creationists expect to impose their beliefs on others?"


Myth: The question of origins is not important.

Even many Christians embrace this myth. It may be possible to study the world and life without considering origins, but it is not natural to do so. The question of origins has a direct bearing on our behavior, our destiny, our concept of God, and our philosophy of life. It is without question one of the most profound matters an individual must face. It is the difference between zero and infinity.

Myth: There are very few hominid fossils.

The public is unaware of the rich harvest of hominid fossils we now possess. Although many myths about evolution are not the fault of evolutionists, this one clearly is. Every competent paleoanthropologist knows about this wealth of fossils, and when a worker in this field speaks of the scarcity of the human fossils, he is actually saying, "Although there is an abundance of hominid fossils, the bulk of them are either too modern to help me, or they do not fit well into the evolutionary scheme. Since we all know that humans evolved, what is so perplexing is the difficulty we are having in finding the fossils that would clearly demonstrate that fact."

The reality is that by 1976 approximately 4000 hominid fossil individuals had already been unearthed. The period since that time has seen the most intensive and successful search for hominid fossils in the history of paleoanthropology. No one knows exactly how many have been found to date, however a conservative estimate exceeds 6000.

(See Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 32, 198)

More on this topic can be found in the AIG article "Where are all the human fossils?"

Myth: Evolutionists are always fair and scientific.

Some people will trust anyone that wears a white lab coat and speaks with an impressive vocabulary. Unfortunately in real life, people always have an ulterior motive. I will not say that there couldn't be, or have not been creationists that have used deceitful tactics, but evolutionists are consistent about it. This deceit can be subtle, such as the numerous paleoanthropologists seeking fame and recognition (funding?) who claim that their latest find is a human ancestor or more importantly, the oldest human ancestor (a recent example of this is the 1994 discovery of Australopithecus ramidus by Tim White which was later found to be too chimp-like to be claimed as a human ancestor, and has been renamed Ardipithecus ramidus -- put in a completely new genus).

The deceit can also be much more blatant, for example the Piltdown hoax, or the widespread use of artistic license in recreating our past. The artists' reconstructions, riddled with evolutionary bias, are what the general public sees in newspaper and magazine headlines, and at museums. For example, the St. Louis zoo in Missouri, USA, has a $17.9 million exhibition focused on evolution, which includes a statue, purportedly a reconstruction of the famous australopithecine part-skeleton 'Lucy', showing remarkably human looking feet. These feet are not based on the fossil facts.

The truth is that australopithecines have hands and feet that are not at all human looking. They have long curved fingers and toes, even more so than apes today that live mostly in the trees. If people visiting this exhibition were to see an accurate replica of Lucy in the trees, with features typical of tree-dwelling primates, it would make them question the whole notion of human evolution; Lucy would simply be viewed as a form of extinct ape.

When asked about the dishonest presentation, zoo director Bruce Carr replied, "We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. What we look at is the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think that the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct."

The prevailing evolutionary thought seems to be, "it doesn't matter if people get indoctrinated into evolution by false evidence, because evolution is a fact."

(See Creation ex nihilo Vol. 19 No.1 December 1996-February 1997 p.52)

Myth: Only Protestant fundamentalist Christians are concerned with creation.

While many of the prominent creation oriented organizations such as Answers in Genesis or The Institute for Creation Research are associated with Christian fundamentalists, the creation model is of interest to people of a wide variety of religious views. Evolutionism is the basic premise of many religions, including Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, Liberal Protestantism, Modernist Catholicism, Reform Judaism, and others, not to mention humanism and atheism, so these all would naturally tend to oppose creation. In view of these and other religious implications, it is absurd to claim that evolution is strictly scientific. On the other hand, creation is also basic to a number of religions -- not only all the denominations of conservative Protestantism, but also to Baptists, traditional Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, as well as conservative Islam and other monotheistic religions. Creation is much broader in scope and importance than as a particular doctrine of certain Biblical fundamentalists. Indeed, it is offensive and discriminatory to these other creationists to hear constantly that creation is only of concern to a minority of Christian denominations. Recently it has been brought to my attention that Muslims may even be the fastest growing segment of creationists in the world. Here is an example of a Muslim oriented creationist web site.

Myth: No "real" scientists are creationists.

There are thousands of distinguished scientists today who have become creationists, all of whom have post-graduate degrees, who are pursuing careers in science and who have records and credentials comparable to those of any other segment in the scientific professions. Admittedly, most scientists are still evolutionists -- especially those who control the scientific societies and journals -- but the creationist minority is respectable and growing. There are creationist Ph.D.'s in every branch of pure and applied science today -- biology, geology, physics, engineering, medicine, etc. It is obvious now that a person can be well trained and experienced in any discipline of science and can understand the factual data of that science within the framework of the creation model. In fact, acceptance of creation is known to be growing most rapidly today among people with scientific and technological training. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that practically all of these scientists were indoctrinated in evolutionism throughout their training. To become or remain creationists, they have had to study and think themselves through the evidences and arguments for both models, all on their own initiative, and usually against the opposition and ridicule of the majority of their scientific and educational colleagues. Most of them were themselves evolutionists throughout their college years and beyond, becoming creationists only as a result of later personal critical study and reevaluation.

"The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast," said Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge-educated philosopher of science who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. "This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, [the PBS 8 hour Evolution series' (2001)] attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious 'creationists' is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination."

Recently 100 bold scientists came forward and signed a "Scientific Dissent on Darwinism". These signers of the statement questioning Darwinism came from throughout the US and from several other countries, representing biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, anthropology and other scientific fields. Professors and researchers at such universities as Princeton, MIT, U Penn, and Yale, as well as smaller colleges and the National Laboratories at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos, N.M., are included. A number of the signers have authored or contributed to books on issues related to evolution, or have books underway.

See: Can creationists be scientists?

Myth: Creationists do not publish in the standard scientific journals or do any original research.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Creationists are VERY active in original research, much more so in the last decade than ever before. Several organizations exist to facilitate this work, such as the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis (formerly the Creation Science Foundation), the Creation Research Society, the Bible Science Association, and Reasons to Believe to name a few.

Many creationists publish in standard scientific journals for their own respective disciplines and their publication records compare well with other groups. For example, the ten scientists on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research have published at least 150 research papers and 10 books in their own scientific fields -- all in standard scientific journals or through secular book publishers -- in addition to hundreds of creationist articles and about 50 books on creation and related subjects published through creationist channels. Whenever these articles or books have creationist implications, however, they must be "masked" in order to get them published in secular outlets. So far, at least, all frankly creationist articles or books are simply rejected out of hand by such publishers. For example, when the Creation Research Society, with a team of fully-qualified Ph.D. biologists and other scientists were ready to publish their high school textbook, not one of the 15 leading textbook publishers would even so much as look at the manuscript -- claiming their other books would be boycotted if they were to publish a creationist biology textbook.

For more information on creationists who publish in standard peer reviewed journals click here.

By the way, it should be mentioned that there exist some very high caliber creationist technical journals as well. I recommend the, "Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal" which is published by Answers in Genesis For more information, in the United States contact:

Answers in Genesis
P.O. Box 6330,
Florence, Kentucky 41022

See: Can creationists be scientists?

Myth: Creationists constantly quote evolutionists out of context.

This often-repeated charge that creationists deliberately use partial quotes or out-of-context quotes from evolutionists is, at best, an attempt to confuse the issue. Creationists do indeed frequently quote from evolutionary literature, finding that the data and interpretations used by evolutionists often provide very effective arguments for creation. With only rare exceptions, however, creationists always are meticulously careful to quote accurately and in context. Evolutionists have searched creationist writings looking for such exceptions, and out of the thousands of quotes which have been used, have been able to find only a few which they have interpreted as misleading. Even these, when carefully studied are usually found to be quite fair and accurate in their representation of the situation under discussion.

On the other hand, evolutionists frequently quote creationist writings badly out of context. The most disconcerting practice of this sort, one that could hardly be anything but deliberate, is to quote a creationist exposition of a Biblical passage, in a book or article dealing with Biblical creation, and then criticize this as an example of the scientific creation which creationists propose for public schools. In any case, evolutionists much more frequently and more flagrantly quote creationists out of context than the reverse.

(See What is Creation Science? by Morris and Parker, p.299-304)

Myth: The hominid fossil evidence virtually proves human evolution.

The reality is that this evidence has been a disappointment to evolutionists and is being de-emphasized. In actuality, the human fossil evidence falsifies the concept of human evolution, while remaining in accord with the creation model.

For a hundred years evolutionists paraded the fossils they had found as evidence for evolution. They promised more and better fossils in the future, hoping that something would come along to validate their claims. In modern times, with a more adequate sampling of the fossil record, the grim reality dawned that those transitional fossils were not to be found. The punctuated equilibria model of evolution was born to explain why they were not found. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the punctuated equilibria model does not remove the need for transitional fossils, it merely explains why those transitions have not been found. Certainly this theory is unique -- possibly the only theory ever put forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific but then explains why evidence for it cannot be found.

Myth: Darwin withdrew or renounced his theories in old age.

First of all I'd like to recognize that this myth is TOTALLY irrelevant to the creation/evolution issue, but it is something that comes up occasionally. Darwin did not recant. He was not an atheist either. Darwin moved from an anemic orthodoxy in his early years to a nonorthodox theism in his middle years to agnosticism in his senior years. Reports of Darwin's alleged conversion have been common in some evangelical circles. None of Darwin's biographers report such an experience, and there are no other records of it. Even a study of the letters written by Charles Darwin between the time of his alleged conversion and the time of his death clearly reveal that he experienced no such change of mind and heart. As far as can be determined, Darwin remained an evolutionist and an agnostic to the day of his death.

It is also a common misunderstanding to think that Darwin's major work was an attempt to put the concept of evolution on a solid scientific foundation; that was only a secondary matter. His scientific evidence for evolution was not that impressive. Darwin, who had no formal training in the natural sciences whatsoever, believed in the now scientifically defunct theory that organisms inherited acquired traits. Although Darwin made useful contributions to many scientific disciplines including zoology, botany, geology, and paleontology, his most significant and lasting accomplishment was not in the realm of science, but in the realm of philosophy.

(See Bones of Contention by Marvin L. Lubenow, pg. 191)