All scientists believe in gravity and evolution

All scientists believe in evolution, so you better believe it too…according to the media, textbooks, and evolutionists. This is not unexpected. For at least the last 70 years evolution has been taught as fact in high schools, colleges, and universities. So, entire generations of teachers have heard only the materialist dogma of evolutionary theory, and their worldviews have been shaped to interpret evidence through this lens.

You may have also noticed what happens to anyone who questions evolution. They are silenced or ostracized with extreme prejudice. See Expelled: Not Intelligence Allowed for further details.

Even with the claim that all scientists believe evolution, it’s just bluster. Many scientists from organizations like The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International employ PhD scientists who reject evolution on scientific grounds and well as biblical grounds.

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

They’re called missing links because they’re missing

Missing Common Ancestors. In the evolution story, it is said that humans did not evolve from chimps, both species evolved from a common ancestor. The same story is mentioned for birds / dinosaurs and amphibians / fish and reptiles / mammals and everything in between. The problem is that all of these common ancestors are missing. The actual transitional fossils that have been found are questionable in the accuracy of their interpretations. The pattern of discovered missing links by evolutionists is that a small fragment is extrapolated by artists to fit the exact ancestor that was needed to link two species. See the charts below and you will notice that the common ancestors are missing:








 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Convergence…sounds scientificky doesn’t it?

Convergence. When two are more organisms have the same shape, functionality, or organ, but are not said to have a close evolutionary ancestor, the organisms are said to have experienced convergence. It is used as a scientific-sounding term to hide evolutionary problems of similarities in unrelated organisms. The hope for evolutionists is that if there is a word associated with the problem, then there is no need to actually have evidence to show how the feature showed up, not just once, but many times throughout evolutionary history. An example of this would be that bats and dolphins use echolocation to eat, but they are not viewed as having a close evolutionary relationship.

To say that a shape, functionality, or organ evolved naturally even one time stretches the credibility/mathematics of reason, but to say that the same shape, functionality, or organ evolved multiple times in distinct and unrelated species is beyond belief.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Horsing Around

Horse evolution was said to be the most complete evidence for evolution. Now the most recent discoveries are throwing this evolutionary story into chaos.

many museums and popular books have presented a neat series starting from the dog-sized, four-toed ‘dawn horse’ or ‘Eohippus,’ which supposedly lived 50 million years ago. The next creature is usually a larger creature like Mesohippus, which had three toes. The next one was larger still, for example Merychippus, which had two of the toes smaller than the third. Finally, there is the large modern horse, Equus, with only one toe

As the biologist Heribert-Nilsson said, ‘The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks

With the latest understanding of the horse fossils, it is more clear that the horse was created and has been reproducing after its kind just exactly as God decreed in Genesis 1:24-25


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Homology is Only Skin Deep

It has been proposed among evolutionists that since different kinds of creatures (humans, birds, whales…) have similar bone structures (5 bones in hand/wing/fin…) that they evolved from a common ancestor. The same observation could be interpreted to mean that these creatures all had a common designer. One of the problems with the idea that similarities among creatures proves a common ancestor has only been revealed in recent times with the analysis of DNA. This problem is manifest when studying the genes that code for similar regions in distinct kinds. An evolutionist would expect the same gene to code for the same appendage if they evolved from one another. But this is not the case. Genes are not conserved as one would expect if evolution were true. The table below illustrates the problems for evolution:




 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

Antibiotic resistant bacteria. The idea that bacteria have evolved to be resistant to antibiotics is said to be proof of the grand theory of evolution. However, what has really happened it that bacteria do not develop new features that make them resistant. Within a population of bacteria, there are mutants (degenerates) that have lost the functionality that antibiotics attack. If the antibiotic succeeds in killing all of the bacteria that are not resistant, then the resistant strains can reproduce unchecked.

Bacteria have been found in ancient graves or archaeological digs (prior to the invention of modern antibiotics) and there are antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This shows that these bacteria have not evolved new traits since the introduction of modern medicine. They were already in bacterial populations; they are only able to thrive when the non-resistant bacteria are killed off for them.



 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Geologic Column

It is taught in textbooks from elementary school to college that fossil material is sorted consistently by age. It is said that simple organisms are buried first and then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then birds, then mammals, and finally mankind. It is taught that since these orders of animals are buried in this manner that the conclusion is that things evolved new traits over time and that the fossil record tracks a consistent and comprehensive history of evolutionary life from a simple common ancestor.

The problem with this education is that it is false. The geologic column does not exist in its entirety anywhere on earth. Many of the “established” layers are buried in the “wrong” order according to the theory. Fossils are buried in the “wrong” layers.

The worldwide flood described in Genesis makes far more sense of the accumulation of sedimentary layers all over the world. Dinosaurs are not buried with humans, not because they did not live at the same time, but because they did not live in the same place. Would you want to live close to dinosaurs? Human fossils are not found buried with coelacanth either, but it is verifiable that humans live contemporarily with coelacanth fish.

It is taught that the lower in the strata an animal is buried, the simpler or earlier it is said to have lived compared to the creatures buried in higher strata. But highly complex creatures have been found in the lowest strata, which is a paradox for evolutionists.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Radioactive Dating Highlights Incompatibilities

Radiometric dating. Radiometric dating (RD) is said to be able to provide absolute dates to fossils, rocks, or buried organic materials. There are many problems with the idea that RD provides absolute dates. There are three main assumptions that plague the trustworthiness of RD.

  1. Original quantities of parent and daughter elements. Since RD is a measurement of the ratio of parent to daughter element, it would be important to know how much of each element existed in the sample. But it is impossible to know the original amount, so an assumption of no daughter element is used as the starting point
  2. No contamination. It is assumed that there is never any introduction of either parent or daughter elements into the samples over the years.
  3. Constant decay rates. It is assumed that the decay rate is constant over the years and that nothing can ever change the decay rate. A team of scientists from ICR have published a serious challenge to this assumption as decay rates have been measured to be wildly erratic in many circumstances.

The idea of RD is that something is millions or billions of years old even though no calibration has been done to confirm this process. Many times, items of known age (rocks from Mt. St. Helens, recently deceased animals…) have been submitted for RD testing and have come back with severely incorrect dates. If we cannot trust the dates provided by RD on items of known date, why should we trust RD when it proposes dates for items where the date is not known?

Carbon 14 is particularly troublesome for evolutionists. The half-life of Carbon-14 is about 5700 years. So after approximately 90,000 years one would not be able to measure any Carbon-14. According to pg 282 of Marvin Lubenow’s Bones of Contention, no fossil has ever been uncovered that did not have some Carbon-14 in it. This includes all of the supposedly 600 million year old samples taken from Pre-Cambrian strata. What this tells us is that no fossils are greater than 90,000 years old.

UPDATE: It has recently been shown that outside forces can change the rate at which radioactive elements decay. So much for absolute dates!

 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline

Not a Monkey’s Uncle after all

Chimp/human similarity. It has been said that humans and chimps have a 98% similarity in their chromosomes. But this is just plain false. For years this percentage of similarity has been intoned by evolutionary scholars based on the assumption of junk DNA. Since most of the DNA in chimps and humans was assumed to be junk, most of the DNA was not compared for similarities. Only a tiny fraction of the DNA was compared for similarities. Now that DNA is known to be useful in multiple dimensions, the similarity of human/chimp DNA has dropped precipitously…to below 70%. If the closest assumed relationship to humans is chimps, but our DNA is significantly different…so different that not enough time has passed since our most recent common ancestor, then humans are not related to chimps.

Another way to see the similarities in humans and chimps is that they have the same designer…like a Chevy 1500 and a GMC Sierra. Same designer…similar appearance. The genetic link of all life is most easily explained with a Biblical view that God would be able to provide a self-replicating food source (plants) and his creation would be able to thrive from its consumption.

If humans were completely different from all other life forms on earth, then what could we consume for fuel except each other? Having similarities with the other creatures and our food source allows for us to consume the same food source or the lower creatures to provide sustenance. Since predation is not an original design feature (prior to sin/death), it would be important that all creatures be able to process the plants/fruits/seeds/roots for sustenance. Therefore, some similarity is expected among each kind of creatures according to a biblical worldview.


UPDATE: The information keeps pouring in that to propagate “the extreme likeness of humans to chimps” idea is completely false.

UPDATE: As more and more information is accumulated and released about the misconception that humans and chimps are 98% related by DNA, the more we find that this misconception is false.

When the genome of one creature is used to construct the genome of another, then we have a serious problem that philosophers call “begging the question.” In other words, evolutionists have produced a chimp genome based on humans and then say it looks similar to the human genome.


 Back to the Creation Manifesto Outline