Trevor Thomas on Creation vs Evolution.

Clearly Creation

by Trevor Thomas

September 16, 2005

Well, I suppose the debate should now end. Evolution is fact, according to the History Channel and recent letter writers to this paper—proven by “fossil remains” and mountains of “research.” There is no more doubt about it than “cancer, kidney function, or volcanoes.” I guess all of us poor, uneducated creationists should pack up our Bibles and slink back to the hills. If we stoop low enough and let our knuckles drag the ground, we can even resemble our “undisputed” ancestors.

Don’t believe it for one minute, folks. It is very easy to make such absolute statements about evolution, but when one examines the evidence, it is easy to see the many weaknesses in the theory.

As I have stated before, the fossil record is full of holes that evolutionists don’t satisfactorily explain. One big hole is the lack of “transitional forms” (fossils that show one kind of animal changing into another) in the geologic column. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states, “Evolutionists recognize a serious threat to their whole argument—evolution predicts innumerable transitional forms, yet all they have are a handful of debatable ones.” However, anyone watching the recent History Channel special would think that there are many of these types of fossils, especially in the “ancestry” of humans.

There are also numerous “out of place” fossil discoveries which are quite embarrassing to evolutionists. These are fossil finds that contradict evolutionists’ assumptions about the geologic column, such as human footprints that appear at a “time” which is much earlier (millions of years earlier) than evolution allows. A good example of this is the famous fossil footprints at Laetoli, Africa. These are the prints of an upright walking biped, which evolutionists attribute to an extinct primate. University of Chicago’s Dr. Russell Tuttle has shown that these are the same sorts of prints made by habitually barefoot humans.

Another type of “out of place” fossils are “living fossils.” These are plants or animals alive today which are identical to fossilized forms, believed to have lived “millions of years ago.” Examples of these, according to Dr. David Catchpoole, include the coelacanth fish (fossil coelacanths are believed by evolutionists to be 340 million years old), Gingko trees (125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), and the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years).

Jim Scharnagel suggests that a branch of biology referred to as “evo devo” helps explain genetic changes in animals over time. Through a series of genetic “switches” (like a light switch), Mr. Scharnagel implies that one kind of animal can evolve into another.

These switches are actually Hox genes. Dr. David DeWitt says these Hox genes are master control switches that control the body plan. He adds, “These master switches work like circuit breakers and either turn on or turn off an array of other genes.” By manipulating these “switches” scientists in labs have significantly altered the body plan of creatures like flies and shrimp. Dr. DeWitt continues, “The fact that scientists can significantly alter the body plan does not prove macro-evolution nor does it refute creation. Successful macro-evolution requires the addition of NEW information and NEW genes that produce NEW proteins that are found in NEW organs and systems.”

In spite of information like this, many evolutionists love to portray those who believe what the Bible tells us about creation as backward and ignorant. Evolutionists also love to perpetuate the myth that those who practice “true science” must accept evolution and operate under its precepts. They also insist that our young people must be taught evolution if they want any chance of having a career in a field of science.

There are many individuals in all areas of science who accept creation as described in Scripture. I spoke to several locals who were willing to go on record in this divisive issue. Each of the individuals below accepts the biblical account of creation as literal and historically accurate, and, accordingly, rejects “Darwinian evolution.” They also agreed that an evolutionary philosophy was not necessary for them to practice in their respective fields of science or to continue to develop professionally.

Dr. Clayton Cox, a practicing OBGYN physician for 18 years, with a B.S. in biochemistry and an M.D. from Emory University, says, regarding the debate concerning creation/evolution, “there is no debate.” He adds, “I believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God.”

Dr. David Barrett, a practicing dentist for 25 years, with a B.S. in biology and a D.D.S. from Emory University, says that, “Life as we know it is much too complicated” to have evolved, adding that, “the human body is an amazing miracle.”

Dr. Frank Lake, a practicing OBGYN physician for 10 years, with a B.S. in biology and an M.D. from the Medical College of Georgia, states that, “One of the tenets or laws of our world is that things move toward disorder unless energy is input to change that (entropy). How, then, can a marvelously complex world go against that very tenet, unless an external source (creator, higher power) had a role in that?”

Local inventor, J.T. King, who, along with his new hearing aid, was recently profiled in a full-page article in The Times, passionately rejects evolution and defends creationism. Mr. King, who has a B.S. in electrical engineering, says that, “If I had bought into the theory of evolution, I would not have been able to come up with the concepts that spurred my technology.”

Even with all that I have presented here, the thing that we all need to consider most when weighing evolution against creation is that, when the theories of man are in conflict with the Words of God, it is most certainly man who is in error.