HisDOMINION - Summer 2014

1

2

3

4

Table of Contents

5

By Cindy Martins

The topic of the origin of life is

controversial in science and education,

not because there are no answers, but

because there are multiple theories.

There are always questions, such as

“Where do we come from?” or “How

did the natural world come to be?”

These common questions are often

answered from the evolutionary

worldview, often pertaining to Darwin’s

theory in his publication On the Origin

of Species.

Personally, as I passed through my

biology high school courses, we learned

about Darwinian evolution, our

common ancestry from “apes,” and the

prime principle of “the survival of the

fittest.” An example was given of the

giraffe, in which I was taught that

initially its ancestors were shorter, and

as the need to reach higher vegetation

grew, the species with longer necks

thrived, while those with shorter necks

died out.

Many other teachings, pertaining to

Darwinian evolution, provided no room

for an intelligent designer. What I had

to do, along with many other

Christians, was to accept the theory and

continue in my studies “believing” in

evolution in order to pass my biology

courses. But even then I could not make

sense as to how species could change

from one kind of animal to another,

such as a reptiles evolving into birds.

Many years have passed since I

graduated from High School and

College, and now I come across the

same questions as before. This time,

however, is different. I am led to believe

that humanity has had it all wrong, and

that the answers are found in only one

book, the Bible. In fact, many

researchers have found various proofs

for a world created by a designer, and

the evidence has left me breathless with

more answers to my questions than I

ever had before.

As C.S. Lewis stated, “Men became

scientific because they expected law in

nature, and they expected law in nature

because they believed in a legislator.”

In this second edition of the

HisDominion Magazine, Steven

Martins will be analyzing Charles

Darwin’s theory of evolution, its

modern scientific challenges, and the

evidential conclusion. In respect to the

6

estimated age of the earth, George

Simopoulos will be exploring the

ineffectiveness of radiometric dating,

and challenging the worldview of

Scottish geologist James Hutton. Luis

Dizon, however, will be examining the

probability of natural processes

producing new data in genetics. And to

follow, Steven will be addressing the

controversy of public education’s

“dogma,” presenting the alternative

narrative of biblical creation, and the

reason for the public’s antagonism.

_______________________________________________________

Cindy Martins

Diploma in Practical Nursing

RZIM Apologetics Certificate

Cindy is the worship director of Evangelium & Apologia

Ministries and has led the Christian Band Sudden Glory

since 2013. As a Mohawk College graduate, Cindy uses her

skills and assets towards helping the less fortunate in

poverty-stricken regions through local, national and

international missions. She also operates as an itinerant

international speaker for women-related events and ministries in North and Latin-

American communities.

E&AM had the opportunity of visiting the Canadian Rockies in February 2014.

This edition of HisDominion is in-part inspired by the rich natural history of the Rocky Mountains.

7

By Steven R. Martins

In our secularized education

system, one of the most common

lessons that a child receives in his or

her school curriculum is on the origin

of species. And as every graduate will

recall, the theory of Darwinian

evolution has followed them ever since

the early years of elementary to the

final years of University and College.

It’s an apparent naturalistic “truth,”

unquestionable and unchallenged, and

to consider otherwise would often

result in one’s academic ostracization.

But it wasn’t always this way; in 1859

the theories of common ancestry and

natural selection were first proposed by

a man named Charles Darwin, and

instead of wide-spread acceptance, it

was first met with intense hostility.

The Life of Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin was a British

naturalist, a scientist who spent most of

his life studying natural history after

having abandoned his medical and

ministerial studies.1 He was born in

1809 in Shrewsbury, England, and lived

what most would describe a very

“tumultuous” life, filled with sorrow

1 (Leff, 2008)

and triumphs but ultimately ending in

grief. It was in 1831 that the Captain of

the HMS Beagle, Robert FitzRoy,

sought a naturalist to accompany him

on a five-year voyage around the

world.2 Having a great variety of

naturalists to choose from, it was

Charles Darwin who would capture his

attention due to his passionate vigor for

the sciences.3 You could imagine that as

a naturalist Darwin would be ecstatic,

but not until he realized how

inhospitable the conditions were for

travel and sleep. In fact, he nearly

abandoned the voyage if it were not for

his commitment with the Captain. But

it was due to his travel throughout

various regions of the world, most

especially the Galapagos Islands, that

led him to develop the theory of

evolution; what we know of today as

Darwinian Evolution.

At this point in time, in the

nineteenth century, the education

available to students regarding the

origin of species was mainly extracted

from biblical interpretation. In fact, the

majority believed that God created all

2 (Ibid.) 3 (Bio, 2014)

8

living beings as written in the book of

Genesis. However despite this common

upbringing, Darwin struggled to accept

any teaching regarding the Bible’s

claims of origin. He married a Christian

woman, attended church with his wife

and children, but lived what most

believed was a double life.4

Darwin was initially

sceptical of the institution

of the Anglican Church due

to alleged forgeries and

fraudulent activities, but it

wasn’t seen to be the

driving influential force for

his evolutionary thinking.5

However, what is believed is that due to

the slow death of his daughter Anne,

who died rather painfully, he closed the

door to the possibility of there being a

“god” in the natural universe. In his

mind, there was no way that you could

reconcile suffering and death with a

benevolent God.6 Although we can’t

quite say that his evolutionary ideas

were based upon this one experience,

we can say that it played an influential

role considering how disinterested he

already was in theology and biblical

matters, and how open he remained

with other scientific theories proposing

4 (AiG 2009) 5 (Bio, 2014) 6 (Sanders, 2009. pp. 15-17)

an old-earth naturalistic framework.

This was also the reason why he

suffered with guilt, even until death,

because besides the disappointment of

his wife, he knew he was going against

the God of the Bible. He even

considered his publication as an “act of

murder,” because his published theory

would not only change public opinion,

it would murder the concept

of god in the minds of the

people.7

This controversial

publication was his life’s

work On the Origin of

Species, which was

published in 1859 and sold to the

general public. The publication was

initially a hit, but it was prior to its

publishing that Darwin experienced the

hostile reaction of the scientific

community. This explains why he

remained quiet and secretive during

most of his theoretical research, fearing

the potential backlash of both the

scientific community and the Church.

But what kind of effect did his theory

have? Well, for starters, it eliminated

the belief of Scripture’s authority in the

public square, it removed God as the

foundation of objective morality, and

even provided the means to develop

7 (Bio, 2014)

Charles Darwin

9

various other worldviews that excluded

the concept of god, including those of

which even violate the nature of the

created order.

What was once controversial has

now become an unquestionable

normality, but is the evidence really

supporting Darwinian evolution? That

question continues to surge today, and

there appears to be more than enough

reason that the real foundation for

naturalism is not the evidence but the

unwillingness to accept the reality of

God and moral accountability.

The Cambrian Dilemma

It was Scottish geologist, Charles

Lyell, who attempted to “understand

and reconstruct Earth’s geological

history” from a non-biblical worldview

prior to the works of Charles Darwin.8

In fact, he was the man who

spearheaded the theory of

uniformitarianism, in which present-

day geological processes are a clear

indication of the rate and intensity of

past history. His studies, teachings,

writings and resulting conclusions are

what led to a controversial old-earth

framework, supposedly “debunking”

the young-earth biblical model of past

history, and leading to the

8 (Palmer, 2012. pp. 12)

“mythologizing” of Noah’s flood. It was

his theory of uniformitarianism that

further fueled Darwin’s pursuit for an

adequate theory regarding the origin of

species. And in fact, due to the work

and studies of Lyell, mankind has

developed a timeframe according to

their respective findings in geological

data and fossil strata. In this model, in

which the world is supposedly billions,

not thousands of years old, the fossil

record stretches from the Archean era

to the Quaternary era.9 Now according

to Darwin, his belief that all living

species originate from a common

ancestor could only be proven with the

discovery of transitional life forms that

clearly illustrate the accuracy of natural

selection.

However, when comparing the

known fossil record of Darwin’s time to

the present 21st Century, we still haven’t

found transitional forms linking two

different “kinds,” such as dinosaurs

evolving into birds, or apes evolving

into mankind. We will explore that

later; but what the fossil record does

show is quite the opposite of what

Darwin hoped to see. In a time called

the Cambrian era, approximately 600

million years ago, there was a point in

time in which complex life-forms

9 (Dorling Kindersley, 2012. pp. 6-7)

10

suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

This has been termed as the Cambrian

Explosion; and even adopting the old-

earth framework to accommodate the

evolutionary theory hasn’t quite helped

considering this historic finding. How

exactly is this a problem for

Darwinism? Well let’s take the

discovery of the Burgess Shale in 1909

by Charles Walcott.10 Dating the

findings of the Burgess Shale in the

Canadian Rockies, Palaeontologists

determined that the fossils were of the

Cambrian era, but what continues to

puzzle scientists is the amount of

diversity and complexity of the

uncovered specimens.

Here we have this

belief that all life

originated from a

common ancestor,

which in turn also

evolved from non-

organic, non-living materials, and what

you hoped to see were gradual changes

revealing the grand narrative of

evolution. Instead, you find great

astronomical leaps in genetic

information, diversity that renders

these species as unrelated to one

another, and no explanation as to why

nothing simpler is found prior to this

Cambrian Explosion. Even Dr. Meyer,

10 (Meyer, 2013. pp. 26-28)

author of Signature in the Cell, lists the

following reasons to discredit

Darwinism based on this discovery:

“(1) the sudden appearance of

Cambrian animal forms; (2) an

absence of transitional intermediate

fossils connecting the Cambrian

animals to simpler Precambrian

forms; (3) a startling array of

completely novel animal forms with

novel body plans; and (4) a pattern

in which radical differences in form

in the fossil record arise before

more minor, small-scale

diversification and variations.”11

There is a clear issue in

that Darwinists readily

admit that they

CANNOT explain this

mystery; no adequate

explanation has done

this dilemma justice,

and no broad consensus has been

reached beyond admitting that this is in

fact a mystery that casts doubt upon the

whole theory of Darwinian evolution.

But despite the wide-spread scepticism,

there is an explanation to this mystery,

a solution that most would not dare

consider. They have it all wrong.

11 (Ibid., 34)

Trilobite Fossil from the Cambrian

11

The mistake was taking an old-

earth framework, assuming that the

Earth is billions of years old rather than

thousands, and making the unfounded

assumption that present-day geological

processes operated at the same rate and

intensity in the prehistoric past. To

trace it back to the root problem, by

discarding the early chapters of

Genesis, along with the rest of the Bible

as a source of revealed knowledge,

we’ve instead invented a broken man-

made system shrouded in mystery due

to its lack of evidential data and

inherent contradictions. Not only that,

mankind has assumed that replacing

the God of the Bible with unguided

naturalistic processes was the rational

approach to the origin of life, however

absolutely no naturalistic explanation

can be given for the Cambrian

Explosion; let alone the birth of living

cells from non-living materials. Even

artificial cells created in lab

environments prove contrary to what

naturalists claim; without an intelligent

agent you’d be left with a set of tools, an

empty lab, and a few chemicals lying

around.12 No matter how many billions

of years pass, no living essence is going

to emerge from non-living chemicals.

You need a Creator, and that’s exactly

what Darwin wanted to do away with.

Missing Links

What proved most problematic for

Darwin’s theory of common ancestry

was the lack of evidence for transitional

life forms. At the time, the fossil record

had only just begun to grow, but it was

Darwin’s belief that the fossil record

would eventually prove his theory of

common ancestry. Having seen an

incredible pace of fossil discoveries

since the time of Darwin, we would

have expected to find the golden goose,

a transitional life form that proved that

we emerged from simpler, less

complex, organisms. Unfortunately, we

have discovered quite the opposite,

greater diversity and absolutely no

connecting life-forms that can prove

macro-evolution.

12 (Rana, 2011)

The Problem with this traditional time-scale of evolution is the absence of transitional life-forms!

12

However, despite the glaring holes in

Darwin’s theory, public education

systems continue to teach on the origin

of man, claiming that a pre-historic

“ape-like” creature was our common

ancestor; and that at some point in time

our ancestors divided into present-day

apes and human beings. The supposed

claim of evolutionary descendency is

based on the discoveries of several ape-

like species in the fossil record, but not

every discovery is made public for study

and analysis. In fact, not anyone can

comment on personally analyzing and

studying these world-class fossils,

“those who specialize in the evolution

of man have never actually seen an

original hominid fossil, and far fewer

have ever had the opportunity to handle

or study one.”13 When considering the

facts, all of the discovered fossil

hominids tell no greater story than

today’s existing apes. When comparing

various species of apes to mankind, we

may notice various similarities in

skeletal structures, but that does not

mean that the apes are equal to

humans, they are distinctly different.

Likewise with the discovered fossils,

they bear similarities to human skeletal

structures, but they are also distinctly

different.

13 (Menton, 2010. pp. 11-12)

Take for example one of various

arguments based on the analysis of

fossil hominids: The Pelvic Bones.

Human anatomy reveals that the iliac

blade (hip bone) is “curved forward like

the handles of a steering yolk on an

airplane,” while that of fossil hominids

point outwards towards the sides.14

What does this reveal about these

supposed “ape-man” creatures? That

they couldn’t walk upright like man, but

instead walked like any other living ape

today.

But what about the argument firmly

based on the DNA comparisons

between chimpanzees and human

beings? This is often regarded as

Darwin’s icon of macro-evolution. Well

at first the data seems convincing, after

all the genetic analysis reveals that

humans and apes share 98% of their

genes.15 However, upon further

inspection, those 98% of our shared

genes are what you would call the

“body-building genes.”16 This does not

mean that we are apes in any shape or

form, but rather that an intelligent

creator could very well have created

different organisms using common

building materials.

14 (Ibid., 16) 15 (Strobel, 2004. pp. 54-55) 16 (Ibid.)

13

Also consider how flawed our

studies and evaluations have been

throughout the history of the natural

sciences. In the early 1920s there was

an artistic rendition of Hespero-

pithecus, a believed ancestor to

mankind. This artistic rendition was all

based on a single tooth discovery, but

when further analyze was made, the

flawed evaluation had been exposed.

The tooth didn’t belong to an “ape-

man” creature but rather to an extinct

wild pig.17 This unfolding of events was

the result of further excavations in 1927

which revealed the remaining skeletal

structure of the original tooth

discovery. The supposed “Nebraska

Man” was no more.18

Concluding Remarks

It was during a lecture at the

Creation Museum by Dr. Terry

Mortenson, on “Dinosaurs: Why You

Have Been Brainwashed,” that I wrote

down a statement about the common

naturalist philosophy. Because up to

this date, mankind has never found

fossilized hominids alongside fossilized

dinosaurs, they have inevitably adopted

the stance of “the absence of evidence is

the evidence of absence.” If this is true,

then why can they not apply the same

17 (Menton, 2010. pp. 12-13) 18 (National Center for Science Education, 1985)

principle towards Darwin’s theory of

common ancestry? With the absence of

fossilized transitional forms, surely it is

evidence against Darwinian evolution

as a whole. And in essence, the

naturalist worldview would no doubt

collapse based on its own philosophy.

In light of the recent research, and

the vast amount of existing data that

greatly discredits Darwinian evolution

(of which I cannot sufficiently provide

in a short article), we can conclude that

Charles Darwin was wrong, and that

Charles Lyell, in his geological

evaluations, was also wrong. But if this

is the case, to where can we turn? The

only alternative that we find faithful to

the historical evidence is the book of

Genesis, where every man ought to first

begin with, the revealed word of God.

The truth of the matter is, there

isn’t such a thing as “examining the

evidence from a neutral standpoint,” as

our ministry colleague Luis Dizon

would say, “neutrality is a myth.”19 The

question instead is, “Which bias is the

best bias with which to be biased”?20

19 (Dizon, 2014) 20 (Ham, 2012. pp. 37)

14

_______________________________________________________

References

AiG. (2009). A Pocket Guide to Charles Darwin: His Life and Impact. Hebron, KY: Answers In Genesis.

Bio. (2014). Charles Darwin - A Fantastic Voyage. Retrieved July 07, 2014, from Famous Biographies & TV Shows:

http://www.biography.com/people/charles-darwin-9266433/videos/charles-darwin-a-fantastic-voyage-2080048675

Bio. (2014). Charles Darwin: A Religious Dilemma. Retrieved July 15 2014, 2014, from Famous Biographies & TV

Shows: http://www.biography.com/people/charles-darwin-9266433/videos/charles-darwin-a-religious-dilemma-

2080045700

Dizon, L. (2014, April 02). Apologetics Pt. 3 – The Myth of Neutrality. Retrieved July 14, 2014, from Evangelium &

Apologia Ministries: http://eamcanada.org/2014/04/02/apologetics-pt-3-the-myth-of-neutrality/

Dorling Kindersley. (2012). The Prehistoric Life: The Definitive Visual History of Life on Earth. New York, NY: Dorling

Kindersley.

Ham, K. (2012). The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years. Green Forest, AR.: Master Books.

Leff, D. (2008, February 10). Darwin's Timeline. Retrieved July 07, 2014, from About Darwin: Dedicated to the Life &

Times of Charles Darwin: http://www.aboutdarwin.com/timeline/time_01.html

Menton, D. (2010). Did Humans Really Evolve from Ape-like Creatures? In AiG, Apemen: Separating Fact from Fiction

(pp. 11-16). Hebron, KY.: Answers In Genesis.

Meyer, S. C. (2013). Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. New

York, NY.: Harper Collins Publishers.

National Center for Science Education. (1985). The Role of "Nebraska man" in the Creation-Evolution Debate.

Retrieved July 14, 2014, from The Talk Origins Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wolfmellett.html

Palmer, D. (2012). Young Earth. In D. Kindersley, Prehistoric Life: The Definitive Visual History of Life on Earth (p.

12). New York, NY: Dorling Kindersley.

The infamous Nebraska Man hoax was clear evidence that secular scientists were willing to twist, and in some cases, even invent the evidence.

15

Rana, F. (2011). Creating Life in the Lab: How New Discoveries in Synthetic Biology make a Case for the Creator.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group.

Sanders, R. (2009). Darwin's Personal Struggle with Evil. In AiG, A Pocket Guide to Charles Darwin: His Life & Impact

(pp. 15-17). Hebron, KY: Answers In Genesis.

Strobel, L. (2004). The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

_______________________________________________________

Steven Richard Martins

Bachelor of Human Resource Management

RZIM Apologetics Certificate

Steven is the executive director of Evangelium & Apologia

Ministries and operates as the lead-evangelist and apologist.

As a York University graduate, Steven specializes in training

and development, and has led various apologetic workshops

in University-College settings and in Church communities.

He is also a prolific itinerant speaker for E&AM, speaking at

various international Conferences, including most recently the Canadian cities of

Edmonton, Winnipeg, and Toronto, and the Central-American country of El

Salvador. Steven is also working towards his Masters in Religious Studies.

A graphic novel translated from the original Greek

manuscripts, Messiah: Origins captures the real imagery

of the early portions of the Gospels. The blending of all

four Gospel accounts into one fluid story, recounting the

early years of Jesus Christ, provides a breath-taking

experience for all readers. Enamored with the artistic

renditions and the powerful imagery, Mark Arey, Kai

Carpenter, and Matt Dorff have produced a great page-

turner that rivals their previous graphic novel, The Book

of Revelation.

You can find your copy of Messiah: Origin at your local

bookstore, or online through Zondervan, a subdivision of

Harper Collins Christian Publishing.

16

By J. Luis Dizon

When asked for a contemporary

example of evolution in action, some of

the most common responses that

proponents of evolution provide are

usually in the field of medicine. The

reason why it is considered necessary to

develop a new flu vaccine every year is

because new strains of flu viruses

evolve every year. Also, the reason why

scientists have to research new

antibiotics is because disease causing

bacteria have evolved in such a way as

to become resistant to them. Richard

Dawkins, for example, in The Greatest

Show on Earth, points to the fact that

many strains of bacteria have

developed resistance to antibiotics

within a relatively short period of time

as evidence of evolution’s ability to

change organisms, citing MRSA

(methycillin-resistant Staphyloccocus

aureus) and C. Diff. (Clostridium

difficile) as examples of such bacterial

evolution.21 In a similar vein, Robert

Roy Britt of Live Science looks to

viruses for evidence of evolution. Britt

points to the Swine Flu epidemic that

21 (Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The

Evidence for Evolution, 2009. pp. 132-133)

swept the world last 2009, stating that

“the sudden ability of the new swine flu

virus to hop from pigs to humans and

then to skip from person to person, at

least in Mexico, is an excellent example

of evolution at work.”22

With examples such as these, it is

tempting for some people to conclude

that evolution is a done deal, with the

case being closed due to the

incontrovertibility of the evidence.

However, one can never be too hasty

about coming to conclusions, especially

when the topic is something as

controversial as the origins debate.

Two Kinds of Evolution

The most important thing that

should be noted is that there is a certain

amount of equivocation that is taking

place here with regards to the usage of

the word “evolution.” Broadly speaking,

evolution can be defined as “descent

with modification.”23 By this definition,

then it cannot really be disputed that

22 (Britt, 2009) 23 (Spanish Society of Evolutionary Biology)

17

what we have observed taking place is

“evolution.” However, there is more to

it than that. The term “descent with

modification” encompasses both small-

scale evolutions (changes in allele

frequencies in a population brought

about by natural selection acting upon

genetic mutations) as well

as large-scale evolution

(also known as “common

descent,” the idea that all

living beings share a

common ancestor).24 A

common mistake is made

whereby observations of

the former are used as evidence for the

latter, even though what we have are

two totally different types of evolution

involved. This is what is going on with

microbial mutations. We observe small-

scale evolution taking place among

bacteria and viruses, and large-scale

evolution is extrapolated from that,

even though the leap from the former to

the latter is totally unwarranted by the

evidence.

No New Information

The other major problem with the

arguments that evolutionists make is

that they assume that the evolutionary

changes taking place involve addition of

24 (Spanish Society of Evolutionary Biology)

new information, and consequently of

the creation of new structures in the

organisms in question. However, as

biologist Jerry Bergman points out, the

genetic traits for antibiotic resistance

already exist in some bacteria. It is

simply a matter of bacteria having

those traits being selected

by natural selection over

against bacteria that

lacked them. Some

bacteria are also capable of

obtaining genes from other

bacteria, which is another

mechanism by which

existing antibiotic resistances can

spread in a bacterial population. And

most significantly, when bacteria do

develop antibiotic resistance via

mutation, it is through mutations that

certain cellular functions are

deactivated and thus not targeted by

the antibiotics, such that the drugs have

nothing to affect in the bacterium’s

system.25

What we have thus are examples of

“evolution” wherein some information

is lost or existing information is re-

adapted, but no new information is

added to the species’ gene pool.

Without the addition of new

information, the organisms being

25 (Bergman, 2003)

E-Coli Bacterium Credit: Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH - NIAID

18

“evolved” cannot become any more

complex than they already are.

This is also the case with the

evolution of new strains of viruses.

Despite the chorus of voices in the

media back in 2009 claiming that the

appearance of Swine Flu was evidence

for evolution, there are numerous facts

that militate against this. First of all,

many viruses have long existed in

animal species before they eventually

find their way into the human

population. This was the case, for

example, with measles, which originally

came from a virus that causes canine

distemper and normally only infects

dogs. Given that the virus was originally

present in birds and pigs before

spreading to humans, this leads us to

believe that the virus would be a lot

older than when it first started

appearing among humans.26

And second, as with bacterial

resistance, the development of new

strains of viruses involves the re-

arrangement of already existing

information in the viral DNA, rather

than the addition of new information.

There may be a difference of allele

frequencies amongst the viruses (which

falls under the criteria of “small-scale

26 (Catchpoole & Wieland, 2009)

evolution”); the viruses themselves

have not gained any increase in

complexity.27

Arms Race or Trench Warfare?

Both the bacterial and viral

examples are often referred to by

evolutionists as forms of “evolutionary

arms races.” The idea behind an

evolutionary arms race is that when two

or more species (say, a predator and its

prey) are in a competition with each

other, evolutionary adaptations furnish

individuals within a species with better

means to survive against the competing

species, while the same process works

within the other species to do the same.

This is similar to how nations that are

hostile towards each other will engage

in an arms race where each nation

would develop better weapons as the

other does the same to counter enemy

developments.

As Dawkins claims in The Blind

Watchmaker, this process over time

results in more complex and well-

adapted structures to develop, and that

without it evolution would be at a

stand-still:

27 (Ibid.)

19

“Arms races are run in evolutionary

time, rather than on the timescale

of individual lifetimes. They consist

of the improvement in one lineage’s

(say prey animals’) equipment to

survive, as a direct consequence of

improvement in another (say

predators’) lineage’s evolving

equipment. There are arms races

wherever individuals have enemies

with their own capacity for

evolutionary improvement. I regard

arms races as of the utmost

importance because it is largely

arms races that have injected such

‘progressiveness’ as there is in

evolution. For, contrary to earlier

prejudices, there is nothing

inherently progressive about

evolution.”28

In the same book, Dawkins uses the

cheetah and a gazelle as illustrations of

28 (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the

Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe

without Design, 1996. pp. 252-253)

how the evolutionary arms race works.

As cheetahs hunt for gazelles, they end

up killing off the slower gazelles. This

leaves the faster gazelles to reproduce

and further spread the genes for fast

running in the gazelle population. In

turn, as gazelles become better at

outrunning cheetahs, the slower

cheetahs find themselves unable to find

food and die off, leaving the faster

cheetahs who are able to outrun and

catch gazelles to reproduce and spread

their genes in the cheetah population.

This process repeats itself over several

hundred generations until an

equilibrium is reached where neither

species can get any faster due to

physiological limitations. Because both

species are evolving simultaneously,

neither one gains a net advantage over

the other.29 According to Dawkins, it is

arms races such as these that explain

the existence of organisms with genes

29 (Ibid., 255-260)

A Cheetah chasing a Gazelle in Ngorongoro Crater, a “supposed” depiction of Richard Dawkin’s arms race. Credit: Professor Lee R. Berger, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

20

that make them well-adapted to their

environments:

“[T]he arms-race idea remains by

far the most satisfactory

explanation for the existence of the

advanced and complex machinery

that animals and plants possess.

Progressive ‘improvement’ of the

kind suggested by the arms-race

image does go on, even if it goes on

spasmodically and interruptedly;

even if its net rate of progress is too

slow to be detected within the

lifetime of a man, or even

within the timespan of

recorded history.”30

There are major problems

with this theory however,

which are highlighted by

Biochemist Michael Behe. In

his book, The Edge of Evolution, Behe

points out that the hypothetical story

that Dawkins paints “seems plausible at

first only because it doggedly focuses its

gaze on just one trait—speed—ignoring

the rest of the universe of

possibilities.”31 Since natural selection

is a blind process, there is no reason

why it would select speed over any

30 (Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the

Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe

without Design, 1996. pp. 258) 31 (Behe, 2007. Pg. 41)

myriad of other adaptive traits, such as

having slightly better camouflage or

slightly different feeding strategies. If it

helps the individual survive, then it is

selected for, without any regard for

“progressiveness.”32

Behe goes on to note that while

small-scale arms race (via small-scale

evolution) is possible among ants, other

invertebrates and micro-organisms, the

kind of large-scale arms races being

posited by Dawkins simply cannot be

documented anywhere. Instead, what

we observe taking place in

nature is more akin to trench

warfare. In trench warfare,

anything to help your side

and stop the enemy is a

legitimate tactic, even if that

means destroying one’s own

infrastructure rather than

letting them fall into the hands of the

enemy. Likewise, in natural selection all

“progressiveness” is thrown aside as

individuals scramble for whatever will

help them survive long enough to pass

on their genes to the next generation,

even if that means sacrificing biological

functions or systems that bacteria or

viruses could attack and thus

compromise their survival. In Behe’s

words, “Darwinian trench warfare does

32 (Ibid., 41-42)

21

not lead to progress—it leads back to

the Stone Age.”33

Evolutionary Monkey-Wrenches

The best examples of the attritive

(rather than constructive) nature of

evolution are the adaptations humans

have developed against malaria. This

disease, common throughout the

tropical and subtropical world, has

been the bane of human existence for

years, killing millions throughout

history. In the year 2010 alone, there

were over 154 million cases of malaria,

resulting in 660,000 deaths.34 To

compound the problem, the

Plasmodium Falciparum parasite that

is responsible for most cases of malaria

is highly adaptive. Most of the drugs

that have been developed to cure

malaria become useless within a matter

of years or decades, as P. Falciparum

develops resistance to them within that

short span of time.35 However, there are

certain natural “monkey-wrenches”

that have evolved among human beings

that prevent malaria from killing their

hosts.

The most common adaptation is the

sickle gene, which arose in West Africa.

33 (Behe, 2007. pp. 42-43) 34 (World Health Organization, 2012) 35 (Behe, 2007. pp. 44-45)

A single copy of the sickle gene causes

the hemoglobin in red blood cells,

which have been penetrated by the

malaria parasite, to stick together and

gel, causing the cell to become

misshapen. This damages and traps the

parasite inside, until the cell (and the

hidden invader) are destroyed by the

spleen. Unfortunately, two copies of the

sickle gene lead to sickle cell disease,

where all the red blood cells are

misshapen, leading to anemia and in

many cases, death at a young age.36

Another common adaptation that

protects against malaria is thalassemia.

Unlike the sickle gene, which is largely

confined to people of African descent,

thalassemia can be found among people

of African, Asian and Middle Eastern

descent. Although it is only half as

effective as the sickle gene in protecting

against malaria, the resulting anemia is

also less severe than what is caused by

sickle cell disease. This protection is

accomplished by making the red blood

cells more fragile, with the parasites

getting destroyed along with the cells

they infect.37

36 (Ibid., 24-27) 37 (Ibid., 35-36)

22

What these and other adaptations

against malaria have in

common is that they

work, not by adding to

the red blood cells, but by

“damaging” in a way, in

effect preventing the

parasite from replicating

itself. Behe likens this to

plugging a hole in a dam

with a TV set. Leaving

aside the question of where the TV and

dam originated, it is clear that this is an

act of desperation, since the result is

the “least bad” alternative for the

affected humans.38 Instead of an arms

race, we see trench warfare at work.

The human gene pool actually has to be

degraded to some extent because the

degradation would prevent any worse

damage. As Behe notes: “In a real war,

everything relentlessly gets worse. In its

real war with malaria, the human

genome has only diminished.”39

Conclusion

This is how evolutionary processes

work: not by adding new and better

systems to living organisms, but by

modifying existing ones—sometimes

with the loss of existing functionality—

in order to improve the individual’s

38 (Behe, 2007. pp. 30) 39 (Ibid., 43)

chances of survival and passing on its

genes to its offspring.

There is a “net loss” in the

gene pools affected, since

the processes do not

produce any new

information in the

affected individuals. One

could thus say that

evolution is actually a

deconstructive process.

We certainly have not seen any

evidence of any “progressiveness” to

this process, contrary to what Dawkins

has claimed in his published materials.

And if there is no progressiveness to the

evolutionary process as we are able to

observe, then we certainly cannot rely

upon it as an explanation for the origin

of the vast diversity of life forms that

exist on this earth.

Plasmodium Parasite

23

References

Behe, M. (2007). The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. New York, NY.: Free Press.

Bergman, J. (2003, April). Does the Acquisition of Antibiotic and Pesticide Resistance Provide Evidence for Evolution?

Retrieved July 16, 2014, from Creation Ministries International: http://creation.com/does-the-acquisition-of-antibiotic-

and-pesticide-resistance-provide-evidence-for-evolution

Britt, R. R. (2009, April 28). Swine Flu is Evolution in Action. Retrieved July 19, 2014, from Live Science:

http://www.livescience.com/7745-swine-flu-evolution-action.html

Catchpoole, D., & Wieland, C. (2009, June 02). Swine Flu: Is It Evidence of Evolution? Retrieved July 18, 2014, from

Creation Ministries International: http://creation.com/swine-flu-is-it-evidence-of-evolution

Dawkins, R. (1996). The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. New

York, NY.: W.W. Norton & Co.

Dawkins, R. (2009). The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York, NY: Free Press.

Spanish Society of Evolutionary Biology. (n.d.). Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution. Retrieved July 18, 2014,

from Understanding Evolution for Teachers: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

World Health Organization. (2012). World Malaria Report 2012. Retrieved July 17, 2014, from World Health

Organization: http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world_malaria_report_2012/wmr2012_no_profiles.pdf

_______________________________________________________

J. Luis Dizon

Bachelor of Arts in History and Near & Middle-Eastern

Civilizations

Luis Dizon is an associate apologist with Evangelium &

Apologia Ministries, and a University of Toronto student.

Initially raised as a Roman Catholic, he became an agnostic

in his early teenage years. Ironically, it was due to Richard

Dawkin’s The God Delusion that led him to inquire of the

Christian faith and later become a devout Christian. Faithful

to his passion, Luis followed through with his studies on church history, systematic

theology, and apologetics. Presently, his specialization has primarily been focused on

cults and comparative studies between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

24

By George Odysseus Simopoulos

There is really is no such thing as a

value-free fact. Since James Hutton’s

development of the geologic timeline in

the late 18th century, naturalists have

been trying to maintain the appearance

of objectivity in an effort to masque the

undisclosed assumptions supporting

their hope of a world without God.

Perhaps the most ubiquitous

assumption of modern scientists today

is the concept of uniformitarianism; the

belief that all the earth’s processes have

operated in the same way today as they

have in the past.40 This assumption,

like all assumptions, is affirmed in the

mind of the scientist before he even

enters the laboratory to make his

observations and pronouncements on

nature. Modern scientists are some of

the most bias-driven people,

particularly on matters which challenge

the foundation of their belief in an old

earth. And so, rather than disclose the

beliefs they cannot substantiate, they

deny their bias and claim an objectivity

which does not and cannot exist.

40 (Pidwirny, 2006)

The issue of radiometric dating,

thought by naturalists to be

incontrovertible proof of an earth

billions of years old, is rife with

contradictory and internally

inconsistent results. However, before

we dive into the problems of

radiometric dating and its ability to

accurately infer the age of the earth, it’s

important to first explain how

radiometric dating works. Ernest

Rutherford, in 1905, suggested that

certain elements which decayed into

other elements because of radioactivity

could be used to determine the age of

rocks. The belief was that since

radioactive elements in rocks decayed

at a constant rate, we could measure

the radioactive element (parent

isotope) and the derivative element

(daughter isotope) in order to find an

approximate age based on the

difference between the two.41 To use the

example of a popular dating method,

Potassium-Argon dating, half of a

Potassium-40 rock sample decays into

41 (DeYoung, et al., 2005. “Radioisotope Dating

is Performed by many Commercial Laboratories”)

25

Argon-40 with a half-life of 1.25 billion

years. If the assumptions about the

method are correct, then we can

measure the amount of Potassium-40

and Argon-40 and determine the age

based on how much of each is present.

A sample that contained 50%

Potassium-40 and 50% Argon-50

would then have a dated age of 1.25

billion years. This seems

straightforward, right? Creationists

have been correct to point out that this

method is based on three unprovable

and questionable assumptions: (1) That

the rate of decay has been constant

throughout time (2) That the isotope

abundances in the specimen dated have

not been altered during its history by

addition of either parent or daughter

(3) that when the rock first formed it

contained a known amount of daughter

material.42 There is, however,

compelling evidence to suggest that

each one of these foundational

42 (Vardiman, Snelling, & Chaffin, 2000)

assumptions is demonstrably false.

Assumption 1: Constant Rates of

Decay

An inalterable rate of decay in

radioactive rocks poses an

insurmountable obstacle to the

creationist model, which suggests an

age of the earth of approximately 6000

years. There are indeed samples of

rocks that have undergone tremendous

radioactive decay based on radio-halos

and fission tracks – microscopic

damage resulting from radioactive

decay – leading scientists to believe

that such samples are billions of years

old. If, however, it was shown that rates

of decay are subject to change and can

experience short bursts of decay, in

some cases a billion-fold more, this

assumption would be proven false and

would drastically undermine the

assumption of uniformitarianism. As it

stands, there are compelling reasons to

believe that certain events could alter

the rate of decay in a number of

elements. In one instance, German

scientists in 1999 were successively able

to strip all 187 elections from a sample

of rhenium-187, reducing the half-life

from 42 billion years to just 33 years!43

The process employed by these

43 (Woodmorappe, 2001)

The Process of Radioactive Decay: Parent Isotope becoming Daughter Isotope.

Image Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

26

scientists is a relatively new discovery,

known as bound state beta decay.

Another possible way that decay rates

can be altered applies directly to what is

known as the alpha decay process.

Alpha decay occurs for the

radioisotopes samarium-147, thorium-

232, uranium-235, and uranium-238.44

Throughout the decay process, the

nucleus of the decaying atom emits an

alpha particle at high speeds. This

phenomenon, while essential to the

stability of all matter, is actually not

well understood. What we do know,

however, can help shed light as to how

the radioactive decay rates can

accelerate. When the alpha particle

emitted reaches a certain distance,

relative to the distance from the

nucleus of the atom, the half-life of the

atom becomes extremely sensitive to

changes in half-life, causing atoms that

emit alpha particles to vary from

milliseconds to trillions of years in half-

44 (DeYoung, et al., 2005. “Radioisotopes

Samarium-147, Thorium-232, Uranium-235”)

life rates.45 The RATE (Radioisotopes

and the Age of the Earth) research

team, in exploring this process, found

out that increasing the energy of the

alpha particle by only 10% decreased

the nuclear half-life by 100,000 times.46

The connection between quantum

mechanics and rates of decay are in

their infancy at the present time, but

given more research, it may one day

shed more light into how nuclear decay

rates are established and how they can

change.

Assumption 2: Unaltered Rock

Samples

The second major assumption held

by uniformitarian scientists is the belief

that rock samples have not been

contaminated with additional parent or

daughter isotopes. Uniformitarian

scientists will even concede in

textbooks on the radioactive dating of

rocks that problems persist in

determining which rock samples have

been contaminated and how.47 The best

example to illustrate how inconsistent

this assumption can be is in the oldest

two Precambrian sites, Elves Chasm in

the Grand Canyon and the Beartooth

Mountains. From these two sites,

45 (Ibid., “Milliseconds to Trillions”) 46 (Ibid., “Half-life by 100,000 times”) 47 (Faure & Mensing, 2005); (Dickin, 2005)

An illustrated example of Radioactive Alpha Decay

27

potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium,

samarium-neodymium, and lead-lead

dating methods were used to evaluate

their ages. The dates derived by these

methods conflicted with one another to

such a degree that it was concluded that

they could not provide any statistically

usable isochrons. These findings imply

substantial contamination of the rock

sample, particularly the potassium-

argon radioisotopes, and suggest an

open system, where other factors are

contributing to the composition of the

rock sample. The way such conflicting

dates could emerge from supposed

ancient rocks is through magma

chambers or pockets existing in the

crust. Evidence shows that daughter

isotopes from mantle-magma remain

when the pockets of magma in the crust

cools. As a result, these rocks yield ages

far greater than they actually are.48

What is happening in most cases are a

mixing of crustal materials that carry its

own mixture of parent and daughter

48 (DeYoung, et al., 2005. “The Resulting Rock

Formation”)

isotopes. Another example of this is

Mount Ngauruhoe rocks. RATE

scientists commented: “We observe an

age of 3.9 billion years versus a true age

of just 50 years. This is a discrepancy of

7.8 billion percent!”49 Unfortunately,

uniformitarian scientists place great

trust in isochrons plots and graphs,

which are thought to give valid

information on sample age. The RATE

research results raise serious challenges

to the assumption of unaltered rock

samples, given the grave inconsistency

of dates across multiple dating

methods.

Assumption 3: Known Amounts of

Parent and Daughter Isotopes

The final assumption held by

uniformitarians is the belief that we can

know the amount of parent and

daughter isotopes present at the time a

rock was formed. The simple challenge

raised by creation scientists is that no

geologists were present when most

49 (Ibid., “This is a Discrepancy”)

The South Rim of the Grand Canyon, USA; a treasure-trove for geologists and paleontologists. Photographed by Roger Bolsius, Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

28

rocks were formed, so they cannot test

how much of each element was present

at the time of formation. This

assumption is proven to precarious just

by looking at lava flows today. Just as

an example, the Mt. St. Helens crater,

observed to have formed and cooled in

1986, was analyzed in 1996 and was

found to have so much argon-40

content that it was given a calculated

age of 350,000 years.50 The importance

of argon-40 in a rock sample cannot be

understated. For over three decades,

potassium-argon dating has been the

dominant method when coming to

dates in the billions of years. Andrew

Snelling from the Institute for Creation

Research remarks:

“The potassium-argon dating

method is the only decay scheme

that can be used with little or no

concern for the initial presence of

the daughter isotope. This is

because Ar-40 is an inert gas that

does not combine chemically with

any other element and so escapes

easily from rocks when they are

heated.”51

The problems associated with relying

on this method become evident when

we do a brief survey of rock samples

50 (Austin, 1996. pp. 335-343) 51 (Snelling, 1999)

that we have seen form. Kilauea Iki

basalt in Hawaii, formed in AD 1959

was given an age of 8.5±6.8 million

years; Mt. Stromboli in Italy, formed in

September 23, 1963 was given an age of

2.4±2 million years; and Kilauea basalt

in Hawaii is known to have formed less

than 1,000 years ago and was given an

age of 42.9±4.2 million years.52 The

obvious conclusion most researchers

have reached is that there has to have

been excess argon-40 in the molten

lava. Further confirmation comes from

diamonds formed in the mantle and

carried to the surface by explosive

volcanism. When Zashu et al. obtained

a potassium-argon date of 6.0±0.3

billion years it was obvious that excess

argon was responsible, because there

could not possibly be diamonds older

than the earth.53 Funhouser and

Naughton found that excess argon-40

resided in fluid inclusions of olivine,

plagioclase, and pyroxene in basalt, and

was sufficient to yield ages of 2.6

million years to 2.9 billion years.54 The

overwhelming evidence suggests that

excess argon-40 is ubiquitous in

magma. This is not only true for recent

and young volcanoes, but is equally

valid when applied to supposedly

52 (Ibid.) 53 (Zashu, Ozima, & Nitoh, 1986. pp. 710-712) 54 (Funkhouser & Naughton, 1968. pp 4601-

4607)

29

ancient volcanoes from the Middle

Proterozoic.55 Since 99.6% of decay-

derived argon-40 is indistinguishable

from primordial argon from the earth’s

mantle, we can never be sure of argon

gas as a barometer of a rock’s age. Thus,

all potassium-argon dates must be read

with great suspicion, and so must the

fossil dates calibrated by them.56

Geologic History and the Bible

Given the prevalence of

mechanisms that would allow for

accelerated decay processes, creation

scientists have begun to develop

tentative models as to how such

processes could have occurred in

earth’s early history. The RATE

research team has

gathered evidence of

accelerated decay within

the past few thousand

years, which has been

understood in light of its

theological connection.

The team hypothesised

that Precambrian rock, a

geologic strata containing

few fossils and which accounts for 88%

of the conventional geologic history,

represents much of the original crust of

the earth at creation. Given the large

55 (Snelling, 1999) 56 (Ibid.)

amount of nuclear decay which took

place in this layer, it is hypothesised

that accelerated decay during the first

two days of creation occurred, before

any life was on earth. As the rocks were

being put in place, several billion years

of nuclear decay took place, as heat

from the radioactive decay dispersed

quickly.57 Another hypothesis proposed

by creation scientists is accelerated

decay during the Flood, which included

an unprecedented period of global

tectonics, erosion, and rapid rock-

forming processes. The RATE research

team concluded:

“The rocks resulting from this

catastrophic event [the Flood] give

clear evidence of nuclear decay with

resulting daughter products,

radio-halos, and fission

tracks… The RATE research

concludes that accelerated

decay on this scale occurred

during the single year of the

Flood.”58

With the placement of

accelerated decay rates in

place, the next logical question is how

does the young-earth model account for

the inconsistency across dating

57 (DeYoung, et al., 2005. “Heat from

Radioactive Decay”) 58 (Ibid., “The Rocks resulting from this

Catastrophic”)

“The Deluge” by Gustave

Doré (1832-1883)

30

methods then? As the earth was being

formed, substantial radioactive decay

occurred throughout the entire planet.

As a result, the original surface

(Precambrian strata) contained a large

amount of daughter isotopes. 1,500

years after creation, the Flood began a

short period of intense geological

activity. Flood sediments, sometimes

miles in thickness, diffused throughout

the earth with varying levels of

radioactive material, making them

statistically unusable. Instead, igneous

magma from the mantle intruded these

upper sedimentary layers, and as

tumultuous geologic activity persisted,

a brief one year period of accelerated

decay occurred within this layer, giving

dated ages younger than the originally

created crust (Precambrian).59 From

what we know about argon in the

mineral muscovite, we can deduce that

heating certain rocks will cause them to

absorb significant amounts of argon

gas.60 During the Flood, intense

geological activity would have caused

the perfect conditions for such rapid

absorption of argon gas, giving us

abnormally high potassium-argon dates

today. These explanations, while

grounded in the reality of the scripture,

are possible models that could account

59 (DeYoung, et al., 2005. “This Episode

Corresponded to”) 60 (Snelling, 1999)

for phenomenon uniformitarian

scientists cannot account for. Given

more time and research, we should

expect to hear even more from creation

scientists.

Concluding Remarks

From the overwhelming evidence

against uniformitarian assumptions, it

is clear that we as biblical creationists

have solid grounds to critique the

supposed science of an old earth. The

implications of new research showing

the validity of the creation model is far

reaching for the Christian community

and beyond. Educators, parents, and

scientists must interact with the

evidence showing a young-earth in

order to do away with faulty

assumptions clandestinely dragged into

people’s worldviews. At the street level,

it should be the duty of every Christian

to know the assumptions of their

neighbors and the evidence against it in

order to lovingly critique them. By

showing the inconsistency of the

naturalistic worldview, we can

effectively show how it is in scripture

that we have true knowledge of our

origins. The idea of an old earth, simply

put, rests on a crumbling foundation of

faulty assumptions. Let your friends,

family and colleagues hear the words of

Jesus when he said: Everyone then who

31

hears these words of mine and does

them will be like a wise man who built

his house on the rock (Matthew 7:24).

Be that wise man or woman. Let God’s

word determine the past, not man’s

opinions.

_______________________________________________________

References

Austin, S. (1996). Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens

Volcano. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10.3 , 335-343.

DeYoung, D., Baumgardner, J., Humphreys, D., Snelling, A., Austin, S., Chaffin, E., et al. (2005). Thousands, Not

Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth [Kindle Edition]. Green Forest, AR: Master

Books.

Dickin, A. (2005). Radiogenic Isotope Geology, 2nd Edition. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Faure, G., & Mensing, T. (2005). Isotopes: Principles and Applications, 3rd Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley

& Sons.

Funkhouser, J., & Naughton, J. (1968). Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii. Journal of

Geophysical Research, 73 , 4601-4607.

Pidwirny, M. (2006). Concept of Uniformitarianism. Retrieved July 21, 2014, from Fundamentals of Physical

Geography, 2nd Edition: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10c.html

Snelling, A. A. (1999). Excess Argon: The Achilles Heel of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks.

Acts & Facts 28 (1) .

Vardiman, L., Snelling, A., & Chaffin, E. (2000). Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young Earth Creationist

Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.

Woodmorappe, J. (2001, August 1). Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Demonstrated in Laboratory. Retrieved

19 2014, July, from Answers: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/acceleration-of-radioactivity-

shown-in-laboratory/

Zashu, S., Ozima, M., & Nitoh, O. (1986). K-Ar Isochron Dating of Zaire Cubic Diamonds. Nature, 323 , 710-712.

_______________________________________________________

George O. Simopoulos

Bachelor of Arts in Political Science & Ethics, Society & Law

George Simopoulos is an associate apologist with Evangelium

& Apologia Ministries. As a University of Toronto graduate, he

serves as an intern with Power to Change at the UofT

downtown campus, and serves his local Harvest Bible Chapel

Church as a Youth Leader. Having joined E&AM in 2014,

George is now an itinerant speaker and contributes to the ministry through

intensive research and education.

32

33

By Steven R. Martins

When analyzing culture, we can

generally find three layers of its

composition: (1) surface, (2) content

and (3) foundation. The first layer is

likened to an apple’s skin, it is the

individual’s behaviour commonly

expressed throughout culture. The

second layer is what you find

underneath the apple’s skin; peel the

skin away and you’ll find the values that

the culture upholds. And finally, the

core of the apple is the third layer, the

beliefs of the people who form the

culture.61 Beliefs develop values, values

(or lack thereof) develop behaviours,

and this in turn determines the culture.

It is the belief of the general public

that mankind, along with every other

living species, evolved from a common

ancestor. And it is because of this belief

that culture has shaped the teachings

and curriculums of public education as

“anti-biblical.” Every individual has a

belief, every person approaches a

subject with their own presuppositions;

therefore neutrality is nothing more but

a mere “illusion” to those ignorant of

61 (Malphurs, 2013. pp. 26)

their own bias. This is why

secularization isn’t truly non-religious.

Little have we known that by sending

our children and grandchildren to

public institutions, we have sent them

to various secularized indoctrination

camps, antagonistic towards the

possibility that naturalism may have it

all wrong.

It’s no exaggeration; just consider

the lack of evidence for Darwinian

evolution, and the empty claims of life

originating from non-living materials.

Without ever having witnessed macro-

evolution in action, without ever

finding a transitional life form in the

fossil record, the public continues to

rally behind Darwinian evolution as

“science,” confusing the discipline of

knowledge for an unproven “theory.”

But unfortunately, children aren’t given

a choice as to what they can believe

based on the available evidence. They

are force-fed and taught Darwin’s

concepts of natural selection and

common ancestry, completely oblivious

to its flaws, holes, and historic

controversy. We’re indoctrinating

34

children by not teaching them the truth,

while also robbing them of the

opportunity to investigate the evidence

for biblical creation.

The Science of Creation

At first glance, viewing the world

through the lenses of naturalism, one

could claim that biblical creation is

nothing more than a myth, a fictional

story. However, such claims of biblical

creation being “unscientific” are both

false and shallow. There is an

abundance of evidence that builds the

case for a real biblical creation account,

with real biblical events. In fact,

whether you believe in naturalism or

Christianity, both require a certain

degree of faith, and in naturalism’s

case, the faith required for Darwinian

evolution greatly outweighs the faith we

find in Christianity. Having exposed the

flaws of Darwinian evolution in earlier

articles, and the naturalistic approach

to history, we now delve into the

various arguments for the biblical

creation account.

Radiometric Dating

In 1986, Mount St. Helens

produced, as a result of continuous

volcanic activity, a lava dome (rock

layer). Amongst the rocks that were

produced, a sample was taken, a known

50-year-old rock created by the various

eruptions. When tested for dating

analysis, the results were different than

the known 50 years of its formation.

The dating methods used are the same

that are used to date fossils and rock

sediments, radiometric dating. The

result was not 50 years, as scientists

had affirmed, but rather a calculated

350,000 years.62 What was wrong with

the radiometric dating method?

Technically, there’s no issue with

calculating how many parent isotopes

there are in comparison with daughter

isotopes, it’s more regarding the

assumptions and uniformitarian

presuppositions that we have inserted

into the interpretation-phase of the

evidence.

To provide a more detailed

explanation, geologists and naturalists

62 (Snelling, Problems with the Assumptions, 2010. pp. 17)

Mount St. Helens demonstrated the potential for

catastrophic geological changes as a result of eruption. Credit: Lyn Topinka, United States Geological Survey

35

have used radiometric dating to

determine the age of rocks and fossils.

An example of how this works is finding

a rock sample in the Grand Canyon that

may have any of these five parent

isotopes (isotopes are radioactive forms

of an element, containing equal number

of protons but different number of

neutrons in their nuclei, therefore

differing in atomic mass):

“(1) Uranium-238; (2) Uranium-235;

(3) Potassium-40; (4) Rubidium-87;

and (5) Samarium-147.”63

Because of the instability of these

elements, they decay (better

understood as “transform”) into a

stable element, such as uranium

decaying into lead, potassium changing

to argon, etc. Again, radiometric dating

is accurate, but its problem concerns its

interpretation and presentation.

Geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling provides

the following erroneous assumptions

that naturalists embrace:

“Assumption 1: The original

number of unstable atoms can be

known. Scientists assume how

many unstable (parent) atoms

existed at the beginning based on

how many parent and daughter

atoms are left today.

63 (Snelling, Back to Basics, 2010. pp. 11)

Assumption 2: The rate of change

was constant. Scientists assume

that radioactive atoms have

changed at the same rate

throughout time, ignoring the

impact of Creation or changes

during Noah’s Flood.

Assumption 3: The daughter

atoms were all produced by

radioactive decay. Scientists assume

that no outside forces, such as

flowing groundwater, contaminated

the sample.”64

Considering the case of the rock sample

from Mount St. Helens, the assumption

made by geologists were that the newly

formed magma rocks had little to none

daughter isotopes, but instead they

discovered that the rock sample had

more daughter isotopes than

expected.65 As a result, a 50-year-old

rock rendered a result of 350,000

years, clear evidence that naturalists

had been adjusting the results to

accommodate an old-earth worldview,

rather than to acknowledge a relatively

young earth. But have any dating

methods revealed a young earth

“number”?

64 (Ibid., 12) 65 (Snelling, Geochemical Processes in the Mantle and Crust, 2000. pp. 123-304)

36

In New Mexico, zircon crystals were

tested by geologists, first by calculating

the uranium (parent isotopes), which

rendered “an age of 1.5 billion years,”

and then by calculating how much

helium had “leaked out as a result of

the decay,” rendering “an age of 6,000

years.”66 There is a clear contradiction,

and the reason is found in the three

main assumptions previously listed by

Dr. Snelling.

Even consider Carbon-14 dating,

often used for dating pre-historic

fossils. After intensive research

Geophysicist John Baumgardner states

the following:

“An alternative interpretation of

the carbon-14 data is that the

earth experienced a global flood

catastrophe which laid down most

66 (Snelling, Problems with the Assumptions, 2010. pp. 19)

of the rock strata and fossils. Also,

many rates of change were

accelerated in the recent past

including sedimentary rock

formation, erosion rates, and

radioactive decay. Whatever the

source of the carbon-14, its

presence in nearly every sample

tested worldwide is a strong

challenge to an ancient age.”67

Whether naturalists realize it or not,

carbon dating has actually supported

the side of young earth creationists. But

this is only a fraction of what we find in

support of a young earth worldview.

There are other evidences that point

towards a biblical creation, such as soft

tissues found in Dinosaur bones, and

whole frozen Mammoths in Siberia.

Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones

In 2000, paleontologists discovered

a fossilized Tyrannosaurus leg bone in

South Dakota. Included in the

discovery was an intact femur bone, 107

centimetres long.68 Although these

discoveries take place all around the

world, this was one of the most

shocking discoveries recorded in

human history, soft tissue was found

inside the Tyrannosaurus’ femur bone!

67 (Baumgardner, 2010, pp. 61) 68 (Hecht, 2005)

How can Tyrannosaur soft tissue survive millions of

years? The answer is, it can’t! In fact, a Northridge

Scientist (Mark Armitage) was fired from his job for

finding soft tissue on a Triceratops fossil, proposing a

“Young Earth.”

37

These soft tissues were blood cells that

were still intact inside the femur, real

soft tissue that can be stretched like an

elastic. The scientists who published

these findings were Mary Schweitzer

and her team of paleontologists, and

although a remarkable discovery for the

history of science, others have sought to

destroy Schweitzer’s findings.69

However, what was later discovered

was another fossilized dinosaur bone,

that of a duck-billed dinosaur, in the

“Judith River Formation (below the

Hell Creek, and supposedly 80 million

years old).”70 This finding produced

substantial soft tissues, and even

verified as real and authentic by various

laboratories. How do you account for

this given naturalism’s claim of an old

earth?

What has continued to puzzle

naturalists is how fossilization liquids

have not penetrated or seeped into the

bones after “millions” of years. Even

Jeff Hecht, writer for the New Scientist,

writes “[the femur] was intact when

found, and its hollow interior had not

been filled with minerals. That is

unusual for a long-buried bone.”71

Paleontologist Marcus Ross, however,

69 (Ross, 2010. pp. 84) 70 (Ibid.) 71 (Hecht, 2005)

sheds some light on the dinosaur’s soft

tissue preservation:

“No experimental results support

long-age survival, as the last paper

by Schweitzer’s team readily

admits... yet the discovery really

makes sense if the bones were

buried only a few thousand years

ago during Noah’s Flood.”72

The evidence doesn’t stop there; it

keeps mounting, such as in the case of

the Siberian graveyard where

reportedly 50,000 mammoths are

buried, some even completely

mummified by the below freezing

temperatures.73

Frozen Mammoths

According to the naturalist’s

geologic timeframe, the Ice Age took

place millions of years ago, but as we

have already seen, how we’ve derived

an old earth framework has been wrong

from the upstart. An argument that we

find in support of a biblical young earth

are the surrounding conditions of the

mammoths in Siberia. Secular scientists

have claimed that mammoths have

lived and thrived during the ice age

(although true, they falsely imply “in

72 (Ross, 2010. pp. 84-85) 73 (Oard, 2006. pp. 17)

38

the conditions of the ice age”), but the

uniformitarian theory doesn’t match up

with the evidence.

Woolly mammoths are in fact much

larger and heavier than their elephant

counterparts of today, but they are

similar in the amount of energy they

use and the amount of nutrition they

require on a daily basis for survival.

Given the conditions of the Ice Age,

very few bodies of water could provide

mammoths with sufficient hydration,

let alone vegetation for consumption.

As meteorologist Michael Oard states,

“Where is such feed going to come from

in Siberia? ...nearly all of the water in

Siberia is frozen during the winter.”74

In fact, many of the frozen

mammoths discovered were found to be

frozen in a standing upright position,

appearing as if they had been buried

alive. To have mass extinction rather

74 (Oard, 2006. pp. 27)

than gradual, of a whole species, of

which approximately fifteen million are

estimated to have been buried and/or

fossilized worldwide, serious questions

are raised against naturalism’s theories

for the mammoth’s living conditions.75

What is credited to their mass

extinction is not a long thousand year

process of burial, or quick-freeze, but

rather “compressing the time scale into

a 100- to 200- year period,” the

evidence found in “sand and loess

deposits” reveal a major weather

catastrophe similar to a dust storm,

burying creatures alive and suffocating

them to death.76 To quote Michael

Oard:

“Climate change at the end of the

Ice Age was the main cause of late

Ice Age extinctions. A post-Flood

Ice Age explains why the large

animals did not go extinct at the

75 (Ibid.) 76 (Ibid., 173)

Woolly Mammoths couldn’t have thrived during the intense Ice Age; the conditions would have had to be favorable to

sustain creatures of great magnitudes, meaning that places like Siberia could not have been fully glaciated. Credit: Charles R. Knight, 1916, American Artist who painted Pre-Historic Creatures for World-Class Museums.

39

end of previous glaciations. There

were no previous glaciations or

interglacials. There was only one

Ice Age, brought on by the unique

conditions that followed the

global Flood.”77

What can we conclude? The evidence

leads us to believe that mammoths

didn’t live in glaciated regions during

the ice age, and that their death was the

result of earth’s global climate change

as a result of a post-flood world.

The Argument for a Creator

But evidence for a young earth is

insufficient if there isn’t evidence for an

intelligent designer, a biblical creator.

We don’t need to go searching in

caverns, or digging up rocks in canyons

to find any of that evidence, we can just

turn to our DNA.

Biologist Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

makes a point in the following analogy:

You could write a message on a piece of

paper and give that to a friend, the

information contained on the written

paper would not be derived from the

chemical ink or the fibres of the paper,

but rather, the ink and paper serve as

mediums to communicate the

77 (Ibid.)

information.78 The information

transcends its materialistic medium,

pointing towards an intelligent mind.

In the same way, the complex

information contained in our DNA is

not derived from its chemical

composition; but rather transcends its

medium, pointing towards an

Intelligent Creator.79

In truth, the evidence for biblical

creation and a “young earth” abounds,

but that’s not what we find in our

classrooms. Although we don’t suspect,

given the secularization of our public

education, that creation is even

mentioned in our schools, we would at

least hope that some mention of these

young earth evidences are presented to

students. But instead, teachers and

governments remain silent while

endorsing the teaching of false “truths”,

such as the historic scandal of Ernst

Haeckel.

The Deception of Ernst Haeckel

Ernst Haeckel was a German

biologist who constructed a series of

diagrams comparing the embryos of

different species in their early

embryonic development. These

diagrams are commonly presented in

78 (Meyer, 2003) 79 (Ibid.)

40

today’s science textbooks and

museums; the most common

illustrating the embryos of fish,

chicken, pig, calf, and human side-by-

side at three stages of development.80

The diagrams reveal

unquestionable similarities between the

embryos on display, which supposedly,

according to Haeckel,

pointed towards a common

ancestor. However these

diagrams, as convincing as

they may seem, were

exposed for what they were,

fraudulent forgeries. The

illustrations of the embryos were

nothing close to the authentic

photographs; in other words, Haeckel

had forged his diagram to better fit

Darwin’s theory of evolution.81

An additional issue with Haeckel’s

infamous diagrams was that he had

chosen the embryos that looked the

most similar to each other to better

present his case, yet even then the

various species’ embryos looked very

different from each other in their

earliest stages. What would have better

suited Haeckel was to select species at

random, rather than carefully select

what fitted Darwin’s theory of common

80 (Strobel, 2004. pp. 47-50) 81 (Ibid.)

ancestry. Yet even then, the evidence

would no longer be evidence, because

in truth these diagrams are nothing but

false misrepresentations of the real

embryos.

And yet despite this scandal in the

late 1800’s, Haeckel’s embryonic

diagrams are still used today in many

textbooks, and taught in

various provincial and state

school systems.82 The

authenticity of the facts are not

taken into consideration if it

involves casting doubt on

Darwinian evolution, the

“doctrine” that cannot change.

What Public Education Should

Provide

But can we fault a secularized post-

Christian culture for teaching a man-

centered religion of atheism? We

should expect that, after all it is culture

that shapes the education, and the

education that helps develop culture by

influencing beliefs, values and

behaviours. To request that evolution

be removed from our school systems

would be too bold a request, violating in

turn the free will of students to choose

for themselves what they want to

believe. Instead, both naturalism and

82 (Ibid.)

Human Embryo

Photograph Credit: Ed Uthman, MD

41

biblical creation should be taught side

by side, and then allowing students to

develop their worldview based on their

choice.

Having visited the Creation

Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, the

museum took up the initiative to

present both the naturalistic and

biblical origin narratives side-by-side.

This allowed attendants to compare the

evidence, to consider the alternatives,

and to re-evaluate their beliefs. Most

importantly, it provided a positive

atmosphere where both naturalists and

creationists can feel secure in

expressing their thoughts. We find

quite the contrary in public education,

in which naturalists can express their

theories freely while creationists are

ostracized and persecuted.

An example is a young earth

creationist’s pursuit for his Ph.D. in

Geosciences, Dr. Marcus Ross. He

wrote an “impeccable” 197-page

dissertation on the diversity and

extinction of Mosasaurs, according to

other paleontologists in the field.83

However “it is this use of a secular

credential to support creationist views

that worries many scientists,” who

apparently claim that Dr. Ross is

83 (Dean, 2007)

committing a “disservice” to the general

public, rather than contributing to

scientific thought.84 But the hostility we

find against creationists, not only

against Dr. Ross, is due to the biblical

truth that secular culture (or any

culture for that matter) apart from God

renders its constituents as “hostile to

God.”85

Why the Public fears Genesis

There’s a reason why naturalists

fear the book of Genesis, and it’s not

because they believe it to be myth and

fairytale, it’s more concerning its

content and implications. The book of

Genesis reveals that mankind was

created by God and in the image of

God. To be created by God and to be

governed by God is in other words to be

held morally accountable to God. What

we find in Genesis is not only the origin

story for our physical universe, but the

reason why we see evil and suffering in

our world. Genesis reveals that we are

sinners as a result of Adam’s sin, and

not only Genesis; the whole of Scripture

from Genesis to Revelation paints a

historical picture of sinful man in need

of saving grace.86 With scientific

evidence in support of biblical events,

84 (Ibid.) 85 Romans 8:7 86 Romans 5:12

42

along with historical documents

affirming the historicity of Scripture,

there’s no doubt that what Scripture

portrays is an accurate description and

depiction of reality. And to take the

teachings of Scripture into

consideration, the Word of

God reveals that no man is

morally perfect, that’s what it

means to be a sinner, a

violator of God’s objective

moral law.87

According to naturalism,

we emerge from nowhere,

evolve our own moral code, and

disappear into nothingness upon the

time of our physical deaths. However

the Bible presents another story: (1)

man was created by God; (2) man has

broken God’s law; and (3) the

punishment and consequence for man’s

violation of the moral law is death,

disease, and eternal torment. Seems

rather cruel of a “loving” God to allow

evil to run its course and sentence us to

eternal damnation, but from a legal

standpoint, God is operating from a just

character; He will not pervert justice

and judgment. However, Scripture

doesn’t leave us hanging on a cliff, God

does respond to evil. He sent His Son,

Jesus Christ, to fulfill the moral code

87 Romans 3:20

(Ten Commandments) that all men

have failed to keep, lived a perfect

moral life, and paid our penalty

through a sacrificial death, that all men

and women who place their faith in

Him will “not perish but

inherit eternal life.”88 In

other words, God the Son

came to restore and to

save. But what secular

culture desires is not the

reality of the biblical

God; it desires an illusory

world where mankind

can determine its own

truths, morals and destinies, without

any higher accountability.

Naturalism’s Moral Flaw

The scientific realm, however, is not

the only source of evidence for biblical

creation and the biblical God; much can

be said of the moral argument for God’s

existence. Most naturalists detail that

evil is simply the cruelness of natural

selection in action, Darwin’s “survival

of the fittest.” In respect to Christianity,

they in turn claim that evil is proof of

God’s absence, yet in a debate at York

University on Why Believe in the God

of the Bible?, the naturalist side

couldn’t give an account on why

88 John 3:16

The Tanakh, Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

43

morality can co-exist with a naturalistic

worldview.

Leading Christian philosopher Ravi

Zacharias made the following remark

regarding the moral reality of God. If

you can acknowledge that there is such

a thing as evil, then you automatically

assume that there is such a thing as

good. If you acknowledge both good

and evil, then you assume a moral law

from which to differentiate between the

two. If you assume a moral law then

you are implying a moral law giver, of

which that can only be God, but that is

precisely what the naturalist is

attempting to disprove.89 The

naturalist’s argument collapses, and no

moral foundation is found for the

naturalist worldview. There’s no

89 (Zacharias, 2007. pp. 184)

escaping the reality of a dead-end.

Concluding Remarks

In retrospect, a broken system will

always produce broken people with

broken results, and that’s the inevitable

end-result of the student majority in

our public “indoctrination” camps. The

academic, philosophical and spiritual

encouragement that we can provide to

students and parents alike is to re-

consult the evidence, be wary of the

reasoning of your own conclusions, and

consider the alternative, a historical

and biblical creation. But don’t just stop

there; follow its implications, the

redemptive plan of God offered to us

through His inspired Word, the Holy

Bible, and the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Naturalism hasn’t provided a moral foundation for living; that is not to say that naturalists aren’t moral beings, but rather that their worldview provides no basis for morality. The Bible however holds us to a moral standard established by our Creator, and unlike any other worldview, it answers the questions of Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny in a cohesive and coherent manner, proving faithful to the tests of empirical adequacy, logical consistency and existential relevance.

44

References

Baumgardner, J. (2010). Carbon-14 Dating. In D. DeYoung, Thousands... Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of

Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth (pp. 46-62). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

Dean, C. (2007, February 12). Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from The

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=0

Hecht, J. (2005, March 24). Blood vessels recovered from T. rex bone. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from Science News and

Science Jobs from New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7195-blood-vessels-recovered-from-t-rex-

bone.html#.U86GvLFZbhc

Malphurs, A. (2013). Look Before You Lead: How to Discern & Shape Your Church Culture. Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker

Books.

Meyer, S. C. (2003). Darwinism, Design & Public Education. Michigan: Michigan State University Press.

Oard, M. (2006). Frozen In Time: Wooly Mammoths, the Ice Age, and the Biblical Key to their Secrets. Green Forest,

AR: Master Books.

Ross, M. (2010). Those Not-so-dry Bones. In AiG, A Pocket Guide to Dinosaurs: Is there a Biblical Explanation? (pp.

83-85). Hebron, KY.: Answers In Genesis.

Snelling, A. A. (2010). Back to Basics. In AiG, A Pocket Guide to a Young Earth: Evidence that supports the Biblical

Perspective (pp. 9-13). Hebron, KY.: Answers In Genesis.

Snelling, A. A. (2000). Geochemical Processes in the Mantle and Crust. In L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, & E. F. Chaffin,

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: A Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative (pp. 123-304). El Cajon,

California: Insitute for Creation Research.

Snelling, A. A. (2010). Problems with the Assumptions. In AiG, A Pocket Guide to A Young Earth: Evidence that

supports the Biblical Perspective (pp. 15-21). Hebron, KY.: Answers In Genesis.

Strobel, L. (2004). The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Zacharias, R. (2007). Existential Challenges of Evil and Suffering. In R. Z. Ministries, Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith

we Defend (pp. 178-208). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishing.

Join former atheist Lee Strobel as he explores The Case for

a Creator. In an effort to disprove God and the Bible, Lee

Strobel visited top scientific scholars and instead found a

depth of knowledge leading him from atheism to theism. In

his other journey, The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel finds

himself believing in Christianity, finding that all the

evidence points towards Christ, the Cross, and Creation.

You can find your copy of either The Case for a Creator or

The Case for Christ at any Video Retail Store.

45

46

By Fatima Alibaba

The subjects tackled in this issue of

the HisDominion, along with the

included articles, have probably not

answered all the questions that are out

there regarding the origin of life.

Questions on evolution vs. creation, or

many others that commonly arise in the

mind of mankind regarding God and

His existence may seem prevalent.

However, that’s not a problem, nor the

purpose of this issue in responding to

each question. The main function of

these articles, this issue of the

HisDominion, is the sharing of such

pertinent, informative, factually-based

material, creating a forum for all this,

and ultimately the Gospel and the

Christian faith. In summary, it is to

point humanity in the right direction;

towards Jesus.

Undoubtedly there will be those

who will view my perspective as biased,

narrow-minded, and perhaps even

opinionated, and that’s okay. The facts

speak for themselves, so in truth there

is no room for argument. The articles

outline historic, factual data compiled

by qualified specialists in their

respective fields, and that will speak

volumes to most wise open-minded

individuals, far better than I could.

If you have never questioned

evolution as a basis for our existence

and origin before, maybe take another

look at the article Doubts on

Darwinism. The truth is clear cut and

corroborative. Without the missing

pieces in the Cambrian era (or fossil

record), how can the case for an old

earth really hold water? We cannot be

subjective in our thinking and

presenting of the evidence, for if we are,

we lose sight of the objective truth

behind the facts and draw unfounded,

illegitimate & detrimentally contorted

conclusions.

The same is the case when looking

at our methods of evaluating and

assessing dating systems as thoroughly

elaborated in our Concerning

Radiometric Dating & its Assumptions

article.

It shows and demonstratively

proves the dangers behind trying to

justify “findings” as opposed to

researching facts for what they really

are, and presenting them in focus,

47

without a slanted view. George

highlighted the vast room for error as

well as self-confessed discrepancies in

findings by many scientists and teams

working towards, in simple speech,

discrediting the creation of the earth

and accrediting the grand design by

God to evolution instead! If there can

be so many mistakes and possibilities,

and unknown variables in calculations,

such a vast array of counterparts and

contradictions, how and why should we

believe so readily the results that point

towards an old earth? I think we need

to re-think our stance on this issue and

settle on facts that are proven and

traceable both scripturally, historically

and scientifically. These are after all the

most solid and accurate sources to be

trusted.

In the article about small and large

scale evolution, Luis laid some solid

truths as foundation and followed

through with well-founded points that

left me more resolute than ever in my

disbelief of large scale evolution being

an option. Think long and hard about

whether or not the scientific material

being siphoned into our educational

and social/cultural systems is in fact

plausible. I contend that it is not, as

Steven had elaborated on in The

Deception of a Culturally-Biased

Education.

Luis even details in his article Can

Evolutionary Processes Build New

Structures? that it is not scientifically

possible to have a species change so

drastically over an unknown timeframe,

and for those changes to magically

desist once a certain point has been

reached. Who or what would have

determined that point in the first place?

What contributing factors would alter a

species to the extent of genetic and

aesthetic mutation at such a rampant

level? I dare you (even briefly) to open

your mind up to the possibility of the

truth, that only a wise and intelligent

Creator could have created all the

wonders of this world. That only He

(Elohim) has the capability and

capacity to design creational templates

and building blocks to use as He sees

fit, and for it to come together

extravagantly and work as well as it

does. To display wondrous creatures

and florae, each after their own kind, to

the extent that we see and discover

daily, only God Almighty-Creator of the

universe could have done this all.

48

Fatima Alibaba

Fatima Alibaba is the Secretary of Evangelium & Apologia

Ministries, and is a current York University Glendon

student. Her ministerial experiences includes outreach and

evangelism, minstry through music, counsel, administrative

service, encouragement, and loving God’s people. Fatima’s

heart is for social and human justice, to feed the nations

through both physical and spiritual sustenance. As a new

2014 member, she is currently developing project ideas to help develop and

contribute towards the growing discipleship department of E&AM.

Ammonite (Asteroceras BW)

Credit: Nobu Tamura, License CCA-3 www.spinops.blogspot.com

Fossilized Ammonite (Cut) Credit: Steven Martins

E&AM Fossil Collection

Thousands, Not

Millions of Years Old

Enchodus Sabre Tooth Credit: Steven Martins

E&AM Fossil Collection

Enchodus Credit: Dmitry Bogdanov

Russian Artist, License CCA-3

Thousands, Not

Millions of Years Old

Ammonite Orthoceras Credit: Steven Martins

E&AM Fossil Collection

Ammonite (Orthoceras) Credit: Nobu Tamura, License CCA-3

www.spinops.blogspot.com

Thousands, Not

Millions of Years Old

49

The following are a list of books for further reading (not already listed in our

references), pertaining to the topic of this issue’s HisDominion, selected and

endorsed by the E&AM team.

Boot, Joe. Searching for Truth: Discovering the Meaning and Purpose of Life. Kitchener, Ontario,

Canada: Joshua Press Inc., 2011.

Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York, NY:

Free Press, 2006.

Garner, Paul. The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theories on a Biblical Foundation.

Carlisle, Pennsylvania

Geisler, Norman L. Creation & the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the

Courtroom. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2007.

Geisler, Norman L.; Hoffman, Paul K. Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why

They Believe, Revised and Expanded Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2006.

Ham, Ken. Six Days: The Age of the Earth and the Decline of the Church. Green Forest, Arkansas:

Master Books, 2013.

Ham, Ken. The New Answers Books 1-4. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2006.

Lennox, John C. Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and

Science. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2011.

Lisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2009.

MacArthur, John. The Battle for the Beginning: Creaton, Evolution & the Bible. Nashville,

Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001.

Morris, Henry M.; Morris, John D. The Modern Creation Trilogy. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master

Books, 2004

Mortenson, Terry; Ury, Thane H. Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of

the Earth. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2012.

Oard, Mike; Reed, John K. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological

Questions. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2011.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. 7 Truths that Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most

Dangerous Ideas. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2012.

Snelling, Andrew. Earth’s Catastrophic Past. Dallas, Texas: Institute for Creation Research, 2009.

Stockes, Mitch. A Shot of Faith to the Head: Be a Confident Believer in an Age of Cranky Atheists.

Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2012.

50

The following are a list of DVDs and Videos for further viewing (not already listed in

our references), pertaining to the topic of this issue’s HisDominion, selected and

endorsed by the E&AM team.

Answers in Genesis. Check this out: Radiometric Dating (Digital Download). Answers in Genesis,

2011. https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/check-out-radiometric-dating/?sku=90-2-066

Austin, Steve. Mount St. Helens: Modern Day Evidence for the World Wide Flood (DVD). Compel

Media, 2012.

Austin, Steve. Radioisotopes & the Age of the Earth (DVD). Answers in Genesis, 2003.

Cloud Ten Pictures. Dragons or Dinosaurs? Creation or Evolution (DVD). Cloud Ten Pictures,

2010.

Dawkins, Richard; Lennox, John. The God Delusion Debate (DVD). Fixed Point Foundation, 2007.

Eternal Productions. God of Wonders (DVD). Eternal Productions, 2008.

Guliuzza, Randy. Human Design: The Making of a Baby (DVD). Institute for Creation Research,

2013.

Ham, Ken; Nye, Bill. Uncensored Science: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham (DVD). Answers in Genesis,

2014.

Institute for Creation Research. Unlocking the Mysteries of Genesis (12-DVD Set). Institute for

Creation Research, 2014.

Lisle, Jason. Created Cosmos – Special Edition (DVD). Answers in Genesis, 2011.

Menton, David. Body of Evidence (8-DVD Set). Answers in Genesis, 2011.

Psarris, Spike. What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol. 1 & 2 (DVD). Creation

Astronomy Media, 2009-2013.

Snelling, Andrew A. Geology: A Biblical Viewpoint on the Age of the Earth (5-DVD Set). Answers

in Genesis, 2009.

Snelling, Andrew A. Radioactive and Radiocarbon Dating: Turning Foe into Friend (DVD).

Answers in Genesis, 2009.

Thomas, Brian. What You Haven’t Been Told About Dinosaurs (DVD). Institute for Creation

Research, 2013.

51

Back Cover

52