A beautiful creation (instead of a blind evolution)

Why would you keep believing the myth of random evolution if there are so many clues and arguments supporting a creation?

Life is full of information

If there's one thing we've discovered over the past fifty years, it's that life is packed with information. In an information society full of big data, algorithms and analyses, we are becoming increasingly aware that information never just arises by itself. The same goes for the building blocks of life. “Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome,” said Dr. Lee Spetner in Not by chance. And Dr. Werner Gitt adds: “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter” (theorem 28, In the beginning was Information).

The most commonly held argument supporting evolution is that, although random development may be unlikely, it will eventually bring about results if there is enough time available. If there are infinite possibilities, then even unlikely events will happen someday. This type of infinity reasoning seems irresistible. But there is a hidden assumption involved. It assumes that complex organizations can arise spontaneously. If this is not the case, you can easily wait for billions of years and have infinite multiverses at your disposal, and yet it will never happen. This type of evolutionary logic is therefore flawed. An evolutionist will have to provide concrete examples first of how an organism can emerge (and continue to exist!) spontaneously without any sustaining structure, information, or form of intelligence. Just a single example would suffice. But there isn't one. There is no such thing as random organization and therefore even infinity will not help.

The world-renowned evolutionist Richard Dawkins implicitly admitted that life without information and intelligence is inconceivable. But instead of considering whether there might be a God in play, he thought it more plausible that life was created by aliens. Listen to this nice introduction, especially for teenagers, into the credibility of the Bible, also when it comes to the start of live. And marvel at Dawkins' contribution, starting at 11 minutes.

Ken Ham: How Science Proves the Bible | Answers in Genesis – YouTube


The Myth of a Simple Beginning

Have you ever heard the evolutionary myth that life started out simple and then got more and more complex? In that case there’s news for you. There is no such thing as 'simple' life. Even the simplest cell is of incomprehensible complexity. Listen to what James Tour, a global top scientist in microbiology, has to say. Tour is not only a leading scientist (he is on the list of the 50 most influential scientists of our time –(https://thebestschools.org/magazine/most-influential-scientists/), but he is also a passionate follower of Jesus. In this lecture, he first introduces the practical applications that he and his teams are working on. After 8 minutes he starts talking about the subject itself. Consider these two remarkable quotes:

“The origin of life becomes more and more complex each day”
“Time is actual your enemy, when it comes to life”

James Tour: The mystery of the origin of life.


DNA design

This contribution by Dr. Robert Carter on the extraordinary 4-dimensional design of DNA also provides an intriguing look at life.


The origin of the species upside down

In his book Replacing Darwin, the new origin of species dr. Nathaniel Jeanson argues that it has only recently become possible to judge the theory of evolution on its merits. Inheritance and changes in traits are regulated by genetic processes. Since our knowledge of these processes is recent, we can only now really verify whether these processes correspond to an evolutionary development via random mutations. But what do the facts tell?

It's exactly the other way around. Life does not get more and more complicated. Instead, separate, and defined species arise precisely because certain information disappears within the family. In other words, the potential that is in the genetic baggage of a particular family (such as that of dogs or cats) develops in one direction and thus all kinds of separate versions emerge. Processes of adaptation and selection are present but point to the opposite of evolution as an all-encompassing theory. Here you can order Jeansons' book and/or get a first impression through one of his lectures.


The story of the fossil record

The existence of the vast fossil record in the rock strata of our world is commonly cited as evidence of a long, expansive evolution. But think about it.

First, the existence of a massive fossil record is also exactly what you would expect as a result of a global catastrophe. The distribution of fossils in different layers, from small marine animal to large land animal, also logically fits in with this. In short, there is a big difference between the data and its interpretation. Don't mix the two together.

Second, if evolution were true, it means that there would have to be untold numbers of intermediate forms from one species to another. After all, this is what the theory of evolution claims. In small steps, and over a very long time, one thing changes into another.

That in itself has huge complications. Never before has anyone credibly explained in detail how such incremental changes work. It doesn’t get better than simplistic pictures and assumptions. For example, how do you build a lung from scratch, divided over say two thousand steps? Only the end product functions (not to say it has to fit within the broader biological context of the entity, which has to develop in a parallel pace). In the 1999 steps before that, it is only evolutionary ballast and therefore reason to divest it. Evolutionist should be able to explain in detail (not in very general terms) what the evolutionary value of each semi-product is in each single step and why selection didn’t get rid of it along the way. This has never been accomplished. Or do you really want to claim that a complete lung has suddenly appeared out of nowhere? Both options, from slow incremental development of highly complex functions, or the sudden existence of fully functioning end-products, are problematic once you start to consider it in detail.

But apart from these complications, the evolutionary assumption also has an impact on the composition of the fossil record itself. That would have to be packed with intermediate forms. In fact, you would expect > 99% of the fossils to consist of transitional forms and < 1% of more or less defined species. But that's not the case. On the contrary, the number of transitional forms found by thousands of scientists worldwide, after 150 years of fieldwork, is virtually nil. Ironically, the discovery of an intermediate form is front page news. It's that rare! Rather, it's close to 0.0001% and even those examples are debatable. This is grudgingly admitted by several evolutionists, but the consequences of this gigantic falsification are unfortunately not drawn. In the lecture below, around 31 minutes, you will come across a few telling quotes.

Rock Layers and Fossils Prove a Worldwide Flood! - YouTube


For many it is a foregone conclusion that the history of dinosaurs can only be explained from an evolutionary framework. That alone seems reason enough to write off a recent creation. But this is unfortunately a huge misunderstanding. Despite the large amount of popular films, books, museum displays, and university theories based on the belief in evolution, there are many concrete and credible indications for a very young history of these remarkable animals. Think of telling excavations with still intact tissue, art and wall paintings from before archaeological excavations were made, witness accounts and clear descriptions in the Bible. If you would like to dig into this, listen and watch this clear lecture by Dr. Jason Lisle.

Dinosaurs and The Bible || Guest Speaker Dr. Jason Lisle - YouTube


Creation and evolution in the mix?

There are quite a few Christians today who advocate a mix of creation and the theory of evolution. It's sometimes well-intentioned, but it doesn't last. It poses insurmountable theological problems. It is therefore not surprising that younger generations who have come to believe in evolution are experiencing more and more distance towards the church. In the end, what’s the value of a story that pretends to be reliable, but turns out not to be true?

The Bible does not allow itself to fit into such a combination model. Without a doubt, the authors present their material as historical. For example, in Genesis 5 you will find a family tree that traces the line from Adam to Noah, which underlines that Adam was not a fictitious figure. Also, internally reference is made to the first humans as a historical fact. For example, Paul compares Jesus to Adam (in the letter to the Romans). Would he be comparing apples to oranges here?

Another popular theory is that millions of years passed between the first beginnings and the rest of creation. Or that the days of creation actually represent long periods. In other words, the Bible would claim nothing about the age of the earth. However, Jesus clearly states that Adam and Eve were created from the beginning (Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4). Or would you suggest that the Creator Himself does not know what He is talking about?

Further on in the timeline we'll see more intriguing examples of the reliability of the Biblical record [the origin of all nations].

Here you have a few reading tips from the Bible: Genesis 1-12 / Psalm 19 / Romans 5 / Hebrews 11.

Faith in God makes research possible

Dr. Jason Lisle, astrophysicist, gives a well thought out interview about the relationship between science and faith in the Bible. It's a strange myth that belief in God makes objective science impossible. Rather, it is the other way around: belief in God as Creator provides us with the main reason why it makes sense to practice science in the first place.

Pure Talk – Answering atheist with Dr. Jason Lisle


Creation, evolution and our mind

In the book Dat had je niet gedacht, the author reflects on the workings of the human mind. He argues that our mind is designed to operate within God's covenant of love. There are of course very different views on the market, such as the evolutionary explanation of our brain. But if the theory of evolution is true, then our brain is also a product of chance, time and probability. Why, then, should you take seriously the results it delivers – such as the claim that the theory of evolution is true? Read more about it in Dat had je niet gedacht, part III, § 5.1 (“evolution: the abolition of intelligence”) and in IV § 2.2 (“about faith, science & certainty”).