Creation vs Evolution

Mar 25, 2025

Creation

Creationism is the presuppositional belief in the literal Biblical Judeo-Christian interpretation in the creation of the universe and of all living things rather than evolution. The Genesis Creation is a description of the creation of the world, as written in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. The Biblical account is in stark contrast to evolution and to several other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, while differing in its monotheistic outlook.

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence. Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the Earth. That means that "the origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition is not evolution, but creation. Evolution argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter.

Chapter one describes the creation of the world by Elohim (God), by means of His spoken Word in six days and the designation of the seventh day as Sabbath, a holy (set apart) day of rest. Man and woman are created to be God's regents over his creation. Chapter two tells of YHWH (God) creating the first man, whom he forms from clay (or dust) and into whom he "breathes" the "breath of life".

The creation week consists of eight divine commands executed over six days, followed by a seventh day of rest.

First day: God (Elohim) creates light ("Let there be light!")[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and "day" and "night" are named.

Second day: God creates a firmament ("Let a firmament be...!")[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named "skies".

Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10] "earth" and "sea" are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).

Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:14–15] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.

Fifth day: God commands the sea to "teem with living creatures", and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.

Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His "image" and "likeness" (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." The totality of creation is described by God as "very good."

Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

All things are works of the Creator, Who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. This Creator is the God of the Bible, who created the whole universe ex nihilo, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.

Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution attempts to explain life origins by universal expansion 4 ½ billion years ago as a result of the Big Bang. The belief that evolution brought about life systems and the evolution of man from primates. This view interprets the Book of Genesis allegorically (no global flood). There is no special creation or design in the universe.

This belief became a popular compromise in the 19^th century, which attacked Darwin's natural selection. Nevertheless, naturalistic mechanisms such as Lamarckism were favored as being more compatible with purpose than natural selection. In order to reconcile Lamarckism with the Bible, some theists took the general view that, instead of faith being in opposition to biological evolution, some or all classical religious teachings about Christian God and creation are compatible with evolution.

In general this views evolution as a tool used by God, to create life systems into being; it is therefore well accepted by people of strong theistic (as opposed to deistic) convictions. Theistic evolution also can blend with the Day-Age theory of the Genesis account; considering that the first chapters of Genesis should not be interpreted as a "literal" description, but rather as a literary framework or allegory.

From a theistic evolutionary viewpoint, the underlying laws of nature were designed by God and that the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles in processes such as stellar evolution and the Big Bang, wherein life forms developed in biological evolution, and in the same way the origin of life by natural causes has resulted from these laws.

Theistic evolution can be described as a "creation theory" in holding that divine intervention brought about the origin of life or that divine Laws govern formation of species, though many Young-Earth creationists would deny that this position is creationism at all. In the creation-evolution debate its proponents generally take the "evolutionary" side. While supporting the methodological naturalism inherent in modern science, the proponents of theistic evolution reject the implication taken by some atheists that this gives credence to ontological materialism.

The field of science has sought to answer specific questions regarding our universe, our world, and the origins of life. The discipline of science then is to answer the unknown by formulating questions, then ideas, then developing a hypothesis to assess those ideas. Then theories are developed and tested with models to determine outcomes. A theory therefore, must be tested against observations and experiments to examine its validity. The National Academy of Sciences stated in 1998, “It is the nature of science to test and retest explanations against the natural world.”

The way to test the theory of evolution is through investigating its claims using scientific methodology. In general, science is self-correcting under proper scientific scrutiny. This is how hypothesis and theories are formed and tested. Only after repeatable, observable and measured tests are conducted and verified with predictable outcomes, can a theory then become a law.

What science should say is ‘evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore, it should be critically examined just as with any other theory. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. Only theories that have endured repeated testing can then be regarded as generally true. This includes well-known theories such as Newton’s Theory of Gravity or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

Since some scientists espouse evolution with the greatest of devotion, most people imagine that this theory is scientifically valid without any knowledge of any critical arguments that do not support it. Evolutionary theory however, is somehow excluded from the scientific method. From the day it was first proposed right up to the present, it has been defended by promoting its strengths only. It should not be the role of academia to portray only the strengths of any theory as a proven fact. No doubt, it is most contradictory to strongly defend a theory while its weaknesses are never explored. Yet that is exactly what is taking place. Evolution is being presented as scientifically valid without scrutinizing its weaknesses. Yet again, this defeats the purpose of sound academic science.

An Analysis of Evolutionary Assertions

Evolutionists ground their hypotheses in natural phenomena and the principle of randomness. A cornerstone of these hypotheses is the concept of "considerable time," which is often used to justify the plausibility of life emerging by chance. For instance, Ernst Haeckel, a German scientist and a fervent proponent of Darwin’s theories, claimed that a living cell could arise from simple muck. However, as the intricate complexity of the living cell was unveiled during the 20th century, Haeckel’s proposition was rendered untenable. Despite this, proponents of evolution continued to rely on "considerable time" as a conceptual smokescreen, complicating the issue rather than addressing the fundamental improbability of life originating by chance.

The notion of time is portrayed by evolutionists as inherently positive, suggesting that the passage of eons fosters the development of life and the diversification of species. This argument, however, has been systematically debunked by contemporary scientists. Controlled experiments, conducted under conditions mimicking the hypothesized environments of early Earth, have consistently failed to produce life. These experiments, carried out in state-of-the-art laboratories, underscore the inherent implausibility of life arising spontaneously, even when all conditions proposed by evolutionists are meticulously replicated.

The claim that "all things are possible with time" is thus a fallacy, one that relies on rhetorical manipulation rather than empirical evidence. The argument is a prime example of how deception has been subtly incorporated into scientific discourse to sustain an outdated theory. An objective analysis reveals this baseless assertion, highlighting the inadequacy of time alone as a mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life.

The Narrative

The evolutionary framework for human history categorizes it into distinct epochs, such as the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. These periods are presented as milestones in humanity's supposed evolutionary progression. This narrative, widely disseminated through educational curricula, media, and popular culture, depicts early humans as rudimentary beings, dependent on primitive stone tools and devoid of advanced technology.

Upon closer examination, however, archaeological evidence and scientific findings challenge this simplistic and fictionalized depiction. The artifacts that survive today—tools, needles, flutes, and personal ornaments—demonstrate that humans have consistently led civilized lives throughout history. Far from the caricature of primitive existence, these remnants reveal a sophisticated understanding of craftsmanship, culture, and social organization.

Historical evidence suggests that humans, even millennia ago, engaged in activities remarkably similar to those of modern societies. They resided in constructed dwellings, cultivated crops, traded goods, wove textiles, prepared and consumed food, visited their relatives, appreciated music, created art, administered medical treatments, conducted religious practices, and, in essence, lived lives akin to those of the present day. Religious practices, moral principles, and beliefs in divine authority also persisted across all historical epochs.

Cultural Variations: Not Evidence of Evolution

The coexistence of technologically advanced societies and those living in simpler conditions has always been a feature of human civilization. Even in the modern era, while some regions launch rockets, others remain without access to electricity. This disparity, however, does not indicate a hierarchical progression of intelligence or physical capability. It simply reflects variations in culture, resources, and technological development.

These variations do not support the evolutionary narrative of humanity progressing from primitive "ape-men" to modern sophistication. Rather, they emphasize that cultural and technological achievements are not indicative of inherent superiority or a more advanced evolutionary status. They are simply markers of human diversity, shaped by geography, resources, and historical circumstances.

The evolutionary hypothesis, both in its biological and historical frameworks, fails to withstand scrutiny. The reliance on "eons of time" as an explanation for the origin of life is scientifically untenable, as repeated experimental failures illustrate. Similarly, the evolutionary narrative of human history, with its portrayal of primitive epochs, collapses under the weight of archaeological evidence that consistently points to the existence of civilized societies throughout history.

Eighteenth and nineteenth century contributions to science by evolutionists:

1. Emmanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) was a do–nothing expert. In his 1734 book, Principia, he theorized that a rapidly rotating nebula formed itself into our solar system of sun and planets. He claimed that he obtained the idea from spirits during a séance. It is significant that the nebular hypothesis theory originated from such a source.
2. Comte de Buffon (1707–1788) was a dissolute philosopher who, unable to improve on the work of Linnaeus, spent his time criticizing him. He theorized that species originated from one another and that a chunk was torn out of the sun, which became our planet. As with the other philosophers, he presented no evidence in support of his theories.
3. Jean–Baptist Lamarck (1744–1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory with his concept of “inheritance of acquired characteristics,” which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809 he published a book, Philosophie Zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches and birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. According to that, if you pull hard on your feet, you will gradually increase their length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so, you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. This is science? Lamarck’s other erroneous contribution to evolution was the theory of uniformitarianism. This is the conjecture that all earlier ages on Earth were exactly as they are today, calm and peaceful with no worldwide flood or other great catastrophes.
4. Robert Chambers (1802–1883) was a spiritualist who regularly communicated with spirits. As a result of his contacts, he wrote the first popular evolution book in all of Britain. Called Vestiges of Creation (1844), it was printed 15 years before Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species.
5. Charles Lyell (1797–1875). Like Charles Darwin, Lyell inherited great wealth and was able to spend his time theorizing. Lyell published his Principles of Geology in 1830–1833 and it became the basis for the modern theory of sedimentary strata—even though twentieth–century discoveries in radiocarbon dating, missing strata, and overthrusts (older strata on top of more recent strata) have nullified the theory. In order to prove his theory, Lyell was quite willing to misstate the facts. He learned that Niagara Falls had eroded a seven–mile [11 km] channel from Queenston, Ontario, and that it was eroding at about three feet [1 m] a year. So Lyell conveniently changed that to one foot [.3 m] a year, which meant that the falls had been flowing for 35,000 years! But Lyell had not told the truth. Three feet of erosion a year, at its present rate of flow, would only take us back 7,000 to 9,000 years. It would be expected that, just after the flood, the flow would, for a time, have greatly increased the erosion rate. Lyell was a close friend of Darwin, and urged him to write his book, The Origin of Species.
6. Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) is considered to be the man who developed the theory which Darwin published. Wallace was deeply involved in spiritism at the time he formulated the theory in his Ternate Paper. Darwin, with the help of two friends, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, pirated and published the paper under his own name. Darwin, a wealthy man, thus obtained the royalties which belonged to Wallace, a poverty–ridden theorist. In 1980, Arnold C. Brackman, in his book A Delicate Arrangement, established that Darwin plagiarized Wallace’s material. It was arranged that a paper by Darwin would be read to the Royal Society in London while Wallace’s was held back until later. Priorities for the ideas thus having been taken care of, Darwin set to work to prepare his book. In 1875, Wallace came out openly for spiritism and Marxism, another stepchild of Darwinism. It is of interest to note that after engaging in spiritism, certain men in history have been seized with a deep hatred of God. They have then been guided to devise evil teachings that have destroyed large numbers of people, while others have engaged in warfare which has annihilated millions. In connection with this, we think of such known spiritists as Sigmund Freud and Adolf Hitler. Wallace’s theory that species have changed in the past, one species descended from another in a manner that we cannot prove today, is exactly what modern evolution teaches. Yet there is no more evidence supporting the theory today than Wallace had in 1858, when he devised the theory. In February 1858, while in a delirious fever on the island of Ternate in the Molaccas, Wallace conceived the idea “survival of the fittest” as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest; which one is that? It is the one that survives the longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is circular reasoning. The phrase says nothing about the evolutionary process, much less proving it. In the first edition of his book, Darwin regarded “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” as different concepts. By the sixth edition of his The Origin of Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that “survival of the fittest” was the more accurate. In a still later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin ultimately abandoned “natural selection” as a hopeless mechanism and returned to Lamarckism. Even Darwin recognized the theory was falling to pieces. The supporting evidence just was not there.
7. Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was born into wealth and able to have a life of ease. He took two years of medical school at Edinburgh University, and then dropped out. It was the only scientific training he ever received. Because he spent the time in bars with his friends, he barely passed his courses. Darwin had no particular purpose in life, and his father planned to get him into a nicely paid job as an Anglican minister. Darwin did not object. But, instead, an influential relative got him a position as the unpaid “naturalist” on a ship planning to sail around the world, the Beagle. The voyage lasted from December 1831 to October 1836.

If Creation is True, What Should We Find..

Sudden appearance of life: We do.
Evidence of a young Earth: We do.
Life reproducing after its kind: We do.
Evidence of a global flood: We do.
Lack of transitional forms: We do.
Polystrate fossils: We do.
Living fossils like the coelacanth: We do.
Dinosaurs buried catastrophically: We do.
Intricate design in living systems: We do.

Philosophical Implications

Evolution endows matter with the ability to create its own existence as it inherits an infinite capacity to foresee future requirements (omniscience), enlists its own efforts to produce and sustain life (omnipotence); and incubates communication with all entities under its universal influence (omnipresence).

“Isn’t it unbelievable what an unbeliever has to believer in order to remain an unbeliever”

- Dr. Duane Gish

The debate over origins hinges on truth, logic, and universal laws. These immutable laws—logic, mathematics, morality—are immaterial and unchanging. Without a Creator, they cannot be explained.

Doug Wilson highlights the absurdity of denying God:

“If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter... Morality, tragedy, and reasoning are empty sensations created by chemical reactions. Humanity becomes nothing more than bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water.” Now, over 700 Ph.D scientist have publicly come out against evolution.

So let me ask you a question. What is necessary for evidence? Truth, knowledge, and universal invariant laws such as the laws of logic, the laws of math, laws of science, laws of nature and absolute moral laws are necessary for evidence. There are two other "Universal Laws" that we see demonstrated in everything we examine in the world around us. Two further "Universal Laws" are evident in all our observations of the surrounding world.

1. No new mass or energy is being created anywhere in the universe

2. all of the existing mass and energy remains present.

Each occurrence results in a portion of energy becoming inaccessible.

The First Law states that matter (mass/energy) can be transformed, but cannot be created or destroyed. The Second Law states that all phenomena (mass/energy) consistently transition to diminished levels of utility. In essence, every cause must be equal to or greater than the effect it generates, and it will, in actuality, yield a consequence that is lesser than the cause. Any consequence necessitates a more significant cause. Upon tracing this universal law backwards, one confronts the potentiality of a continuous sequence of diminishing consequences, stemming from an infinite series of non-primary, escalating causes. Nevertheless, it seems more plausible if there exists an uncaused source; an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary First Cause.

The next question is whether you believe they are changing or unchanging. These laws are unchanging. The Laws of Logic are required to arrive at that truth. If you have acknowledged that laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality exist, they are not made of matter, and that they are universally fixed and constant. These universal, immaterial, unchanging laws are necessary for rational thinking to be possible. These laws cannot be accounted for if the universe was random or only material in nature. When someone denies that logic is absolute then they admit that truth is non-absolute or relative. They cannot account for their own world-view. The debate presupposes absolute truth. So, which side is true? God is either universal, non-material, and does not change or there is no God. Both cannot be true. This is the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Doug Wilson states,
“If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.”

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the biblical account of creation. The sudden appearance of life, the intricate design in living systems, and the global flood all point to a Creator. Evolution, by contrast, relies on improbable assumptions that fail to account for the complexity and order we observe.

The question remains: Will we recognize the empirical evidence and the Creator behind it all? He is the God of the Bible, patiently waiting for you to welcome Him into your life.