Posted on / by Ben Jones

Creationism- Part 4: Versus Evolution

Additional Selected Arguments Against Old-Age Theories

Transitional Fossils

If all organisms have arisen by slow, small modifications, we should find some of these transitional fossils! We should find fossils that are in the process of developing helpful features (not just fossils which have various fully-developed features from different contemporary animals combined together). Paleontologists have never uncovered fossils from a creature with half-formed feet or a half-formed wing.

Evolutionists say that the fossil record is simply incomplete. This is also what Charles Darwin stated. He proposed his theory of evolution on the basis that these transitional fossils would eventually be found. Evolutionists say that these half-evolved monstrosities lived, but were not preserved.

We have seen in the last chapter that whole groups of species sometimes falsely appear to have abruptly developed; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would be fatal to my views.” –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Many paleontologists have become convinced that we currently have a complete fossil record due to the fact a century after Darwin’s time, none of these supposed fossil gaps have been filled.

  • If the fossil record is nearly complete, a large percentage of the fossil record is preserved, and evolution is not supported.
  • If the fossil record is largely incomplete, only a small fraction of the fossil record is preserved. Why should evolutionists have a right to fill in these gaps with imaginary animals for which there is no evidence?

Many evolutionists now believe that evolution had to happen suddenly, which in reality, goes against their entire narrative. There are no true transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Of course, when most think of transitional fossils, Neandertal (previously Neanderthal) Man comes to mind. Called hominids, these were creatures that evolutionists believed to have been in-between ape and human. There were twelve original specimens found. Nine were found to be extinct apes/monkeys. Three were actually modern human beings. Human skulls naturally vary in size and many other characteristics. They are also misshapen by certain diseases such as rickets, arthritis, Paget’s disease, congenital syphilis, and starvation. Variation or disease could lead many to think they are less than human. Also, entire sets of differing human structures (such as the varying body structures of Neandertals) could have died out in the Flood, thus only preserving the ‘body structure’ of Noah and his immediate family.

History of Neandertal Man:

The first skull was found in 1848 at the Forbes Quarry in Gibraltar. (Not recognized as Neandertal until 1956, when another partial skeleton was found near the village of Neander in Germany.) Evolution was just being proposed, so scientists jumped on this find as the missing link. Lots of doubt was raised, but the main detractor was renown scientist Rudolf Virchow, an expert in disease and fossils, who diagnosed rickets in the Neandertal bones, which accounted for a seemingly simian cast.

In 1888, the Galley Hill Skull, a very modern-looking skull, was found in rock strata believed to be older than Neandertal. Other similar discoveries were made in 1855 in Ipswich, 1863 in Abbeville, and 1932 in Kenya. Their authenticity was always questioned. In 1939, Professor Sergio Sergi proved that Neandertal man walked erect as we do, not with ape-like crouch. In 1947, a discovery was made that a Neandertal was found to have lived in a cave after a modern man had inhabited it, thus finally proving Neandertal is not our ancestor. Neandertal Man is currently considered Homo neanderthalensis.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

A Law of science is defined as a basic, unchanging principle of nature; a scientifically observed phenomenon which has been subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe (e.g., the law of gravity, the laws of motion).

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is one of three Laws of Thermodynamics. This is a branch of physics which studies the efficiency of energy transfer and exchange.

Thermo = “heat”, dynamic = “power”

1st Law– Matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It may change forms, but the quantity remains the same in a closed system.

2nd Law (Law of Increased Entropy)– While quantity remains the same, the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time.

3rd Law– The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.

“Entropy” is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, “entropy” increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system.

“It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted.” –Emmett Williams Ph.D

As far as we can tell, these Laws are absolute. All things in the observable universe are affected by and obey the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, disorder, randomness and chaos increase.

The 2nd Law describes a basic principle familiar in everyday life. It is known as the ‘universal law of decay’; it is the ultimate reason why everything ultimately falls apart and disintegrates over time. Material things are not eternal. Clothing becomes faded, threadbare, and ultimately returns to dust. Buildings naturally decay and turn to ruin. Vast sums of money are spent to counteract the relentless effects of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (repairs, maintenance, painting, etc). Everything ages and wears out. Even death is a manifestation of this law. The effects of the 2nd Law are all around, touching everything in the universe. Ultimately, everything in nature is obedient to its unchanging laws.

This law observes the fact that the usable energy in the universe is becoming less and less over time. Ultimately there will be no available usable energy remaining. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves. Outside forces can increase order for a time (through the expenditure of relatively large amounts of energy, and through the input of design). However, such reversal cannot last forever. Once the force is released, processes return to their natural direction, which is of greater disorder.

Since the universe is constantly losing usable energy, we can logically conclude that the universe has not existed eternally in the past. The universe had a finite beginning; there was a moment at which it was at its most ordered possible state (‘zero entropy’). The universe is like a wind-up clock, which is winding down.

This creates a problem for evolution. Evolutionism claims that over billions of years everything is basically developing upward, becoming more orderly and complex. Naturalistic Evolutionism requires that atoms organize themselves into increasingly complex and beneficial, ordered arrangements. Thus, over eons of time, billions of organisms are supposed to have developed upward, becoming more orderly and complex.

The 2nd Law says the opposite. It is well known that, left to themselves, chemical compounds ultimately break apart into simpler materials; they do not ultimately become more complex. The trend is towards simplification and disorder. Ultimately, when all the energy of the cosmos has become unusable, all molecules will move randomly, and the entire universe will be cold and without order. All experimental and physical observation appears to confirm that the Law is indeed universal, affecting all natural processes in the long run.

This makes evolution as a whole simply not feasible. In fact, it is one of the most important reasons why various evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of creationism, or at least that there is a Grand Designer. A number of scientists believe the 2nd Law, when truly understood, is enough to refute the theory of evolution.

Evolutionist Objection: The universe may be a closed system, but the earth is not. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law does not prevent evolution on Earth since the planet receives energy from the Sun. They say that the sun’s energy helped create life on this planet.

Answer: It is true that open systems exchange heat, light, or matter with their surroundings. Earth is an open system, primarily because it receives outside energy from the Sun. However, is energy really the key to life? Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the addition of energy make a completely dead plant alive again?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun’s energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers, all beginning from a single seed.

If there is a powerful evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun’s energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)? Instead, what actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process. Certainly, the sun’s energy is not a sufficient explanation for life on earth.

Mountain Erosion

If the earth was anywhere close to being 4.5 billion years old, all mountains would be eroded into the sea. The lowest/slowest estimate for erosion is 2.4 cm per 1000 years. At this rate, continents would have been eroded to sea level in 34 million years, and all ocean basins would be filled in 340 million years. A more accurate rate of erosion is around 6 cm per 1000 years, which would cause these things to happen much sooner. Of course, this doesn’t work for evolutionists, so they purport that there has been consistent continental uplift and mountain building to keep up with the erosion rate. However, their bias causes them to assume propositions that have no evidence. Also, evolution bases many of its theories on sedimentary layers, with smaller fossils in deeper layers. However, under the mountain-building scenario, these layers would be pushed toward the surface, and this does not fit with the observed process of deposition.

Natural Selection and “Survival of the Fittest”

One of the assumptions of Darwinian evolution is that natural selection only allowed the “fittest” to survive and that there was severe competition between species. This is the driving force of evolution.

The best and fittest society would be one where its individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense or even destruction of others. Natural selection demands the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone or anything more powerful than others.

In his work surrounding this theory, Darwin gives zero examples of this fierce competition. Since then, in fact, observation shows competitive fighting as relatively harmless activities. In most cases, the most we see is territoriality (animals holding and defending their territory against others), which is an attribute of most animals. Lethal fighting between territorial species is very rare!

When two animals face off against each other, many use displacement activity:

  • Fish chase each other back and forth, face off, then bury in the sand
  • Roebuck destroys saplings in the forest
  • Gulls pull grass
  • Howling monkeys howl

If anything, the very opposite is true! Observation of animal society seems more cooperative than destructively competitive. Many have observed the lack of support for this fierce competition. Petre Kropotkin documented this extensively. Whole books describe examples of animals within a species helping each other. Some of the examples come from Darwin’s own work! What we find more often are symbiotic relationships, where two animals or plants live in mutually advantageous relationships.

(Ex. Sirex and Ibalia Wasp, Dodo Bird and Calvaria Major Plant, which depend on one another to survive). We humans should fall in line with this “survival of the fittest” trend as products of evolution. However, people exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection.

Our need for love and friendship also cannot be explained if all that we do as humans is for survival.

In the end, ‘survival of the fittest’ tells us only of how something survives, not how it evolves from one species to another.

Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation

According to Darwin and his followers, natural selection is the driving mechanism behind evolution. Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals that reproduce with one another) into another basic kind.

The Problem: This is prohibited genetically because all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded into the DNA of its parent. This is called information science. Variation and adaptation must remain within its ‘basic kind.’ (i.e. A wide variety of dogs can exist, but a dog cannot become anything other than a dog, which reminds us of Gen. 1:21, 24-25.)

Evolutionists admit this is true, so they explain that natural selection must have happened in conjunction with genetic mutation.

The Problem: Mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This makes evolution from mutation impossible. A wristwatch is not improved, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered, or even if one part ceases to work.

Evolutionists respond that organisms must have evolved using small successive modifications.

The Problem: The natural selection process could not have had the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to create over time some characteristic or part that would make it better overall (i.e. the creation of an eye). Natural selection requires that organisms begin as crude, yet some organisms could not survive at all without basic functions such as respiration and reproduction, which had to exist from the beginning of an organism.

In addition, some new ‘features’ of an animal would need to have developed simultaneously in order to be a benefit or even usable at all.

Example: Surinam Toad is used by evolution as an example of how a land-based amphibian solves the problem of having no water. The female toad lays eggs on her back with a long oviduct. After the eggs are laid, the skin on her back grows around eggs. How did this evolve? Darwin would say, ‘because the need was there.’

However, 3 phenomena had to happen at the same time or they would be extinct:

  1. Long oviduct evolved
  2. Skin capable of surrounding eggs
  3. Had to use them properly

There is no reason for either to have evolved by themselves. A toad without water in which to lay eggs is doomed. They would not need these modifications millions of years later; they would need them immediately.

Slight modifications don’t work because many times they need to appear all at once, or otherwise they are useless.

*Also contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (All things, left to themselves, will tend to deteriorate rather than develop)


Comets are made of ice and dirt and orbit the sun. Every time a comet passes near the sun, some of the ice is blasted away (which forms the tail) and the comet loses mass. A comet could orbit at most 100,000 years before running out of material. Some are destroyed in a single pass of the sun. If the solar system really is 4.6 billion years old, why do we still have comets?

A ‘rescuing device’ is then used to protect the evolutionary worldview. It is surmised that perhaps there is a vast reservoir of comets beyond the visible solar system called an Oort Cloud. Comets are occasionally dislodged from this undetectable sphere, or ‘cloud,’ of potential comets and thrown into the inner solar system. New ones replace the old ones. There is no observational evidence for this oort cloud’s existence, but it allows scientists to maintain their evolutionary belief, since we cannot prove that it doesn’t exist (just as we can’t prove their isn’t an invisible unicorn in the room). Evolutionists can always invoke a ‘rescuing device’ when needed.

Spiral Galaxies

Galaxies appear to be much younger than evolution’s 10-15 billion-year age for the universe.

Stars are gathered into clusters called galaxies. In a galaxy, stars revolve around a galactic center. Stars nearer the center make more rotations around the center in the same amount of time than do the ones farther out. A star 8,000 light years from the center will make 2.8 rotations in the time it takes a star 16,000 light years from center to make a single rotation. (2.8 : 1 ratio). Same for a star 16k light years versus 32k light years. In most galaxies, the innermost star has rotated around the center 8 times in the time it takes for the outermost star to go around only once.

If the universe was indeed 10-15 billion years old, the effect is that spiral arms would have wrapped themselves around the center until the arms were no longer noticeable. If our galaxy is 4.5 billion years old, then we would have made 22 revolutions (200 million years per revolution). A star half the distance to the center of the Milky Way would have orbited 62 times. If this is true, no spirals should be visible in our galaxy, or any other for that matter. But they are! Astronomers still search for an explanation for spiral galaxies, but a young universe makes sense of them!

Galaxy Clusters

Just as stars are grouped into galaxies, galaxies are grouped into clusters as well. There is a lack of gravitational force to hold these galaxy clusters together over a long period of time.

The mass of a galaxy is based on its brightness. Once all galaxy masses in a cluster are calculated, the gravitational force holding the cluster together can be calculated. The velocity of galaxies in relation to one another is then calculated. These two numbers combined can be used to calculate the necessary gravity to hold the cluster together. If measured mass is remotely close to correct, and the universe was indeed 10-15 billion years old, galactic clusters would have dispersed long ago.

For example, the Coma Cluster would require 7 times more mass than currently calculated in order to remain stable for 10 billion years. Likewise, the Virgo Cluster is missing 98% of the mass needed to hold it together.

Sun Energy

If the earth, and likewise our solar system, is 4.5 billion years old, the sun must be at least as old. It seems the sun would not have had enough energy to last this long.

The sun’s luminescence is caused by slow gravitational contraction; the sun is shrinking under its own weight. Present luminosity is 1041 ergs/yr, which would keep it shining approximately 100 million years. Additionally, it is proven that the sun has been shrinking for at least 400 years. Calculated backward, under an old-earth theory, the sun would have scorched the earth or even touched earth in the more recent past. Otherwise new theories concerning changed orbit, the length of a year, etc, would need to be adjusted.

One objection made by evolutionists is that the sun’s energy comes from hydrogen fusion, so it doesn’t necessarily need to burn off and shrink constantly. However, hydrogen fusion gives off neutrinos. For the sun, only 4 per month are given off which is less than 1/10 what would be expected if hydrogen fusion were occurring in the sun.

Probability Factors

Evolution states that the basic building blocks of life were created simply by chance, but the probabilities involved make this virtually impossible. There are 8×1027 combinations possible for insulin, and only one is in a form that the body can use. Let’s say each second the universe has existed, it produced a different combination. After 10 billion years, we would have 3×1017 combinations. This is 1/10,000,000,000 of all possible combinations. We would need to wait another 10 billion times the present age of the universe to be sure to get a combination the body could use. Or wait another 100 quintillion years.

Let’s take hemoglobin, which has 135×10165 combinations, only a few of which are useful. Let’s say 10100 combinations were created every second the universe has existed. (The total number of atoms in observable universe is 1078, so a combination “factory” would consume 10 sextillion universes to keep production rates up.) Even at this rate it would take ten trillion trillion years to produce all combinations.

Compared to the formation of a virus, this is nothing. In the smallest known virus, the DNA has only 5,000 small chemicals making it up. That’s 10×101505 combinations.

This is far beyond scientific impossibility. There has not been nearly enough time in the universe for the chance occurrence of the chemical formations needed for life.

Conditions for Chemical Evolution

Chemical evolution says that once a necessary chemical is formed by chance, it must be preserved until all other chemicals necessary are formed and brought together. When this happens, life appears.

Can we see this today?

No, because:

  1. If a complex chemical is formed, it is eaten by microscopic plants or animals.
  2. Oxygen in the atmosphere would oxidize chemicals (like iron left to rust) which breaks them down making them useless for the evolution of life.

If life originated by chance on earth, these two factors must be absent. (1) is true. What about (2)? If oxygen were in the atmosphere, the evolution of life could not occur. Evolutionists state this as evidence that the atmosphere was made of some other chemical in the past, though there is no evidence for this (beyond bias). There must be some atmosphere of gas around any planetary body to hold it. Conjectures are currently based on the abundance of certain chemicals in the atmosphere now, along with what is believed to have been needed for evolution to occur.

*Also, goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Carbon-14 Dating

Carbon-14 is produced when Nitrogen-14 is struck by a cosmic ray in the atmosphere. It disperses and is absorbed into plants through photosynthesis; subsequently, plants are eaten by small animals which are eaten by larger animals until all creatures have about the same amount of Carbon-14. When a plant or animal dies, it stops absorbing Carbon-14 and starts to decay back to Nitrogen-14. Age can be determined if, and only if, the following are true:

  1. We know how much C-14 was present upon death.
  2. The level of C-14 in the atmosphere has been constant for 30,000 years, meaning atmospheric nitrogen and the rate of cosmic ray bombardment has been constant.
  3. We can measure the proportion of normal C-12 to C-14.
  4. The rate of decay does not change.

There are immediate problems with both (2) and (4). (2) is an assumption since the first measurements were only taken around 100 years ago. Furthermore, (4) has been shown to be quite implausible. The rate of decay can easily be changed in a lab, such as when applying an electrical charge to the object (see testing by John Lynde Anderson). Electrical storms could have changed the rate of decay, as a singular example.

Age determinations have also varied drastically among tests. See below for differences in age determinations for various tests performed on the same object:

Antler (Yale): 3 tests:

Test 1: 5,340 yrs old

Test 2: 9,310 yrs old

Test 3: 10,320 yrs old

Specimens in same rock strata (Mich):

Test 1: 1430 yrs old

Test 2: 2040 yrs old


(Test at Lab 1)- 1168

(Test at Lab 2)- 2200

Mastodon Fossil:

Outer- 7820 yrs old

Inner- 750 yrs later

11 tests were done in the village of Jarmo in Iraq with a 6,000 year spread in dating.

Also, consider that diamonds have C-14. Based on all current testing, C-14 cannot last one million years. (If the whole earth was C-14, it would be gone in 1 million years, having decayed into nitrogen.) The crystal structure of diamonds does not allow for recent contamination of C-14. The C-14 in diamonds does not fit the evolutionary narrative.

Overarching Theories Purported by Evolution:

Matter from Nothing: This is more philosophical, but matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing without a cause. It is a logical absurdity. We live in a cause/effect world.

Life from Non-life: Life is far too complex to have resulted from trillions of chance occurrences. Life coming from matter (non-life) violates the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which states that life must come only from life. Evolutionists best guess at the start of life on Earth is that it rode on the back of a crystal attached to a meteorite.

Order from Disorder: Our bodies, as well as most other organisms, depend on systems that run according to intricate order, such as is found in DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

Developed from Crude: Small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed (seed to tree, baby to adult), but small and undeveloped things first come from the developed (seed from tree, baby from adult). The pattern of growth is circular, not from crude to developed as natural selection states.

Similar DNA: Evolution’s overall argument is based on the similarity of our DNA with those of apes, and apes to other similar animals. However, life could only happen if certain things are similar. There are only so many ways that a wristwatch can be designed and still serve its function. Secondly, is it not as good or better an explanation to say there was a common designer rather than a common ancestor?

Origin of Morality: There is no objective basis or explanation for morality in human beings under Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory. Likewise, there is little explanation for how evolution could account for humanity’s mental capacity and overall dominance of the physical world which sets humans apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world.

If the Earth is just over 6,000 years old, how could so many people and scientists be wrong?

  • Evolution is taught as fact, not as theory, through school, television, movies, etc. Creationism has not been offered as an alternative explanation.
  • Scientific fields of study have become very narrow; a scientist can easily believe that missing evidences for evolution is found in another field.
  • The theory of evolution was welcomed as it made sense at the time, and allowed for people to explain the earth without God.
  • Scientists want to be accepted by other scientists; if someone falls outside common belief, especially when it comes to denying evolution, they are disregarded and ridiculed. Non-Christian scientists normally don’t have the incentive and self-will to do this to themselves, so they believe in order to be accepted.
  • When a scientist says that “Evolution is proven,” it is true in one sense of the word, but there is a difference between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution:
    • Micro-evolution: Living things have a built-in variability which allows for adaptation within species to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is proven, this is what they mean. This is true! That’s “observational science.”
    • Macro-evolution: This is the notion that humans evolved from hydrogen gas. It is the belief in large-scale change based on observed small-scale change. It is based on “historical science,” which is different, and not demonstrable.
  • There is a presupposition of anti-supernaturalism. People approach issues with presuppositions. Even though we all have access to the same information, one’s worldview often informs the interpretation of the same evidence.
    • Romans 1:18-19 → For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
    • Everyone has enough evidence to believe in the Creator God, but the problem is that they suppress the Truth in unrighteousness and God tells us there is no excuse for that. It’s like we are wearing different pairs of glasses. If you believe God’s Word is Truth, then you see through biblical glasses. If you believe that Man decides “truth”, then you look through evolutionary glasses of millions of years, and the same evidence is interpreted in two different ways. [In-person presentation: Story of man who thought he was dead- walk, talk (spasms), charts (wrong interpretation, name swapped), dead men bleed?]
  • Christians start with Scripture. They take an honest look at Scripture so that we can show how science fits with the Bible. When people ask a Christian how they know what happened, they can say “Well, the Person who created it all in the first place, and was there when it happened, He told me. The Bible tells me so.” And they can say this with all their heart, soul, and mind, with complete intellectual honesty.
  • This is not a move away from academics and science; its changing your starting point as a Christian. Assumptions determine our conclusions! When we disagree with secular philosophers who believe in naturalism and billions of years, it’s not a science issue, it’s a worldview issue.

Why does it matter what Christians believe about Genesis?

If the Bible is true, God’s Word is true, its history is true, and we have a basis for right and wrong. If there is no absolute authority, who determines right and wrong? Good and bad? What’s marriage? It is one man and one woman, but why? Because God made marriage- in Matt. 19:4-5, He says He made them male and female, and for this reason, a man shall leave his father and be joined with wife and two shall become one flesh. Jesus quotes from Genesis.

If we believe the Bible is not true, that we arose from random chance, and that we are no different than animals, then…

What’s right and wrong? We decide.

What’s good and bad? Whatever we prefer.

What’s marriage? Whatever we want it to be.

What’s abortion? Simply getting rid of inconvenient kids.

1 Cor. 1:20 → Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

Col. 2:8 → See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Today we see the collapse of Christian morality, along with increasing moral relativism, because we have increasingly more generations that don’t believe the Bible is true, or that its history is true. They either explain it away, or ignore it all together. We should be Christians who understand science as simply understanding how God did it, and thus in turn be amazed by His design. We should have a faith that permeates every area of our life, and stands strong in the face of overwhelming skepticism and secularism. We need to put on the full armor of God, as Ephesians tells us, and only then will we make the impact for Christ that we were meant to have.

Young-earth creationists don’t view the first 11 chapters of Genesis as separate from the rest of history, or as some kind of mythological history. In fact, if one reads Chapter 10 and 11, it seems that Moses goes to great lengths to directly tie the history of the first 11 chapters of Genesis with Abraham. These are genealogies with many specifics leading up to Abraham, including his father Terah, and it seems quite arbitrary to claim that these genealogies suddenly transform from figurative to real. It makes sense that Abraham would be the focus at one point because of the role be played in history.

The issue of whether there was a literal Adam and Eve is even more important than the actual age of the earth. The age of the earth will always be a debate among Christians, though hopefully not always a divisive one. However, there are massive theological implications pertaining to salvation itself if one doesn’t believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Personally, I have never found any argument for evolution that I could not find the answer for in creationism! (The issue of “star light” is the most difficult objection to creationism that I have found, and it is addressed below. This is a work in progress.)

Star Light

Argument: It would take millions of years for the light from stars to reach earth. The fact that we can see as many stars as we can is evidence that the universe is at least as old as these stars. This seems to be evidence on the side of an old universe! (though not evolution per se). The Milky Way Galaxy is 80,000 light years in diameter.

Though this seems to be the best argument for an old universe, it is still not proof of an ancient universe.

Is distant starlight solvable?

  1. Creation was a one-time event and is not repeatable.
  2. Creation was supernatural. The way God upholds the universe today (through natural law) is not the way that He created the universe, so there will always be things we can’t understand through science.
  3. God is sovereign. He is not required to make all the universe understandable to humanity.
  4. History has shown that many “problems” for creation are easily explained by newer evidence. (i.e. The Mt. Saint Helens eruption where many sedimentary layers were formed in a short time, or when great canyons have formed quickly)


The Travel-time Equation → D = vt (distance = velocity x time)

Ex. 120 miles = 60 mi/hr x 2 hours

Speed of light © is 670,000,000 mi/hr or one light year per year. One light year equals the distance light can travel in one year (6 trillion miles).

Possible Solutions:

  1. The density of the universe has not always been the same. Do we know that the speed of light has always been constant in time? This theory proposes that the speed of light in the past may have been much greater than the speed of light today. Potential Problem: The speed of light is not arbitrary. It is ‘linked’ to nature. Many necessary formulas depend on light speed being this speed, such as E=mc^2. If the speed of light had been significantly greater in the past, then there should have been dramatic changes in the energy or mass of everything in the universe. It’s possible that other constants could have changed as well, so this not fatal to the theory, however, is this testable? No, nothing tells us that speed of light has changed. If true though, This changes V (Velocity).
  2. GTD: Gravitational Time Dilation: Time can flow at different rates. Perhaps the universe has aged millions of years, while only 6,000 years have elapsed on Earth. From the universe’s perspective, there has been plenty of time for light to reach Earth. General Relativity has shown that the rate at which time passes is related to the gravitational potential. Clocks tick more slowly when they are in a “gravitational well.” Gravity affects time. A clock at sea level ticks slower than the official clock in Boulder, Colorado. If the earth were near the center of a finite universe, time would flow more slowly here than elsewhere. That would allow time for starlight to get here in thousands of years, per Earth clocks. This notion is simply well-tested physics. Potential Problem: If the universe is infinite, or at least contains galaxies throughout, and earth’s position is not special, there would be no gravitational well. Also, is GTD significant enough to get starlight here in 6,000 years (earth-time), in a way that is compatible with known red shifts? There are potential solutions, but details are yet to be resolved. Nevertheless, if this is true, This changes T (Time).
  3. ASC: Alternate Synchrony Convention: Is it possible that stars were created before Day 4 (Cosmic Local Time), and their light reaches Earth on Day 4 (Cosmic Local Time)? This would only work for light coming towards earth (Based on the Bible, stars were created in the firmament to shine upon earth). If we use CLT, events in space happen as we see them from Earth. CLT is used often as it is more convenient and doesn’t require knowing distance to the source. Astronomers often use Cosmic Universal Time and Cosmic Local Time (they name supernovas by CLT). Issue: Does Bible use CLT or CUT? Today, CUT is considered the standard, but CLT has been used throughout history (since they didn’t know light speed or distances). Again, this explanation would only be possible if the Bible uses CLT, meaning that the stars were actually created before Earth Day 4.
  4. Stars were once closer to Earth and the universe has simply expanded.
  5. Always possible supernatural acts were at work.
  6. We, as Christians, believe that God’s most important creation is human beings. Are we not in awe of the beauty and power of God when we look up and see all the stars in the night sky? If we are the center of God’s universe per se, then what would be the point of creating stars that we could not see? Is it too far a stretch to say that God could have created the starlight en route to the earth for the purposes of His glory? It is possible that He created the light in transit.
    1. Valid objection to this theory: This means that we would see events happen in the heavens that never actually happened. For example, in 1987, astronomers observed a super-nova, or blue star, that blew up 179,000 light years away. If God created that beam of light, then He created the picture of that explosion which in fact never happened, and that blue star never existed. Philosophically, there seems to be issues with God creating pictures of things that never happened.


CDK: The speed of light may have been greater in the past.

GTD: Time may have flowed more slowly on the earth.

ASC: “Time-zones” allow light to leave stars and arrive at Earth on Day 4 (CLT)

Conclusion: Distant starlight does not prove the universe is old.

Astronomers have measured the observable universe as 156 billion light years. We can see 78 billion light years out into space. But they say the universe is 13.7 billion years old. How can secular astronomers believe that light can travel 78 billion light years in only 13.7 billion years?

Isaiah 55:9

We must weight evidence for Creationism against the evidence for Evolution.