Creationists Believe…

Blake's image of creation, a fitting symbol for creationists.

William Blake’s (1757-1827) image of creation. “Urizen as the Creator of the Material World”, from “Europe, A Prophecy”. Lambeth: Printed by W. Blake, 1794.

The media and the atheists stereotype the creationist as one who is anti-science and anti-sense. Anti-science, they say, because we apparently disregard volumes of evidence to hold on to a figment of our imagination, and anti-sense because everyone believes in the proven “fact” of evolution, right? Just what do creationists believe?

Definitions Creationists Use

Natural selection is any natural process that chooses one already existing variant of a species over another differing variant of the same species. For example: we can all observe that a dog may produce offspring which has longer hair, shorter ears, different color fur, etc. We can select by choice to “breed dogs”, or alternatively some factor in the environment such as cold can force the elimination of the shorter haired variety. But in all of history we have never observed either intelligent or natural selection turn the dog into a non-dog. On that basis we can do one of 2 things. We can believe by faith that given long enough, such a thing could happen, and perhaps a process may be found to make it happen, or we can conclude that no process observed enables dogs to do anything other than produce their own kind as the book of Genesis states God made them to do. In addition we can state that limiting factors are built into the DNA of a species. Any changes we have observed are due to loss of information in that DNA. We have never observed the reverse i.e. DNA gaining information (just as data duplication occasionally loses but never gains meaningful information). Different kinds of animals cannot interbreed for this very fact. In fact the farmer’s rule of thumb is that if 2 variants can interbreed then they must be the same kind even though we don’t give them the same name. Natural selection is an observable fact. All creationists agree with evolutionists on this point, but it does not by itself or in combination with any observed process cause evolution in any sense meant by Darwin or Dawkins or other notable atheists.

What does a creationist define as evolution? Evolution is the assertion that given sufficient time, all life evolved from a simple organism as a result of a random mixture of chemicals from a big bang in the distant past acted on by time and natural process alone . No outside creative intelligence – no God – no creator was involved. This is where creationists and evolutionists differ.

When Darwin came up with his theory, he did not know about DNA. He also did not know about the complexity built into every single living cell, complexity which rivals a large bustling, manufacturing city. Living functional complexity always requires creative intelligence. Design – good or poor never results from time and natural process alone, no more than paint produces Rembrandt or silica produces crystal radio sets – even though the silica has enough information built into it to produce quartz crystals. Any random change to such information – even in the quartz crystal – produces defects. In life- it produces mutational deformities, sickness, cancer death and extinction. The death knell of evolution.

Creationists believe in the biblical account of origins, that God created plants after their kind, birds after their kind, reptiles after their kind, dogs after their kind, cattle after their kind etc. In other words, we do not believe in a common ancestor of all life but that God specially and purposefully created each kind.

Two kinds of science

We must also define two kinds of science. Observable science is science which performs experiments today and observes results in the present, it is the science which gave rise to all kinds of technology, medicine, etc. Creationists are not anti-science. In fact, the truth is that the majority of scientists before Darwin believed in the God of the Bible, and as a God of absolutes, expected his character to be stamped on his creation, I.e. They expected to find constant laws in nature. It was these scientists which looked for and discovered such laws. The Bible gave them the very framework in which to inquire. Indeed, if all was a result of random chaos, we would not expect nor look for laws of constancy. We’d have no reason to.

Historical science is faith based. It is an assumption that what we observe today must be able to be extrapolated backward to the beginning. That is what evolutionists believe. This is known as uniformitarianism – the present is the key to the past. On the other hand, creationists believe that the past is the key to the present. Historical science is not testable because none of us were there at the beginning.

Since historical science cannot be proven, both atheists and creationists are left with two ways to observe what we see in nature and conclude something about our origins. This is where creationists and evolutionists greatly differ. What we find in evolutionary textbooks are diagrams and descriptions of what an evolutionist believes should be observable in nature. What is however actually observable in nature does not match the textbooks and in fact agrees perfectly with the biblical account of origins, which is to be expected if the God of the Bible cannot lie.

The Fossil Record

What is observed in the fossil record? Firstly, the fossil record is a record of where things died, not how things lived. It is also incredibly consistent with a global flood as described not only in Genesis, but in almost every native people group’s history. What we observe is that while there used to be animals which are now extinct, most of the fossil record simply shows larger or identical ancestors to living creatures today. In evolutionary terms, there are many so-called living fossils – creatures which did not evolve but in fact devolved. We observe precisely what the Bible teaches, that each species produced after its own kind. Farmers have proven this point from the beginning of time. Each time they plant carrot seeds they get carrots. They may get a variety of carrots but never corn from carrot seeds or anything else. This is an observable fact which no scientist would argue with. In other words, the facts are consistent with the biblical account of origins, not Darwin’s theory of evolution.

If Darwin’s theory were true, we would have ample evidence of transitional fossils. To-date, we have none. While some have been touted to be transitional, so-far they have all been fraudulent or later disproven. In any case, even if the one or two which occasionally are reported appeared to be transitional in that they appeared to have the character traits of two different kinds, they do not account for the millions which must exist for his theory to even be considered. He himself expected to find many but in the more than 150 years since his theory, the handful of fraudulent or misunderstood so-called “transitional fossils” are certainly not proof of his theory.

Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity is also another fact which disproves evolution. For example, the eye could not evolve in stages but had to be designed fully formed or it simply would not work. Besides, how would an animal know it even needed to evolve the sense of sight and how would it even know what to use it for?

Along with irreducible complexity is the symbiotic relationship of many creatures and plants. For example, how can a koala eat poisonous leaves? How did they evolve a mechanism to tolerate the toxin in the leaves? While they were evolving the mechanism they’d die out. Of course this totally ignores the complexity of the koala as a creature itself. Before we even get to that, how did a male and female of any species just happen to evolve by chance at the same time and then know how to reproduce? Yet almost every single species has a male and female counterpart which agrees with the biblical account of creation. Leaving all of this to time and chance just makes the problem worse. According to the evolutionist, the universe is only 15 billion years old and yet the probability of a single living cell evolving its constituent parts would take far longer than this time, let alone a human brain of more than 100 billion such cells. Even if it could evolve, then you have the problem of information and life. Information and life are both more than simply chemical reactions. In short, to believe in evolution takes greater faith and a belief in miracles, something of course creationists admit to believing in but something which evolutionists vehemently deny. Contrary to popular belief, Christianity is a faith based on revelation and reason, not on fancy

Ideas and their Consequences

All ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. We are now reaping the terrible consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution as we observe a generation of purposelessness and death. The consequence of believing that we have no purpose and are simply the result of blind, pitiless chance gives man no reason to exist. Many of our youth either commit suicide or waste their potential by destroying their minds and bodies through drug, alcohol or sodomy abuse. Millions of babies are slaughtered each year since they are nothing more than “lumps of cells”. We kill off our elderly and sick using “natural” selection. We change our nation’s moral law to accommodate the evil desires of a few.

Creationists on the other hand recognize the authority of the Creator, the one who has every right to define what is right and wrong and who gave us laws for our own good. We believe His laws when we see them working in nature – we don’t doubt the validity of His law of gravity, yet His law of sin and death is spurned, though we also see it consistently occurring every day. The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:23). All have broken God’s law which is why He sent His son, the Lord Jesus Christ, into history to pay the penalty of us breaking His moral law. The end result of Creationism is not simply to argue about origins, but to declare rightful authority. It is God who has the authority over man, not man to create his own god. God commands man to repent from his self-willed rebellion and come back under His authority through the Lord Jesus Christ. The main purpose of the theory of evolution was to remove God from science and to deny our accountability to Him. After all, if science could destroy the validity of the only book in history which reveals truth, if it could through the education system undermine any trust in its authority, it could destroy Christianity from the earth. This is nothing more than cutting off the very branch we are sitting on – civilizational suicide. It was Christianity which gave rise to education, law and order, morality, art, language, music, and yes, science,- the very science now used to destroy the worldview which gave rise to western civilization. There are grave consequences for the next generation which is why this creation Science Hall of Fame exists, to perpetuate, protect and proclaim the contributions of scientists who have dared to speak out against this heinous theory and its consequences.


2 thoughts on “Creationists Believe…

  1. Great post and discussion.Joel, as you alreday know, we agree on the whole origins thing. By trying to be reasonable, we get caught in the middle and tend to irritate dogmatists on both sides of the argument. I have done a lot of reading: Stephen Hawking, Hugh Ross, Fred Heeren, Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, and Institutes for Creation Research, to name a few, and have come to a few conclusions:1 we can never scientifically prove how the universe came to be based on the scientific method (developed by Sir Francis Bacon, a Christian!), the only way to prove creation would be to duplicate it in such a way that anybody could do it anywhere and oh what a mess that would be!2 no origins hypothesis is sufficient unless it accounts for both the natural and supernatural we have to be able to use both faith and reason to answer the ultimate question. Stephen Hawking has calculated the origin of the universe (big bang) to within fractions of nanoseconds, yet has no reasonable explanation for how the big bang happened. He admits that something outside of our reality had to have started it somehow. He presents several alternate hypotheses for natural origins in A Brief History of Time, but is forced to admit that they all break down at some point yet very intelligent people keep trying.On the other hand, those who argue for a young universe base their age figures not on the bible, but on Usher’s chronology, developed in the early dark ages. I believe that the bible is literally true in every sense, but that there are parts that are obviously allegorical one of the most obvious being the second half of the book of Daniel. His visions accurately predicted all the major ancient empires and their characteristics through the final destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70! Looking back, we can see that the Goat is Alexander the great and his Greek empire, the Ram is Medo-Persia, etc. In the same way, poetry can be literally true in that it reflects a feeling or state of being, even if it describes events that did not happen exactly letter by letter. Therefore, I can say that the Genesis 1 account leaves room for an old universe without making it literally untrue. If you read closely, you can see that it is two parallel accounts that go from broad to narrow the first three days focusing on the universe at large and the second on the earth itself. It shows divinely guided progression on both levels.I need to go, but I have to say before I do that macro evolution is a crock of something smelly! What evolution we do see represents a dilution of genetic material, not the addition. Ken Ham has some very insightful writings on this, although I disagree with him on the age of the universe.Gotta run!ted

  2. Dear Ted,
    May I begin by saying that we at the CHSF believe in Genesis as literally written, and that the earth indeed is young. We believe that there is ample evidence for this apart from Bishop Usser’s work. Most of the evidence is hidden from the public eye because evolutionists don’t want it publicized and long age creationists won’t take it at face value but dogmatically believe that scientists have proven the age of the universe. Scientists have not proven the age of the universe and have changed it several times in the past decades and are likely to revise it again. Their proof for the age of the universe is no more certain than the proof of Darwinian evolution from slime to humans. Even though it is claimed that the age of the universe has been calculated to within nano seconds, this is presuming several starting conditions which themselves are unprovable. The science and the calculation may be extremely precise but if the starting assumptions are wrong, the precision and effort is wasted.
    I have two recommendations for you concerning evidence and discussion on this topic which you may not yet have considered. Firstly, the DVD series of 4 DVDs entitled “Darwin on the Rocks” by Geologist John Mackay (see and the book “Creation, Fall, Restoration – A Biblical Theology of Creation” by Andrew Kulikovsky, (see (link to which deals with the many arguments surrounding the Genesis account and does so quite thoroughly.

    Yours sincerely

    Joseph Stephen
    Director: Creation Science Hall of Fame (
    and President: Faithful Generations (

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.