Science That Backs Up the Bible And Casts Doubt on the Theory Of Evolution?

Note: The information here is not essential to faith. Different points of view on the matter are held by people with the same deeply-held convictions about the important doctrines of Christianity contained in the New Testament. The scientific information here is open to question, and some could be easily disputed. The details of something that happened that far back in the past are bound to be unclear and open to question, and so debates on the matter shouldn't bother anyone. The information is simply here for the sake of interest and research. If any claims particularly interest you, you could perhaps investigate what more mainstream scientific views are on the issues, and see which views you find most plausible for any given claim.

To get an idea of the different viewpoints on evolution and the Bible out there, most of them held by Christians, have a look at these:

The scientific information here is taken from the booklet Bone of Contention by Sylvia Baker. The publishers notes say,

"Bone of contention - that is what the theory of evolution has been for over a century.

"In March 1861 Charles Darwin wrote that he believed the theory, but acknowledged that he could not 'prove in any single case that [natural selection] has changed one species into another'. Yet the unproven theory came to be treated and taught as fact.

"But is it true? That is the question which Sylvia Baker examines here. A biology graduate of the University of Sussex, she had accepted and imbibed the evolutionary theory put to her at school and university .. until the sheer pressure of evidence forced her to rethink the whole question.

In Chapter 1 of her booklet Bone of Contention, which is entitled How Evolution Took Over, Sylvia Baker writes:

"What did Darwin's Theory Actually Say?

"He started by assuming that the young always differ in many small ways from their parents and that these differences can be passed on to later generations. He argued that animals possessing favourable variations will increase in number, while others will tend to die out. In other words, certain variations will be selected for continuation. The strong would survive; the weak would die out. By this process of selection, Darwin said, new species might eventually arise.

"Darwin presented much evidence for his theory, but he himself said that he had been led to it chiefly by his observations in the Galapagos Islands off the coast of South America. Darwin noticed that the species on the Galapagos resembled those of the South American mainland but were not identical with them. For example, there seemed to be a special race of giant tortoise on each island. Darwin began to think that all these races had descended from a common type. The finches on the islands interested him even more. There were many different species and he reckoned that they had all descended from a single pair. He believed that he could see transitional types where one species was changing into another. ...

"... He then suggested that in a similar way, all living organisms had evolved from a very simple organism."

More about the theory of evolution, and where creationists differ from naturalists in their beliefs about How Big the Changes Caused by Evolution Are.

The Kinds of Evolution It's Agreed Can Happen, and How Understanding Them Can Help Medical Advances and Other Crucial Things, so Schools Need to Teach Them

In Chapter 4 of the booklet Bone of Contention entitled Genetics and God's natural selection, it says:

"It was a summer's day in a monastery garden in Czechoslovakia over 100 years ago. Most of the monks saw nothing special about the pea plants growing there. To one of them, however, they were of great interest because he was performing scientific experiments with them.

"What particularly fascinated Gregor Mendel was the way in which the plants handed on their characteristics to the next generation. 'What would happen,' he thought, 'if I crossed a white-flowered plant with a red-flowered? Would the next generation have red flowers or white? What if I crossed a tall plant with a short one? What height would the offspring be?'

"As Mendel performed these experiments and carefully analysed the results, he realized that he had discovered some fundamental laws concerning inheritance. ... When he died in 1884, Mendel had no idea that twenty years later he would have become world-famous as the founder of a new science. Mendel's work is now regarded as the beginning of the science of genetics, the study of inheritance.

"... what Mendel discovered disproved one of Darwin's most important assumptions. ...

Mendel's Experiment

"What did Mendel discover that spoke against Darwin's theory of evolution?

This can best be answered by considering what he actually did. Mendel crossed various races of edible peas. When a red-flowered plant was crossed with a white-flowered, the offspring were found to be red-flowered. Mendel then crossed these red offspring with each other and found that they produced offspring of their own in the ratio of 3 reds : 1 white.

"We can best understand this by considering the genes involved in these crosses. A gene can be considered as a unit which determines a particular characteristic, in this case flower colour. It can exist in one of two forms, one giving rise to red flowers and the other to white. The offspring of the original cross of red-flowered plants with white were all red-flowered, although they did in fact possess both a gene for red flowers and a gene for white.

"Mendel concluded that the red gene must be dominant to the white, so that any plant that possessed them both would be red. When these red plants were bred with each other, it was possible for two white genes to come together and so give offspring that were white. The chance that the offspring would receive at least one red gene is 3:1, ...

"New Genes or Old?

"Mendel found that when he interbred the red-flowered plants obtained as the offspring of his original cross, he got white flowers produced as well as red. Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such a case as this the white characteristic was a new character acquired by the young plants which their parents had not possessed. After all, a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to evolve.

"Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired. It had been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by a more dominant gene. If one applies statistics to Mendel's ideas one can show quite easily that the genes in the new generation exist in exactly the same frequency as they did in the parents' generation. It might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals that possessed them but it would never be possible to acquire new ones.

"... Darwin's theory began to flounder when these facts came to light. It was saved from total eclipse by the emergence of a theory which said that genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. This radical change in the gene is known as a mutation.

"This is the form in which Darwin's theory is believed today. It is assumed that mutations can change the gene to a new form. The process of natural selection is said to operate by selecting out those new genes which are favourable to the organism and discarding others. ...


"The modern theory of evolution thus stands or falls on this question of mutation. If mutations do not occur, it is impossible for evolution to progress. We must therefore examine the question of mutations and see if they actually occur as evolutionists claim.

"Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur. Secondly, it is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change for the worse. This is what we would expect. Genes are complicated and wonderfully designed and any major change in them will lead to their functioning less efficiently.

"This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as a whole will remain unaffected.

"Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes which would enable a race of organisms to evolve. They are extremely rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it. This even applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria, but space will not allow discussion of these. But even if mutations were to occur in the way that evolutionists claim, evolution would still be impossible. ..

"A personal testimony may explain what I mean by that last statement. ...

"I (Silvia Baker) ... went to the University of Sussex where for three years I studied biology, taught from an evolutionary point of view. I was a Christian all this time; at first I believed that one could believe both the Bible and evolution, but as my time at Sussex went on I became increasingly unhappy about this. I realized that both could not be true. As a Christian I believed the Bible to be true; at the same time, I had been taught that evolution was a proved fact. This dilemma continued until well into my final year.

"The turning-point came one day at a seminar when we were discussing the evolution of the vertebrate eye. The eye is an extremely complex organ. It has the complicated system whereby light is directed to the back of the eye on to cells which are sensitive to it; it also has that even more intricate arrangement whereby the information then travels to the visual part of the brain so that we actually see something. ... All the specialized and complex cells that make up our eyes are supposed to have evolved because of advantageous mutations in some more simple cells that were there before. But what use is a hole in the front of the eye to allow light to pass through, if there are no cells at the back of the eye to receive the light? What use is a lens forming an image if there is no nervous system to interpret that image? How could a visual nervous system have evolved before there was an eye to give it information?

"... Far from supporting evolutionary theory, the research of the past seventy years points to only one conclusion: evolution cannot have happened and the Bible is vindicated.

More Information on the Complexity of the Eye, and on Other Intricate Designs in the Universe

"Natural Selection

"Let us consider a theoretical case of what the evolutionists call natural selection and then follow it through to its logical conclusion.

"Imagine a population of sea-birds which can exist in one of several different colours. As the population increases, some birds colonize a neighbouring island which is dark in colour. The white and pale grey birds on this island are easily seen by predators and destroyed. The dark-coloured birds cannot be seen and so survive and breed. Gradually a race of dark birds develops as all the light ones die out.

"A similar process occurs on another nearby island, except that this time the island is light-coloured so that the race of birds that develops is light. Thus by natural selection two races of birds have developed from the original population. Eventually these might be considered new species.

"Depletion of the Gene Pool

"Evolutionists say that it is by the natural selection process that evolution occurs. But what has happened from the genetic point of view? In the original population, genes existed for black, dark-grey, light-grey and white colour. On the black island this became depleted to black and dark-grey genes only, since the light-grey and white genes had been lost through the death of the light-coloured birds.

"Natural selection thus made the gene pool poorer. There are fewer forms of the gene present, not more, as the theory of evolution would require (for unless a population gains new genes it could never become more complex).

"Since the new population of dark birds is genetically poorer it is more prone to extinction. A slight change in the environment, such as the island becoming lighter, would enable the race to be wiped out by predators.

"If such a process has been happening on a large scale we would expect to find that many species have become extinct and this is exactly what history demonstrates. In other words, natural selection tends towards genetic death and not to the development of more complex species.

"We have seen that the process of natural selection leads to new varieties of creatures which are much poorer in genes than the earlier population from which they developed. From the evolutionist's point of view, this means that the amoeba-like creatures from which we have all evolved must have had an infinitely richer and more varied gene pool than our own! This is clearly ridiculous. From a truly scientific point of view, groups of animals must once have existed possessing a rich variety in their characteristics from which have developed the more specialized types that we have today. I believe that this is what the Bible is speaking of when it says that God created animals 'according to their kinds'."

More Information on Genetic Mutations, Changes in Species and Natural Selection

In chapter 2 of her booklet Bone of Contention, which is entitled Just What Do The Fossils Prove?, Sylvia Baker writes:

"According to the generally accepted view, the best evidence for evolution has come from the study of fossils; ...

"Fossils and the Theory of Evolution

"It may help us to clarify the issues if we first consider what the fossil record should show according to evolutionary theory. Let us suppose that evolution has been conclusively proved by methods other than palaeontology. As we come to look at the fossils, we would expect to find the following.

  1. "As we progress through the various rock strata towards more recent rocks, the organisms should become more and more complex.

  2. "Link fossils' would also be expected; these would be the remains linking groups of animals that today are widely separated -such as the fish and the amphibia, or the reptiles and the mammals. As we reach fairly recent rocks, we should expect to find clear evidence of apelike men. ...

"Fossils and the Biblical Account

"Next let us suppose that the Bible gives a true description of the early history of the earth. What then should we expect to find in the fossil record. To answer this we must consider the Bible's account of what happened in those early-years.

"Genesis ... tells us that ... As man lived on the earth he grew more and more wicked after the Fall and eventually God judged him with a terrible flood. This covered the whole earth and killed everything and everybody except those who were with Noah in the ark.

"Now if this account is true, what should the fossil record show?

"It should certainly show the remains of animals killed in the Flood. If such vast numbers of living creatures were wiped out suddenly they should have left evidence in the form of huge numbers of skeletons bearing the marks of violent death.

"As regards the nature of the earth's rocks, we would expect the Flood to have left thick layers of sediment, since this is always the result of flooding. These vast layers would subsequently have become consolidated, forming sedimentary rock over most of the earth's surface. ...

Now we must look at what the fossil record actually shows.

Does it support evolution, or does it rather show those features implied by the Bible?...

1. Gradual development?

"Does the fossil record show evidence of a gradual development through the rock from simple to complex organisms?

"This is what we would find if evolution were true. In fact fossils representing many different kinds of animals appear suddenly in great numbers at a certain level in the earth's rocks. This is the level that evolutionists call 'the Cambrian'. Below this level, in rocks known as 'Precambrian', hardly any fossils are found at all. ...

"... There is no gradual progression from very simple organisms to complex ones in the Cambrian rocks; rather, fossils suddenly appear representing nearly every major group of organisms alive today.

2. World-wide flood?

"Is there any evidence in the fossil record of a world-wide devastating flood?

"Yes, there is, and that evidence can be summarized as follows. In the earth's rocks are to be found millions upon millions of fossilized animal remains, often grouped together in what appear to be huge 'graveyards'. There are also to be found unimaginably vast deposits of coal and oil, both of which are the remains of living organisms. Evolutionists have great difficulty explaining these things, for evolutionary theory rests largely on the concept of uniformitarianism. This is the view that geological processes have always been as they are now, and that the earth's present form was not shaped by major catastrophes - but there are no processes going on today which could produce such effects as these. Such evidence is consistent with the idea of a flood which covered the whole earth. Let us now consider the distribution of these fossils in detail.

Fossil graveyards "All over the world, fossil bones are found remaining after the soft parts of the animal have decayed. Now creatures only become fossilized in this way if they are buried immediately. If they remain on the surface of the ground or float in water, they will decay quickly or be eaten by other animals. Once they are buried in suitable soil, however, decay takes place very slowly, leaving either the bones themselves or impressions of where the bones have been.

"It is generally agreed that the best and most likely way for a fossil to be produced is by the sudden burial of the creature in sediment at or soon after death. Such a process is not happening on earth today to anything like the extent needed to produce the vast number of fossils that exist.

"For example, a fish is an unlikely candidate today for becoming a fossil. Ordinarily when a fish dies it is eaten by other fish within a matter of hours. Fossil fish are nevertheless often found in sedimentary rock. Entire shoals of fossilized fish have been found covering large areas and numbering thousands of millions. They are often found in a state of agony with no mark of a scavenger's attack.

"Dinosaur fossils are also found in positions that suggest sudden violent death. ... Evolutionists have had to develop elaborate theories to explain why these animals, which are not aquatic, should have died violently in water. On the basis of the Bible's account, the answer is not difficult. ...

"... Nowhere in the world have such graveyards been found of animals who have recently died and who are awaiting fossilization. Uniformitarianism can neither explain why so many thousands of animals died violently at the same time, nor why, having died, they were buried so rapidly in sediment. The Biblical Flood can."

In Chapter 5 of her Booklet Bone of Contention entitled The True History of Man, Sylvia Baker writes:

"... We can imagine that as the flood continued to rise, (See Genesis chapters 6-8 for the Bible's account)torrential streams would begin to pour vast amounts of sediment into the lakes, entombing and killing the fish. ... The floodwaters continued to rise for six weeks before they completely covered the land. While marine creatures and fish would have died first, the land animals would have been in a better position to escape the Flood. They would retreat from the waters for as long as they possibly could. The amphibians would have been nearer the water to start with and they are not very mobile on land, so we would expect that the Flood would soon catch up with them. The reptiles would have had a slightly better chance of escaping, but they are not very mobile and would eventually have drowned. Mammals can move relatively quickly on land and therefore would be able to retreat from the Flood for quite a long time. Man, of course, would have tried to devise means of protecting himself and many would have held out almost until the last moment at which the water completely covered the earth.

"This, then, is the general order in which we would expect to find them in the rocks: marine invertebrates, then - working upwards - fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, man.

It is in fact the order that is often found. Evolutionists are mistaken in regarding this sequence as a record of the evolution of life from simple organisms to man. It could simply reflect increasing ability to escape from the Flood. ...

"At least three-quarters of the earth's surface, including the tops of most mountains, is covered with sedimentary rock. The sediment must obviously have been eroded from some previous locations, then transported and deposited. This is exactly what happens during a flood. Much evidence shows that these thick layers of sediment were deposited within a very short time, and not gradually over millions of years. Many fossil animals and tree trunks, for example, are to be found extending through several strata often six metres or more in thickness. The top parts of these 'polystrate' fossils are as well preserved as the lower, showing that the whole animal or tree was submerged in a short time by rapidly deposited layers of sediment. In some parts of the United States huge reptiles are found buried in this fashion. If the sedimentation had been at present rates, it would have taken 5,000 years for these animals to be covered. Near Edinburgh a fossilized tree trunk was found. It was about twenty-four metres long and intersected ten or twelve different beds; from its uniform fossilization it was obvious that it had been buried rapidly."

Answers to Claims that the Biblical Flood Would Have Been Impossible and that the Earth's Rocks Couldn't be Evidence of it

Note: Some of the issues covered in these sections are especially controversial. Some people try to use them to argue that the earth must be much, much younger than evolutionists claim. However, this isn't something that anyone should ever be dogmatic about. It might be fun or interesting to weigh up the arguments, but if some are contradicted by greater opposing evidence, it shouldn't affect anyone's Christian faith. To find out more about the challenges from opposing arguments and how Christianity is comfortable with the issues either way, read:

In Chapter 2 of her Booklet Bone of Contention, Sylvia Baker writes:

Vast Coal and Oil Beds "Both coal and oil are the remains of living organisms. Coal is the remains of plants that have been altered by the effects of pressure and temperature. It is found throughout the geological column and in all parts of the world, even in Antarctica. These coal measures speak of the former existence of almost unimaginably massive accumulations of buried plants.

"Uniformitarianism tries to explain the existence of coal by the ordinary death and decay of trees. It is suggested that the first stage is a peat bog which gradually turns to coal through the effect of pressure above it. However, there is no known present bog or marsh containing enough peat to make a large coal seam.

"Uniformitarians often claim that coal and oil formation are processes that would require millions of years. However, oil has been produced in the laboratory from organic material in as little as twenty minutes. Similarly, coal has been formed from woody material in a very short time."

In Chapter 5 of the Booklet Bone of Contention, it says:

" The study of coal provides evidence of a flood. Many facts suggest that the coal seams were formed when vegetation was uprooted and redeposited by flood waters, rather than slowly accumulating in a peat bog as evolutionists believe. For example, upright tree trunks more than three metres in height have been found in coal beds. Some trees are positioned with their tops downwards in the coal and so could not have grown in place. Marine fossils have been found embedded in coal. So to have boulders of rock that could only have come from a considerable distance away.

Polystratefossils "Large fossils (of animals and plants, especially tree trunks) can be found which extend through several strata often six metres or more in thickness. These fossils must have been buried quickly because their top parts are just as well preserved as those lower down. Vast amounts of sediment must thus have been deposited in a very short time. The existence of these fossils is impossible to explain if one assumes, as evolutionists do, that the different strata were laid down at different times over millions of years."

In chapter 2 of the booklet Bone of Contention, Sylvia Baker writes:

"With such vast numbers of fossils at their disposal, the evolutionists might be expected to have amassed convincing proof of their theory. In particular, we should expect them to be able to point to link fossils showing intermediate kinds of animals linking the major groups such as the invertebrates and - amongst the vertebrates - the fish, amphibia, reptiles, mammals and birds.

Fossil links?

Do fossil links exist?

"In his book on evolution published in 1967 A. Brouwer makes the following statement: 'One of the most surprising negative results of palaeontological research in the last century is that. . . transitional forms seem to be inordinately scarce.' The writer says that in Darwin's time there might have been some excuse for this, but 'With the enormous number of fossil species which have been discovered since then, other causes must be found for the almost complete absence of transitional forms.' He thus openly admits that, for the most part, link fossils just do not exist.

"Over the years, however, one or two fossils have been hailed as perfect 'missing links' and we need to look at these in more detail. It is important to stress that these claims only concern one or two fossils, not large numbers of remains representing one or two species.

"Perhaps the most famous link fossil is Archaeopteryx, the so-called intermediate form between the reptiles and the birds. Five fossils of Archaeopteryx have been discovered, each at the same site in Germany. Although the skeleton is claimed to be in many respects reptilian, the creature possessed beautiful, fully developed feathers. ... There is no suggestion here of something at the half-way stage between a reptilian scale and the bird feather, which is what such an intermediate creature would be expected to possess. Nowhere does the fossil record have any sign of such a link between a scale and a feather. Indeed, many scientists believe that the five Archaeopteryx fossils are those of a true bird. The hoatzin, a living species of bird alive today in the Amazon valley, is similar to Archaeopteryx in many important aspects.

"Apart from Archaeopteryx, nothing in the fossil record even suggests a convincing link between animals of different types. In saying this, I have not forgotten the elaborate claims that are made for the existence of 'ape-men'; the question is whether the fossil evidence supports these claims. The total evidence amounts only to a few handfuls of bones and teeth. Even if these were in perfect condition, which they are not, it is doubtful that they could tell us very much."

More Information on Fossils and the Error of Evolutionary Arguments

In chapter 5 of her booklet Bone of Contention, which is entitled, The true history of man, Sylvia Baker writes:

"When the theory of evolution was first put forward, it seemed to some scientists to be a reasonable theory and they therefore set out to test it. The evidence collected over the past 100 years, however, does not support that theory and in fact shows it to be quite unacceptable. On the other hand, the evidence supports what the Bible teaches about the early history of the earth. I am not suggesting that the biblical teaching is simply an alternative theory to evolution, for I believe it to be the truth. I am suggesting that if non-Christian scientists would accept it as an alternative theory, they would find it to be quite in accord with the facts, whereas the theory of evolution is not."

Quotes About Evolution and Intelligent Design From Scientists

It's interesting that some respected scientists think creationism is more plausible than evolution. Yet they do hold an extreme minority view in the scientific world.

These quotes are believed to be accurate, but there's no certainty about that; and advances in the study of evolution may have changed the minds of some of the scientists since they said what's quoted here anyway:

Recently two prominent British scientists, Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were 'driven by logic' to conclude that there must be a Creator.

"It is quite a shock," said Wickramasinghe, a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy. The Sri Lankan-born astronomer explained: "From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. Once we see . . . that the probability of life, originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect 'deliberate,' " or created.

Professor Wickramasinghe also said: "I now find myself driven to this position by logic. There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. . . . We were hoping as scientists that there would be a way round our conclusion, but there isn't."
(-- Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, As quoted in "There Must Be A God," Daily Express, Aug. 14, 1981 and "Hoyle On Evolution," Nature, Nov. 12, 1981, 105.)

FRANCIS CRICK: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
LIFE IT SELF, 1981, p. 88.

"Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
I L Cohen, 1984, "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities" PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.

"To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability."
Cohen, I.L. (1984) "Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities ", New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81.

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."
Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist and mathematician, Cambridge University.

"... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space.

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, [read 'pre-judice'] a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori [read 'prejudiced] adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Billions and Billions of Demons", Review of "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark," by Carl Sagan, New York Review, January 9, 1997.

"I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy."
Hoyle, Sir Frederick [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections," Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 20, 1982, pp.1- 35, p.23.

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation. . ."
Professor Jerome Lejeune: From a French recording of internationally recognized geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, at a lecture given in Paris on March 17, 1985. Translated by Peter Wilders of Monaco.

"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish ... It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained PREJUDICE - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction ... In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honoured idols have to be discarded in the process ... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end -no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers ... If in the process of IMPARTIAL scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back ... Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science."
I L Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities", PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc. pp 6-8, 209-210, 214-215. I.L.Cohen, Member of the New York Academy of Sciences and Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America.

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life], Science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, Science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."
Eiseley, Loren C., [late Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], "The Immense Journey," [1946], Vintage: New York NY, 1957, reprint, p.199.

(The above quotations were taken from quotes posted by someone on a message board.)

Answers to Critics of Creationist Arguments

The Other Side of the Debate

If you'd like to study more information about creation science, (though it may be that not all of it is accurate) visit: Creation Science on the World Wide Web.

Or you can Read a bit more about evolution, mendelian genetics and creationism at History, Archeology and Science on Bible part 3.

The booklet Bone of Contention by Sylvia Baker was first published in 1976. It has since been updated quite a bit. The quotations from the booklet I am using are currently from the older version. If you would like to buy the latest version, you can do so from Amazon or a number of Christian book sellers online.
Extracts from the booklet have been used with the kind permission of the author, Silvia Baker, who owned the copyright at the time when I asked for permission to use them.

The main Bible pages on this site:

Bible Bible Part 1: Bible Quotations, The Holy Spirit, People And Their Stories
Bible Part 2: The Lives and Suffering of the Ancient Israelites
Bible Part 3: The Bible, Articles About Alleged Inaccuracies in it, And Stories of People who Became Christians.
Or go to the first selection of Bible passages in the series: The Bible on the End Of The World, The Power Of God, And Sin.

The selections of Bible quotations have been put together by Diana Holbourn.

Throughout this series, wherever the initials TEV appear, they stand for Today's English Version (The Good News Bible).

Other initials:

Warning Against Believing Everything you Hear or Read

Don't be afraid to question the truth of what a religious authority figure tells you, or even the Bible or other holy books themselves, or certain people's interpretation of them. Nothing to do with religion or the supernatural is so well established in fact it shouldn't be questioned. To find out why caution is a good idea, visit:

The Beauty of the New Testament's Moral Teaching and Other Important Pages on this Website

Are you up to trying the challenges of the New Testament's moral guidelines, and would you like to know more of what it says about the love of Jesus? Here are some links to Bible quotes about the beautiful ideals the New Testament encourages Christians to try to live up to:

There are a lot of pages on this website with quotations from the Old Testament on them. Many of these are unfortunately rather gruesome, since the main theme of the Old Testament is warnings and stories about how it says societies were punished for mass lawless and hurtful behaviour, even to the extent of having war brought on them by God, that seem to have been designed to scare societies where crime and violence were rampant into behaving more ethically. In case there is any misunderstanding, it should be understood that this website does not endorse war as anything other than a last resort. The position of the website owner can be gleaned from the articles:

Fancy some light relief or laughter therapy? Then go to the first of our jokes pages:

If you have a problem affecting your mental health or well-being, like depression, a difficulty with life-damaging worry, panic attacks, phobias or OCD, marriage problems, an addiction, an eating disorder, recovering from the trauma of sexual abuse or domestic violence, coping with bullies in the workplace, or bullying and teasing at school, trying to lose weight, raising difficult teenagers, caring for someone with a disease like Alzheimer's, wanting to recover from anorexia or self-harm, or grieving for someone you were close to or feeling lonely, and you'd like some ideas on coping or getting past it, visit our Self-help series.

If this is the first page you have visited on this site, this is part of, a website about social and psychological issues, what the Bible says about social problems and other topics, and how they affect people's lives today.

Go to the home page to find out more.....