We hear a lot talked about racism in today’s world because sadly much hatred has grown up over the centuries between different ethnic groups. But why? It would be true to say that evolution has had a significant part to play in the process. Evolutionists have suggested that certain groups of human beings (e.g. the Australian Aborigines) are less advanced than most of us, in other words, less descended from the apes! Such theories can only give way to racist attitudes, because they detract from the fact that there is only one human race.
If we are all one family descended from Adam and Eve, then how do we account for the differences between the various ethnic groups? Take for example the matter of skin colour. The differences occur because of a single substance called melanin which produces skin pigmentation. Different human beings have this in different quantities giving rise to varying skin colour. Only an extremely small percentage of human genes are responsible for differences between the ethnic groups, and these are no more significant than other differences between human beings.
The section on Adam and Eve explains how variety was introduced into the human race. Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin as they carried the genes for producing both fair and dark skin.
So why do we find that people of a certain appearance are native to a given part of the world? There are biological reasons why it is advantageous to have dark skin in a hot climate and fair skin in a cool climate, and quite simply, natural selection will have taken place! Natural selection can realistically operate in this way even though it can never result in the evolution of one life form from another.
Don’t forget that everyone, whatever their ethnic group, is your blood relative!
Is it reasonable to believe that the whole human race is descended from Adam and Eve? Their story is generally dismissed as mere myth and there are even sincere Christians who would claim that God created a ‘race’; of humans rather than just two individual persons. Let us therefore have a look in a bit more detail.
Every human being has two full sets of genes, one inherited from each parent. Adam and Eve would therefore have had four full sets of genes between them (albeit not inherited if they were created by God). The complexity of human genes and the way that they interact is such that it is scientifically feasible for four full sets of genes to be able to provide the massive variety of characteristics seen across the human race.
The Genesis account names three sons of Adam and Eve, namely Cain, Abel and Seth, and it is recorded that Cain and Seth both produced offspring. But where did they get their wives from if God did not create any other human beings? It is inevitable that Adam and Eve will have produced a large number of children and so Cain and Seth will quite simply have married their sisters! This may come as a surprise as the law of Moses strictly forbade sexual relations between close relatives and such laws still exist in our modern society. Close inter-breeding is considered to be unsafe because of the increased risk of producing defective offspring. So why was it OK at the time of Adam and Eve?
Genetically the human race was created to absolute perfection, and so at first there would have been absolutely no risk involved in inter-breeding between close relatives. As imperfection was introduced things would have changed. The changes resulting from the Flood would have caused the levels of radiation in the environment to have increased, and this would produce an increased risk of genetic mutations. As described in the section on genetics, mutations will normally be ineffectual at the very best and more often detrimental.
There is little doubt that dinosaurs once roamed the earth. The fossil record gives clear evidence of their existence. Many theories have been put forward to explain their disappearance, but not even the evolutionists have come up with any agreed authoritative conclusion.
Dinosaurs would have gone into the Ark with Noah because we are told that all varieties of animals were included. The earth underwent major environmental changes as a result of the flood, and it is very likely that many animals (including dinosaurs) could not cope with the new environment and eventually became extinct as a result.
The Behemoth and Leviathan, both referred to in the Old Testament, may well have been varieties of dinosaurs.
A major global catastrophe took place when the earth was flooded at the time of Noah, and geological evidence suggests that the continents and oceans underwent massive movements. The large amounts of mud and moving sediment would have provided ideal conditions for fossilisation. Places have been found in the world where large numbers of dinosaur fossils are gathered together in a localised area, suggesting that they got caught up in some sort of sudden global catastrophe. Also there is no certain method of dating fossils (see section on radioactive dating).
According to geologists, the newer life forms are fossilised in the higher and supposedly newer layers of rocks. Look at it another way – in the event of the flood, the mammals would have been more able to run to the mountain tops than the more sluggish reptiles, and the fish would not have climbed the mountains at all!
We are told in Genesis Chapter 1 that God created all living things according to their kinds. This view agrees fully with the fossil record. Billions of fossils have been found and virtually all without exception relate to specific categories of life forms (e.g. fish, reptiles, mammals); even the odd ones that could feasibly belong to an intermediate form can still be categorised one way or another. According to concept of evolution however, life gradually progressed from one form to another. If this were true then we would expect to find plenty of intermediate life forms in the fossil record, and yet this is simply just not the case.
Geologists use radioactive dating techniques to estimate the age of rocks and fossils. These are based on the concept that the rocks contain a small concentration of a radioactive substance which decays at a fixed rate. As it decays, the concentration of radioactive atoms decreases, with a corresponding proportional decrease in the level of emitted radiation. The level of radiation in a rock or fossil will therefore (supposedly) provide a measure of its age.
I remember being taught about radioactive dating by my physics teacher at school, long before I had ever considered questions of creation versus evolution. Even at that time I asked myself the question as to how could one possibly know how much radioactivity was in the substance to start with.
A living organism (plant or animal) is constantly interacting with its environment and one can reasonably assume that the level of radioactivity in the organism will be dictated by the corresponding levels in its surroundings. On fossilisation, this interaction with the environment will be frozen and an observable decay process will then set in. If we know the levels of radiation in the environment at the outset, then theoretically we can determine the age of a rock or fossil.
It has to be stressed however that such techniques are based on the fundamental assumption that the levels of radioactivity in the environment have always been the same. Can we really be sure that this is the case?
If for any reason, radiation levels were once lower than they are today, then rocks and fossils would appear to be older than they really are. This fits in with the Biblical account of creation and can be explained by the fact that major ecological changes would have taken place at the time of the Flood.
Genetic information in all living things is stored in a substance known as DNA (deoxy-ribonucleic acid). This is a giant molecular structure built up of four small basic building blocks. The patterns created by the sequence of these building blocks define the actual genetic information. The DNA is organised into genes, each one defining a given attribute of the living organism. Genes are highly complex and interact with each other in a highly complex manner.
The Theory of Evolution relies of the concepts of genetic mutations (random changes to the structure of genes) and natural selection (survival of the fittest). For this to work the mutations would have to be of a constructive nature. In other words they would have to create new information in order to produce an increasing complexity of life forms. It is known that in practice almost any genetic mutation will be ineffective or even destructive (i.e. produce harmful results). Supporters of evolution argue that the process has succeeded merely because it has had such a vast amount of time to take place. Realistically, the laws of statistical probability are quite simply against it.
Consider an organ as complicated as an eye or an ear (let alone a human brain!). Such would take many thousands of separate genetic mutations to become perfected. For evolution to be successfully accomplished, every single step would have to survive and be favoured by the natural selection process. This is simply not going to be the case in practice.
Looking at the complexity of life on earth, it can surely only be the work of a super-intelligent creator!
No-one has been around for the thousands or millions of years necessary to have witnessed the origin of the earth or the universe. Whilst this may seem a ridiculous statement of the obvious, it is nevertheless one way of saying that we cannot conclusively prove how the universe came into being. Unable to do so, that leaves us with the task of having to look at the evidence available and build a scientific model that fits the facts. If more than one model is possible then we have to decide on our starting point.
On the whole matter of origins a key question when determining our starting point must be that of “Am I going to include or exclude God within my thinking?”. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that this is a moral decision rather than a scientific one? Even so it is a question that has got to be asked.
Popular teaching and belief may lead us to think that the evolutionist approach is the only one. The fact of the matter is however that there has been much bona fide scientific research done from a creationist point of view and a scientific model based on creation does exist. We’re just not told about it.
Please take a look at some of the other pages to see some specific issues addressed.
The Big Bang and the Theory of Evolution have been widely accepted as popular belief within today’s society, with the Biblical account of creation being written off as a mere myth. Yet many people must have at some point asked the question “could it really have all just happened by chance?”.
If you have ever questioned the issues of creation and evolution, you may find the facts and ideas here of interest, many of which are not widely known. Perhaps the Biblical account of creation is not so unscientific after all. These pages provide only a very brief introduction to the subject, but if you a really interested and wish to study it in more depth, then please take a look at the links page, which provides access to excellent resources.