How does the collapse of the theory of evolution demonstrate the truth of creation?

Question

WHEN we ask how life on Earth emerged, we find two different answers:


One is that living things emerged by evolution. According to the theory of evolution, which makes this claim, life began with the first cell, which itself emerged by chance or by some hypothetical natural laws of "self-organization." Again as a result of chance and natural laws, this living cell developed and evolved, and by taking on different forms gave rise to the millions of species of life on Earth.

The second answer is "Creation." All living things came into existence by being created by an intelligent Creator. When life and the millions of forms it takes, which could not possibly have come into existence by chance, were first created, they had the same complete, flawless, and superior design that they possess today. The fact that even the simplest-looking forms of life possess such complex structures and systems that could never have come about by chance and natural conditions is a clear proof of thi

Outside these two alternatives, there is no third claim or hypothesis today regarding how life emerged. According to the rules of logic, if one answer to a question with two alternative possible answers is proved to be false, then the other must be true. This rule, one of the most fundamental in logic, is called disjunctive inference (modus tollendo ponens).

In other words, if it is demonstrated that living species on Earth did not evolve by chance, as the theory of evolution claims, then that is clear proof that they were formed by a Creator. Scientists who support the theory of evolution agree that there is no third alternative. One of these, Douglas Futuyma, makes the following statement:

"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." (Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial, Pantheon Books, New York, 1983, p. 197)

The fossil record provides the answer to the evolutionist Futuyma. The science of fossils (paleontology) shows that all living groups emerged on Earth at different times, all at once, and perfectly formed.

All the discoveries from excavations and studies over the last hundred years or so show that, contrary to evolutionists' expectations, living things came into existence suddenly, in perfect and flawless form, in other words that they were "created." Bacteria, protozoa, worms, molluscs, and other invertebrate sea creatures, arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all appeared suddenly, with complex organs and systems. There are no fossils that show any so-called "transition" between them. Paleontology bears the same message as other branches of science: Living things did not evolve, but were created. As a result, while evolutionists were trying to prove their unrealistic theory, they by their own hands produced proof of creation.

Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries:

Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected. (Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25. (emphasis added)

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION TEARS UP THE EVOLUTIONARY "TREE OF LIFE"
The illustration is taken from The Book of Life, published in 2001 under the editorship of the late Stephen Jay Gould, one of the world's most prominent evolutionists. The illustration explains which different groups of animals emerged in which periods. On the left, the various geological periods are listed, starting 2,500 million years ago. The coloured columns show the major phyla of animals. (The colours in the columns refer to different periods.) When we examine this figure, the miracle of the Cambrian Explosion is obvious. There is only one phylum before the Cambrian Age (the Cnidaria, which include jellyfish and corals). In the Cambrian Age, however, 13 completely different phyla suddenly emerged. This picture is the opposite of the theory of evolution, because evolution maintains that living phyla increased in stages, like the branches of a tree. The evolutionists who drew up the figure try to gloss over this

Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes the contradiction between this paleontological truth and Darwinism:

Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing. (Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in Darwinism: Science or Philosophy by Buell Hearn, Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12. (emphasis added)

As Phillip Johnson has revealed, far from its being the case that phyla came about by stages, in reality they all came into being at once, and some of them even became extinct in later periods. The meaning of the emergence of very different living creatures all of a sudden and perfectly formed, is creation, as evolutionist Futuyma has also accepted. As we have seen, all the available scientific discoveries disprove the claims of the theory of evolution and reveal the truth of creation.

According to Darwinism, life must be like a tree, with a common root, subsequently splitting up into different branches. And this hypothesis is constantly emphasized in Darwinist sources, where the concept of the "tree of life" is frequently employed. According to this tree concept, one phylum must first emerge, and then the other phyla must slowly come about with minute changes over very long periods of time.


Many complex invertebrates such as starfish and jellyfish emerged suddenly some 500 million years ago with no so-called evolutionary ancestor before them. In other words, they were created. They were no different from those alive today.

That is the theory of evolution's claim. But is this really how it happened?

Definitely not. Quite the contrary, animals have been very different and complex since the moment they first emerged. All the animal phyla known today emerged at the same time, in the middle of the geological period known as the Cambrian Age. The Cambrian Age is a geological period estimated to have lasted some 65 million years, approximately between 570 to 505 million years ago. But the period of the abrupt appearance of major animal groups fit in an even shorter phase of the Cambrian, often referred to as the "Cambrian explosion." Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, in an article based on a detailed literature survey, dated 2001, note that the "Cambrian explosion occurred within an exceedingly narrow window of geologic time, lasting no more than 5 million years." (Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, 2001, p. 2. (This piece has been updated and gone to print as part of an anthology by Michigan State University Press)

Answer 1

1. It is not true that thre are only two, necessarily exclusive possibilities. For example, other possibilities that are consistent with a Creator *and* with Evolution:
- The Creator created the universe with laws designed to make both the emergence of life, and its evolution possible, if not inevitable.
- The Creator directly initiated life, but did not interfere with evolution.
- The Creator initiated evolution, and directed it at some, or perhaps all critical points.
- What appears as "random chance" is actually determined by the Creator.

2. Even if there really were only two known alternatives (which there are not), and even if evolution was disproved (which it is not), that does not relieve you of the burden to show evidence for Creationism before you can claim its truth.

You are trying to catch a free ride for creationism on the rigorous scientific testing of evolution. By claiming that such scientific testing has somehow "disproved" evolution (a claim that almost no scientist would agree with), you are trying to say that creationism is relieved of similar testing ... that it can be considered true without evidence, just because evolution fails. That is pure bogosity.

3. "The science of fossils (paleontology) shows that all living groups emerged on Earth at different times, all at once, and perfectly formed."

?? I think you are mispeaking ... did it emerge "at different times" or "all at once"? I think you are trying to say "all at once" ... and in which case I think you are smoking something.

4. You are contradicting yourself with your Cambrian Explosion example. On the one hand you are saying that 13 phyla emerged during the Cambrian Age, but missing the point that the animal kingdom alone has over 34 phyla ... so you are admitting (without realizing it) that the vast majority of phyla did *not* appear during the Cambrian age, but either before it or after it. So much for "sudden" or "all at once."

5. The Cambrian Age was (as you say) a period of duration of 65 *million* years. The fact that 13 new phyla appeared during this 65-million year period is amazing, and "sudden" by geological standards ... but if you think that this is the same as "sudden" in the Creationist sense, you are really not understanding the implications of your own statements. You are basically admitting that these 13 new phyla appeared over a 65-million-year period ... surprising ... but *far* from representing a "collapse of the theory of evolution."

6. Phillip Johnson is a professor of law ... not a scientist. So I don't know why you announce with pride that he is " one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism." It just shows that the biggest critics of Darwinism are non-scientists.

7. "According to this tree concept, one phylum must first emerge, and then the other phyla must slowly come about with minute changes over very long periods of time."

Why? There is absolutely no reason that a new branch on the tree cannot be the beginning of an entire new phyla, or that other similar phyla-starting branches cannot happen within a "short" period of time (65 million years).

8. "Many complex invertebrates such as starfish and jellyfish emerged suddenly some 500 million years ago with no so-called evolutionary ancestor before them. In other words, they were created."

Again, "suddenly" means within a 65 million year timespan. But regardless, the facts you are referencing quite clearly point out that *something* happened 500 million years ago. Whether it was spontaneous creation, or evolution too fast to be captured fully in the fossil record ... either way this happened (by the facts *you* are presenting) 500 million years ago. Not 6,000 years ago, which is what extremist creationists claim. And this was certainly not the *only* act of creation ... as starfish (and the other 12 phyla you are referring to) are only a subset of the total number of phyla that now exist.

So perhaps you are saying that the Creator has been spontaneously creating new species and phyla in their current form for the last 4 billion years.

But don't for a second think that the Cambrian Explosion describes a "sudden" appearance of *ALL* living organisms.

9. I'll wait to read Nelson and Chien's paper before commenting on it. But even if they feel there is fossil evidence that the Cambrian Explosion occurred during a period of only 5 million years, I would be very surprised, but I would still not consider this "sudden" ... or a "collapse of the theory of evolution." As a matter of perspective, the human species is about 200,000 years old at most. 5 million years is an incredibly short amount of time in geologic terms ... but it is far from "sudden" in the sense meant by Creationism.

Summary: You are cherry-picking your facts (and your quotes), and as a result, you are missing the overall science and the timelines involved. There are scientists who eat, live, and breathe this stuff and they are not likely to overlook something as glaring as the Cambrian Explosion if it *really* disproved evolution.

Look at the Cambrian Explosion in context ... a 65 million year period amongst 4,000 million years of fossil evidence of evolution. To make the case for Creationism, you would have to show that not only a lot of species suddently appeared during the Cambrian Explosion ... but *ALL* of them ... from trilobytes to Tyrannosaurs, from sponges to giant sloths, from nematodes to humans. *ALL* of them.

Answer 2

"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not."

What the heck!? Whoever said that is so wrong! If that guy has a degree from a university, the university should "ungraduate" him.

Let's say I have 20 coins. Either they all come up heads, or they don't. Right? GUESS WHAT! The "all" and "don't" aren't equally likely, and there are lots and lots of different states of "don't."

Answer 3

Logical fallacy. Even if the theory of evolution collapsed fully tomorrow, not one scintilla of " the demonstration of the truth of creation " would be forth coming.

Your ignorance is embarrassing to even contemplate. Go hide your delusional self in shame!

Answer 4

There are many variations to the theories... if one or two is "proven" wrong, it doesn't make creation proven right by default.

Answer 5

Creation is not an answer. It's a part of your religious belief.