Contrasting Views of Reality

The Macro-Evolution Framework of History:

In the beginning, something exploded (we really don’t know what, how, or where it came from) and our current universe slowly formed and cooled. The rock surface of earth dissolved to form a chemical soup which somehow formed the first self-replicating cell. This cell somehow adapted itself to its environment, becoming more and more complex with time. Billions of years passed as useful information was added to the chemical blueprint of simple organisms causing the variety of life forms to increase. The end result is the current diversity of life we see all around us. Thus, what we are really being taught is that rocks (or basic elements) somehow turned into people.

As shown in previous articles, the commonly proposed evolution mechanisms simply do not explain how life could develop. Mutations are random mistakes which demonstrably do not add useful information to the DNA molecule. Natural selection can only select that which is already present in an animal’s genetic code. And despite enormous efforts in laboratories all over the world, it has never been shown how chemicals could be mixed together and “come alive”. Thus, evolution is firmly based on faith in future discoveries… not current observations.

The Biblical Framework of History:

This framework acknowledges four major interventions by God into history. The first is the instantaneous creation of the universe and diverse forms of life. The second is the curse of this creation in response to the disobedience of the only organisms created with free will (mankind). The third is a worldwide flood as judgment for the almost total rebellion of humanity. The last was God’s appearance on earth as Jesus Christ in order to deal with the human sin problem. This framework is also based on faith.

The evidence supporting the first three interventions of God is either ignored or undermined by our public education system. Is it any surprise that the reality of the fourth major intervention by God often seems to have little relevance in our children’s lives?

True Science Points to the Correct View

The rocks don’t talk. No fossil has ever been uncovered with a label attached. All must be interpreted within a framework. An evolution geologist and a creation geologist shown the same rock or fossil will arrive at a different conclusion concerning its origin and age. They will interpret the data based on the framework which they believe to be true. Yet they can not both be right. The best way to determine who is correct is to see how many contradictions arise from interpreting data within each framework. An example of this is the black shales of the Hartford rock formation in Connecticut. Evolution geologists commonly interpret these rocks as forming from plant and animal sediments slowly collecting at the bottom of a deep lake.1 Creation geologists interpret this deposit as the result of a rapid deposit of sediment during the worldwide flood which has subsequently turned to stone. Interestingly, portions of this formation contain hundreds of well preserved and tightly packed fish fossils per cubic meter of shale. This is what would be expected from a catastrophic burial but does not match the observations of slow settling at the bottom of a deep lake or shallow sea. Dead fish can occasionally settle and be well preserved but not in the tightly packed manner observed in this formation. To re-interpret this entire formation as a catastrophic deposit would upset the entire uniformitarian foundation of geology. Therefore, the sediments continue to be interpreted in a way which does not match observations. John Whitmore lists many other examples of evidence for the catastrophic nature of the Hartford formation.2

1. McDonald, N.G., “Paleontology of the Mesozoic Rocks of the Conn. Valley”, State Geo. and Natural History Survey of Conn. , 1982.

2. Whitmore, John, “The Hartford Basin of Central Conn.: Multiple evidences of Catastrophism”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference On Creationism, 1990