Creation vs. Evolution

What is the Better Explanation?

Hi. My name is Bill Morgan. I am a Registered Mechanical Engineer and I love science and learning about science. I have been studying the Creation vs. Evolution for several years and have made this text file to present a clear, easy to understand case for Creation. This case for Creation will be built using science. Whether you are a Christian, an agnostic, or a convinced atheist, I feel you should check out the enclosed information on this very important topic. I feel every one has a right to believe whatever they want. However, I think it is a shame that many people dismiss belief in God as "unscientific," or "superstitious" without ever hearing its case. I have taught several classes on this topic and a common response is: "Why haven't I ever heard this information before?" Many people will say you never heard this information before because it is unscientific and has no place in science education. Some people will say you never heard this before because the schools and media are biased against the conclusions that are drawn by presenting Creation Science. My advice is for you to decide for yourself! When I get a chance to teach at a college, I start off my presentation with the following: "Do not believe a word I am about to tell you, but listen to what I tell you, think about it, test it and then decide for yourself if you believe it or not. If you ever believe something simply because someone told you to believe it, you have not been educated, you have been indoctrinated. But if a case is presented to you, and then you test it and find it to be valid, and then believe it, you have been educated. I was never encouraged to test the Theory of Evolution and dig into its details. But I encourage you to test the Creation model I am about to present. Test it against what the Theory of Evolution has to offer, and then you decide what to believe. I am confident that the scientific data convincingly supports Creation. Unfortunately too many people have made their conclusion on this subject based on emotion or peer pressure, and not the scientific data." I would also like to provide to you with some free books. The books I will send to you are what I consider to be the best books regarding this subject. Naturally I need some kind of address. I promise I will not put you on any mailing list, or show up at your door. It will be the only time I mail anything to that address unless you request more mail. If you do not want to give me your address please e mail me or call me at (714) 898-8331 or BILLYJACK6@AOL.COM and somehow we can get those books to you some other way. Perhaps through a school or work address.


Creation Model: What we observe today is the result of intelligent design, intelligent planning and purpose. A designer and planner used means beyond the natural laws of science (supernatural). Matter, energy and life originated at a point in time and originated from a supernatural source. Plants and animals are offspring of parents of the same kind, they do not have a common ancestor. Plants and animals were created instantly. Humans were created instantly as humans as male and female, humans are not related to apes. Evolution Model: What we observe today is the result of chance events and long periods of time. There is no design and thus no designer behind anything in the Universe. Everything originated by way of natural processes subject to the natural laws of science over billions of years. The idea of supernatural intervention is rejected. Plants and animals are offspring from a common ancestor. (Note: a few evolutionists say God used Evolution. When I say "evolutionist" in this paper, I imply people who deny God's existence. However for Theistic evolutionists, this paper intends to demonstrate that if God did use evolution to create, there is no scientific evidence that He did).













1) Design.

In my opinion, the Universe is clearly the result of intelligent design, plan and purpose. The Universe is incredibly orderly and complex. This is not the result of chance natural events, it is the result of an intelligent designer. Consider the microscopic world of the atom with the precise mass ratio of the electron to the proton, or consider the large domain of our solar system with the precise masses and orbits of the planets. Consider photosynthesis, human reproduction, hearts, lungs, livers, kidneys, eyes etc. The conclusion that these complex systems are result of an intelligent designer requires much less faith than the idea it arose by time and chance. I have read a lot of evolutionist literature, and I have never seen an explanation of how complex organs & systems evolved. THINK! How could something like human reproduction have evolved? How did half the population evolve male systems, and the other half evolve female systems that work together so precisely and in such incredible complexity to produce a baby? Mt. Rushmore, as you probably know, consists of the facial images of four ex Presidents on the side of a mountain. Suppose a tour guide told his tour group that those faces are "the result of billions of years of nature, such as glaciers, lighting and erosion." How long would the tour guide keep his job? What would the tour group think? He'd be fired by lunch time and his tour group would think he was insane! Those images obviously required planning, design and an artist. Suppose an anatomy teacher at your school taught that human faces are "the result of billions of years of nature, such as mutations, natural selection etc." How long would this anatomy professor keep his job? He would feel very secure in his job and might make Dean! The anatomy professor who taught that the human body appears to be the result of an intelligent design, is the one that potentially would be fired. Look at your computer. Suppose I tried to convince you that a glass factory, a plastic factory, a metal factory, a paint factory, and a silicon factory all exploded, started on fired and mixed together. The result of this explosion, chemical reaction and time was your computer. You would never believe it. Your intellect and logic would cause you to passionately deny an explanation that an explosion and mixing of chemicals and time could ever produce something as functional and orderly like a computer. Don't let anyone convince you that your body is the end product of an explosion, the mixing of chemicals and time. Your body is infinitely more complex than your computer, that is because it was made by a smarter designer!

2) The First Law of Thermodynamics

QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET HERE? Ask an atheist to explain how they think the Universe originated. Did all the energy and matter in the Universe create itself by natural processes? The First Law states energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. Atheist beliefs contradict this basic law of science. Creationists argue that energy and matter had a supernatural origin. This position does require faith, but it is in conjunction with the First Law and thus requires less faith than the atheist's position that it created itself from nothing. Imagine that I could create a very special box. This box is sealed so that nothing can enter it from the outside, and there is nothing inside the box to begin with. If we came back to that box in 20 billion years, would there be anything inside of it? The First Law of Thermo says there will be nothing inside of that box. Matter and energy do not appear from nothing. An atheist may say that since this entire Universe came from self created matter and self created energy, it is possible an entire Universe may exist in that box.

3) The Second Law of Thermodynamics

QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET SO ORDERLY? HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET SO MUCH USEFUL ENERGY? Question for atheists...did all the energy and matter in the Universe increase in complexity and order on its own? The Second Law states that in a closed system (like the Universe, the earth is not a closed system) over time, energy will become less available, systems will become more disordered and entropy will increase. This Law explains that the Universe is running out of available energy (energy that can do work, like gasoline, the heat produced by gasoline's use is energy...but it can't do any work). To believe the Universe originated as a compact bundle of matter that expanded (Big Bang), and created an orderly, energy filled Universe violates the Second Law. Creationists believe a supernatural entity, working outside the natural laws of science gave order and available energy to the Creation. This requires faith, but much less faith than the belief that order and available energy appeared by chance.

4) Biogenesis

QUESTION: HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE? Remember some of your Biology classes? Early in the semester the teacher taught you that spontaneous generation was impossible (Spontaneous generation was a belief that life originated from nonliving things). People used to believe that bacteria could originate from broth, that rats could originate from garbage and maggots could originate from rotting meat. Over 130 years ago, Louis Pasteur conducted experiments that demonstrated the folly of spontaneous generation. Later in the semester your teacher taught you evolution. Allow me to quote from a current Biology text book: "Life cannot arise by spontaneous generation from inanimate material today, so far as we know, but conditions were very different when Earth was only a billions years old. In that ancient environment, the origin of life was evidently possible and it is likely that at least the early stages of biological inception were inevitable." Campbell, Neil; "Biology," 1987, page 504. Do you see what this author did? He admitted spontaneous generation is impossible today, but he puts his faith in the belief that the early earth had different conditions in order for life to originate from inanimate material. Statements similar to the one in Neil Campbell's text are very intellectually dishonest. Any person seeking scientific explanations to difficult questions should not accept an explanation that clearly violates a law of science in order to uphold a person's bias. Mr. Campbell knows Biogenesis presents a very significant stumbling block to his pro-evolution faith, since scientific (observed) knowledge tells us that life does not arise from dead matter. When his text brings him to explaining life's origin what does he tell the students? He starts by telling them the truth that life does not arise from dead things today, but billions of years ago life arise from dead things was "evidently possible and "inevitable." Decide for yourself, but I feel Neil Campbell when confronted with a scientific law that contradicts his world view (perhaps atheistic), would rather violate the scientific law than acknowledge that supernatural intervention is a possible explanation for the origin of life. What Mr. Campbell wrote is not education, it is not science, it is Neil Campbell's biased unscientific opinion. I encourage you, though, to decide for yourself. The origin of life question is covered in detail in Dr. Mark Eastman's book "The Creator Beyond Time and Space," which I will mail to you if I get an address from you. Many people think life was once created in a test tube from chemicals and energy in the 1950's. This is known as the Miller-Urey experiment (which is covered in detail in Eastman's book). Here is what occurred. They sparked ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water, condensed it, and ran it through a trap (do you think the early earth had traps and condensers? The samples had to be isolated from the spark because a second spark would have destroyed any molecules that were formed). The results of these experiments were mostly tar and carboxylic acid, but a few amino acids were formed. Amino acids may be called the building blocks of life. But it is either gross ignorance or a lie to say they created life in this experiment. Life requires many things. Long amino acids chains make proteins...chains in the proper order and shape. Miller's experiment did NOT produce any chains. Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. Never have chains of DNA or RNA been produced. A cell membrane has never been produced. The faith that even one protein arose by chance is tremendous. Lets look at statistics. Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids, just like a train is made up of box cars. A chain of box cars makes up a train. A chain of amino acids makes up a protein. Humans have 20 different types of amino acids that make up our proteins, and the average human protein is 400 amino acids long. Remember, the arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk. Imagine many box cars at a train station, and these box cars are made up of twenty different colors. The owner of the station tells you he wants a train to be 400 box cars long, and you are to pick the combination of colored box cars, but if it is not the order he has in mind (and he didn't tell you it) he will fire you. What are the odds you will get the box cars in the right order? They are the same odds the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one protein in you. The odds are 20 to the 400th power! This is the same as 10 to the 520th power, that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros! You have better odds of winning California Super Lotto every week for 11 years than the odds of one protein in your body having the amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are really much worse because the amino acids must be left handed, they must form a chain "in series," no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you need an oxygen free environment, etc etc. And remember, this is for just one protein. Your body has countless trillions of proteins. The model that a brilliant designer made proteins requires much less faith than to trust random chance and natural processes.

5) Living Animals

QUESTION: IS CREATION OR EVOLUTION SUPPORTED BY WHAT IS OBSERVED IN LIVING ANIMALS? The Creation Model predicts animals will reproduce after their own kind. The Evolution Model predicts that all plants and animals came from a common ancestor. What is observed every day with living animals? Your parents were human, your grandparents were human.....etc, etc etc..that is what is observed and recorded. Dogs make dogs, hogs make hogs, frogs make frogs, cats make cats, rats make rats (especially in New York) bats make bats. Every birth since recorded time has supported the creation model. The foundation for science is observation. What is observed? The Creation model is what is observed, animals producing their own kind.

6) Dead Animals (Fossils)


Creation Model Prediction: The fossils will be as easy to classify as living forms of plants and animals. There will be variation within forms, but no transitional evidence of invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal. The characteristics of the fossils will be stasis (stay the same) and sudden appearance (no transitional forms).

Evolution Model Prediction: The fossils will show the stages through which one type of animal or plant changed into a different type. Fossils should show the in between characteristics of presumed common ancestors (a leg becoming a wing, a scale becoming a feather). A series of links would be expected to be seen in fossils.

Some quotes for you:

"No real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution over creation." {Quote by Mark Ridley, zoologist, New Science magazine, June 1981 page 831.}

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, June-July 1977, page 22.

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History Magazine, May 1977, page 14.

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts, Evolution Magazine, September 1974, page 467.

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution..." Steven Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, 1979, page 39.

"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." E.J. Corner, Botany Professor, in "Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, "1961 page 97.

"The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes." J.R. Norman, "A History of Fishes," 1975, page 343.

"The origin of rodents is transitional forms are known." A.S. Romer, "Vertebrate Paleontology," 1966, page 303.

"The [evolutionary] transition to the first mammal still an enigma." Roger Lewin, Science Magazine, 26 June 1981, page 1492.

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin." Dr. Lyall Watson, Science Digest, May 1982, page 44.

The above quotes are all from evolutionists!

There is a book entitled "The Revised Quote Book," which has over one hundred referenced quotes from evolutionists falsifying their own theory. This book and many other books and videos on this subject, applicable for all ages and can be procured by calling the Institute for Creation Research (619) 448-0900. (I don't work for them, I just am happy to provide you with a resource for more information).

CHALLENGE: The next time you see a case made for a human ancestor, determine what the actual fossil evidence is, and then decide for yourself if the conclusions fit the data. Recently from a piece of one shin bone, the "scientists" told us what this "ancestor" looked like, how he lived, where he lived and how long ago he lived. Decide for yourself if you think that a piece of one shin bon can objectively tell you that much information, or is it someone's imagination that takes a little data (one shin bone) and turns it into a human ancestor or a "missing link." (Remember, there is a great variety within a species. A pro football player has bigger thicker shin bones than a child, but they are both human).


QUESTION: IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, WHICH THEORY DO YOU BELIEVE IN? It is true that there a couple of different Creation theories circulating today. Some people think God used evolution to create. Some believe in two creations, (the Gap Theory). Both of these ideas are new, unbiblical and unscientific (they do not comply with observable evidence). The literal account of Genesis (what I believe) is thousands of years old and has not changed for thousands of years. It is also true that just because many theories may exist to explain something, does not mean that every explanation is false. The general point of the Theory of Evolution is that life originated as single celled organisms and over time became all the living things we see today. All evolutionists seem to agree with that. The science end of that conclusion is the mechanism. It is with the science end that the evolutionists disagree vehemently with each other. My teachers never told me that the "scientists" disagreed on the mechanism of evolution, I had always been lead to feel comfortable that the "scientists" agreed on how evolution occurred. However the students and public are never told about these conflicts. It is similar to a family fight being kept private. However I feel the ramifications are so important, that all students should be told about it. Students should ask their instructor: "Which Theory of Evolution are you teaching us?" Remember, the science of Evolution is the mechanism. Mechanism #1 was Darwin's, also know as Darwinian Evolution or Gradualism, or think of "slow" evolution. Darwin proposed animals evolved into other animals by small, gradual steps. There are two problems with this, no living evidence and no fossil evidence (as previously discussed). Many evolutionists recognize this problem.

One evolutionist who recognizes this very problem is Stephen Jay Gould, a Professor of Geology at Harvard, and perhaps the most prominent evolutionist in the United States. Dr. Gould and others had one of three choices to make regarding the empirical evidence:

1) Hold onto Gradualism despite the lack of evidence to support it.

2) Accept the Genesis account that an intelligent designer instantly created plants and animals and these plants and animals would reproduce after their own kind.

3) Reject Gradualism and come up with a new theory.

What do you think they chose? If you guess #3 you are correct. A new Theory arose. This Theory is called "Punctual Equilibrium," a big long scary word that means the changes happened too fast to be observed. If you inquire into this, be ready to be "comforted" by the response: "you must in Evolutionary terms can be millions of years." But don't lose focus! Whether these "fast" changes occurred over one million or four billion years, they were still unobserved. The foundation of science is observation. The punctuated equilibria camp admit there is no observational evidence to support their belief. Their presupposed conclusion drives them to gloss over observational evidence. They will not allow anything, including evidence, to falsify their belief that the Theory of Evolution is truth. A third Theory of Evolution is that God used Evolution to create. These people have the same science problems the atheists observational evidence. They have even more problems (if their God is the God of the Bible). There are no verses to support their belief. They typically will say Genesis is not literal, and explain the original Hebrew supports this. Unfortunately for them, the original Hebrews took it literally and so did hundreds of generations of Hebrew scholars after them. These people should not be so quick to twist a clear message by interpreting what it says in the Hebrew, when the Hebrew experts would disagree with them. My opinion is that peer pressure resulted in these people's conclusions more than an in depth study of the Hebrew language.


QUESTION: IS THERE ANY CAUSE FOR THE UNIVERSE, OR FOR YOU? Cause and effect is the most basic scientific principle. It is fundamental to all branches of science as well as philosophy. Cause and effect is the principle that an event which is observed, can be traced to an event that preceded it. For example, an observed event (an effect) could be a house, the cause is a place to live. An observed event could be a painting, the cause is beauty or expression. Creationists trace the entire Universe to a "First Cause," God. Atheists say there was not a "First Cause," for the Universe. Isn't it curious that Evolutionary Scientists accept the principle of cause and effect EXCEPT when it comes to origins? An Evolutionary Scientist would argue that there was a cause for a chair, but not for a human being.

9) Extinction, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest

QUESTION: EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ARE FACTS, DO THESE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION? Extinction does NOT support the Theory of Evolution. It is the opposite path for evolution. It is the path creation would predict. The Theory of Evolution model would have validity by showing natural process producing new animals, not eliminating existing animals. The Creation model would have validity if natural processes do not produce new kinds of animals. Extinction does not falsify the Creation model. What do we observe? Many animal kinds going extinct, no new animal kinds emerging. Lets look at the two models again and their beliefs. Evolutionists believe life started as one animal (like an amoebae) and favorable environmental conditions produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species! Creationists believe hundreds of thousands of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time, and unfavorable environments has reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more logical and which model better fits observed events. Natural Selection is a true concept. Natural selection makes good traits dominant but does not produce new animal kinds. Natural selection does not produce new species, families, orders, or classes of plants and animals. Imagine someone having 10 children in smoggy Los Angeles. Suppose eight of the kids have lungs that can't filter the smog effectively, and they do not reach an age where they can reproduce, but two kids do have stronger lungs that allows them to reach reproducing ages. Their genes will be exhibited in future generations. But that gene pool is still in human beings. Natural selection does emphasize the better genetic characteristics in a population, but it does not produce new animal kinds. Survival of the fittest is a simplistic term that everyone should admit is correct. The term is simply an equation or a definition. For example, it is equal to my saying "bachelors are single men." If you are a single man, you are a bachelor...if you are a bachelor you are a single man. Regarding "survival of the fittest," if an animal is surviving, that means it is fit for its environment, if an animal is fit for its environment that means it will survive. If a plane load of circus animals is forced to land in Alaska in the winter, the lions, elephants, zebras and giraffes will soon be history. But the penguins and polar bears live, no problem. That is an example of survival of the fittest. However, for validity to be given to the Theory of Evolution, the lions would not die, but begin producing new kinds of animals, that can live there. The problem is, if you are unfit you die, and you can't evolve when you are dead.

10). The requirements for life

QUESTION: DO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION? Lets compare life to a computer. Computers must have proper hardware (monitors, disk drives, keyboards) and proper software (information) in order to operate. Likewise life at the cellular level requires "hardware" (amino acids and nucleic acids) and "software" (amino acids in the proper sequence to make proteins, and nucleic acids in the right sequence to make DNA). Much could be written about the incredible complexity of proteins and DNA and how unsatisfactory "chance and time" are in explaining its origin. THINK! For the computer example, even if you had the proper hardware and the proper software, would you have a functional computer? No, because you need a source of power for the system to operate. Now lets look at life. Suppose there was a dead dog lying next to a living dog. How would someone who believed only in the material world (denying the existence of anything metaphysical they are called "materialists) explain what the difference is between the dead dog and the living dog?" The unfortunate dead dog has all the proper materials. It has the proper hardware (DNA, proteins, organs, bones etc), and it has the proper software (its DNA and amino acids are properly sequenced). But the dog is dead. Why? Creationists maintain there is more to life than chemicals, energy and biology. There is a metaphysical or spiritual side to life similar to the power source of computers.

TWO "TRICKS" EVOLUTIONISTS USE TO MAKE THEIR THEORY APPEAR TO BE SOUND Again, let me remind you to decide for yourself when you read what I say. However, I feel if you look for these two "tricks," the Theory of Evolution will lose a lot of its validity.

TRICK #1 Be on the alert for the incredible faith the evolutionist has in time. Time is vital to their theory. Ask an evolutionist how did reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took "millions of years," how did fish become amphibians, "it took millions of years." Whenever you probe an evolutionist with questions, they will quickly rely on time. Do not expect fossil evidence, biological answers, just a hand wave and a tremendous faith in time. But is their "time" explanation satisfactory? No, it is a confession the processes they profess to believe in did occur, but they are not observed. The evidence was lost in those eons of time. There are two explanations why there is no evidence for fish evolving into reptiles: either it never happened and thus there is no evidence (Creation); or it did happen but the evidence is missing due to time (Evolution). Does time lead to increased complexity in chemical reactions or systems? No (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics). For a system to increase in complexity it does not just need energy, it needs the proper type and quantity of energy. If you put a leaf on a driveway and expose it to the sun, it will dry up and whither, not become more complex. When I was four, my mom tucked me into bed and told me that a long time ago, in a place far away there was a frog. A princess kissed this frog, and it instantly turned into a prince. She told me a fairy tale. In Biology, they told me that a long time ago, in an unknown place there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the amphibian became a mammal. The first story is a fairy tale because a kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as science because "millions of years" turned the amphibian into a mammal. Supposedly believing that time (and not a kiss) can turn an amphibian into a mammal makes it "science."

TRICK #2 If someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I do not answer yes, and I do not answer no, I ask them "What do you mean when you say evolution?" Become aware of how the use of the word "evolution" is used. What does the word "evolution" mean? It simply means change. Does change happen? Absolutely. If you changed your sox within the past month you could say you evolved. But does that degree of change support the Theory of Evolution? Lets explore that thought. In item #9 of the list, we showed that natural selection and survival of the fittest are true phenomena. Change happens within species all the time. But for the Theory of Evolution to have merit there must be evidence for new species, families, orders, classes and phyla. For example, teachers will often say that evidence for evolution is the fact that people are taller today than they were 500 years ago. Is that "evolution?" Well it is change, but does it support the Theory of Evolution? No, because they were people then and they are people now, no species change. Or a teacher will say England had many light colored moths and few dark moths when England was unpolluted (due to camouflage advantages). After England became polluted, the population of the dark moths increased and the light moths decreased. Is that "evolution?" Well, it is a change in the population density, but it does not support the Theory of Evolution because there was no species change. You started with light moths and dark moths, and you ended up with light and dark moths. and few dark moths. If you mention this to an evolutionist they will go to trick #1 and say "well taken over millions of years the new kinds of animals will emerge. Creationists often say they believe in "microevolution (change within a species) but not macroevolution (one species becoming a new species). Or Creationists may say they believe in horizontal evolution (change within a species) but not vertical evolution (new species emerging and old ones going extinct). ****************************************************************************** ** WHY IS THIS GUY E MAILING PEOPLE AND OFFERING FREE BOOKS ON CREATION VS EVOLUTION? Good question! First off, let me share my history with you (don't worry, it will be brief). I was raised in Buffalo, New York, and was fortunate to have great parents They took my sister and I to church every Sunday, we attended Sunday school and church camps in the summer. I believed in God, and never gave the issue much thought. In sixth grade, I remember seeing a big colorful book produced by Time-Life. It caught my eye, and I opened it up and was pleased to see big colorful drawings. One set of drawings really caught my eye. There was a series of animated drawings that went across two pages. On the far left was a very ape-like character walking on all fours and covered with hair. The character to his right was a little more upright, he had shorter arms, was starting to walk on two legs and had less hair. This progression continued for a few more drawings until at the far right side of the page there was this handsome fellow, a human being! This is called the ascent of man chart that nearly everyone is familiar with. In sixth grade, I looked at that chart for a while, smirked, thought it was ridiculous, and went outside and played softball. Eventually I made it to ninth grade. While in a Biology class, the teacher was teaching us about evolution and placed the same chart up on the wall. I still remember it. I sat there and studied that chart for a long time. It was on that very day that I recognized a major conflict existed between what this teacher was saying and what the Bible taught. Should I believe my science teacher, who is teaching man has ascended from ape-like animals, or do I believe mommy, daddy, and that book (the Bible) that says God made man instantly from the dust of the ground?" I reasoned that this teacher is a scientist after all, so this must be valid information. I had a choice to make that millions of people world wide are faced with. Do I believe the Bible or what is taught as science (please note I did not call it science). In ninth grade I chose to go with the science teacher, and considered myself to be an atheist for about 14 years. I took many more science classes in high school and in college (I am a Mechanical Engineer), and none of these classes changed my beliefs, if anything they reinforced my atheist beliefs. I assume the majority of you are in college now. Do you understand my story? I am pretty certain you have had several hours of your education dedicated to the teaching of the Theory of Evolution. I would love to hear how this affected you. Has it done anything to your faith? It obliterated mine! Question! Why in 6th grade did I think the drawings were ridiculous, but in 9th grade I believed them? Was it because I was more intellectual? No. Was it because the Biology teacher explained it so convincingly? Not really. The real reason for my becoming an atheist in 9th grade can be summed up in one word...hormones. In 6th grade I did not have much temptation in my life. Perhaps my biggest sins were a lie here and there, throwing snowballs at the school bus and riding my minibike where I shouldn't. But in 9th grade a whole new world opened up to me. The temptation of drinking, drugs and premarital sex presented themselves to me at exactly the same time I was being taught evolution. I knew the Bible said that being drunk and having sex outside of marriage was wrong, but here is my science teacher, telling me the origin of man is completely contradictory to what the Bible taught as the origin of man. I felt excited.....and decided the Theory of Evolution was for me, after all the Bible was scientifically wrong on the very first page!! I considered myself to be an atheist. As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own. If I wanted to get drunk, no problem, if I wanted to try to have premarital sex no problem, I now belonged to the evolution "religion" (religion meaning a system of beliefs built on faith) that allowed me to sin without guilt. It was not the data that made me an atheist, it was the conclusion, a belief that made me the judge of right and wrong. Those cartoon drawings of ape men did look sharp, but I wanted to believe them emotionally, more than I really believed them intellectually. But I made a crucial mistake in 9th grade, a mistake millions are making everywhere....I did not inquire! Whether you are Christian or atheist, or something else let me encourage you to inquire! I should have asked the teacher: "How did they come up with those cartoon drawings of ape-man becoming human...what fossils were actually dug up out of the ground?" Teachers rarely, if ever show (or truly know) what fossils were excavated to make up the ascent of man drawings. (The first thing that shook my faith in evolution was learning how data poor the evidence was, and how imagination rich the "scientists" were in making the ape-man to man drawings). In ninth grade I thought that my science teacher would not present these drawings unless there were many complete fossils that supported the validity of these drawings. But the fossils that produced those drawings are fragmentary! (bits and pieces of fossils) and those fragments can easily be explained as belonging to apes, or in other cases human. .


I am a Christian and if you are not, I hope some day you will become one, and I hope that the path you take is one of testing and examining with an open mind. I am not shocked or stunned that many people are atheists because I was one for many years. What got me out of my atheist beliefs was not fear from preachers on TV, or a need to put on the appearance of being pious, it was the evidence of Creation versus Evolution. I wanted the truth. I feel the case for Creation is truth, based upon the Laws of Science and observable evidence. I say this lovingly, if you believe the Theory of Evolution is superior to Creation after examining the facts of science and nature, you should ask yourself if something other than the facts are influencing your decision. Some people tell me they are atheists because how could a loving God allow so much suffering in this world? That is a very fair question. But the question addresses the nature of God, not the existence of God. There is grief in everybody's life, Christian and nonChristian. Why? The best answer I have is I don't know. I don't know why loved ones have suffered painful diseases and deaths. I don't know God's plans and God's nature. But I do not have to guess whether God exists or not, it is evident in the Creation. But after determining that there was a Creator, the most important question arises of who was the Creator. I believe it was the God of the Bible primarily because of the validity of the Bible. The following paragraph is just one marvelous aspect of the Bible.

SOME BRIEFS NOTES ON GENESIS CHAPTER 1 The Bible was written in its original text a very long time ago. Many ancient writings of the Bible exist today. Neither Christian, Jew or atheist disputes that. These ancient writings in Genesis chapter one makes three statements about science, that the authors back then would never had made if they followed the conventional wisdom of the world back then. But time has shown their statements to correct, and the popular ideas of men wrong back then.

Those three statements are:

1) The Universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1)

2) Continental Drift, all the dry land was gathered in one place (Genesis 1:10)

3) Animals and plants will produce offspring after their own kind (Genesis 1:12, 1:25)

Please get back with me with questions, comments and your address if you want the free books. Remember you can call me at my home (714) 898-8331, or e mail at BillyJack6@AOL.COM.. I am just a Mechanical Engineer who would like nonbelievers to test the case for Evolution against the case for Creation. I had held fast to evolution for years until I had the opportunity to hear the Creation side. I want you to hear it too. For you Christians out there, I also would like to share the Creation case to strengthen your belief and strengthen your witness for when people ask you "why do you believe and why should I?" I teach free classes on this subject and would be happy to give one to any group of Christians or skeptics. Call me and lets set it up. I eagerly look forward to hearing from you!

Bill Morgan


Return to Main Menu