Creation or Evolution? You Decide :)

billyjack6 at aol.com billyjack6 at aol.com
Sat Sep 28 11:15:53 EST 1996

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

   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 at 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

   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

   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

   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 


   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 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


   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

   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 


   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

   "The origin of rodents is obscure...no transitional forms are
known."  A.S. Romer, "Vertebrate Paleontology," 1966, page 303. 

   "The [evolutionary] transition to the first mammal ...is 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).

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).



   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 understand...fast 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 have...no
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.



   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


   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 


   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.    

   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.

   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
  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
   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."


   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
   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
   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).


   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

   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.

   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 at 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 

More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net