you're reading...
Biblical authority, Creation/Evolution

11 Major Arguments against Evolution


Over the last three years I have reported on multiple lines of evidence and arguments in favor of Biblical young-earth creation.  The following is an aggregate accumulation across several disciplines correlating into what I believe is a strong defense.   Proponents of the evolutionary worldview often use the defense that evolutionary predictions correlate across multiple fields of study (biology, geology, astronomy, etc).  The following is an attempt to show that YEC also correlates across several subjects.  Below I will list the topic, a brief summary, and link(s) to previous blog posts on that topic for further information.


  •  Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence (same bones, same rocks, same earth), but come to different conclusions due to different starting assumptions used to explain the evidence.
  • Evolutionists have a starting assumption of uniformitarianism of geology and biology.  This basically means that the rates and processes we measure today have remained constant and unchanged for all of history.
  • Creationists have a starting assumption of catastrophism.  This basically means that if the Bible is true, then there are three very important events (a 6-day literal creation, a cursed world following original sin, and a worldwide flood) that intrude and disrupt the assumption of uniformitarianism.
  • Therefore, if the Bible is true – uniformitarianism fails, and so do all conclusions (macro-evolution, old-earth) that flow from that assumption.





  • ‘Relative genetic similarities’ says that studying anatomy & physiology should predict placements on a tree of life, but these nested hierarchies can be applied to anything that has been designed. Just because two cars both have a steering wheel does not mean they evolved from a wheelbarrow.  Genetic similarities no more confirm common ancestry than a common designer.
  • ‘Absolute genetic differences’ says that evolution should predict how many differences are between humans and chimps, but the data is not adding up. 900 million differences cannot occur in 6 million years.
  • ‘Junk DNA’ predicts useless, left over DNA from previous ancestors, but the ENCODE Human Genome project has not found them. Scientists continue to find new uses for previously considered junk DNA and pseudogenes.



  • In 1957, JBS Haldane, a geneticist, calculated that new beneficial mutation only occur once every 300 generations (or approx. 6000 years). Giving human evolution an inflated 10 million years to have occurred, only 1667 beneficial mutation could have occurred.  Nowhere near the many million necessary to evolve a chimp to a human.
  • Geneticist John Sanford uses a computer prediction model to calculate that the rate at which deleterious mutations have accumulated is fatal to the genome. If this genetic entropy is the case, how could the genome have ever arisen through this method?





  • Carbon14 has a radioactive half-life of 5,730 years or a total existence of only 57,300 years.  Samples from ancient fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, marble, graphite, and even diamonds have shown traces of Carbon14 still active.  Rocks supposedly from millions of years ago in the Jurassic period have yielded dates of only 20,000 years old.  Carbon14 is even found in diamonds which scientists agree formed at least 1 billion years ago!



  • Without getting too much into morality, it is fairly accepted that racism is generally wrong. But evolution justifies racism.  If we truly evolved in different parts of the world at different times, then it goes to follow that some “races” would be more or less evolved than others.  This is the rationale that Hitler used to justify his extermination beliefs.  His logic is sound.  Then again if evolution is not true, then racism is wrong.
  • The Human Genome Project has confirmed that human beings are one race, a prediction made in the Bible since Eve is named at the mother of all the living.



  • A “scientific discovery” was made that found a certain species of fish had developed what appeared to be legs that it has learned to maneuver with and should be considered a missing link between aquatic and land-walking animals in the map of evolution. Only one very big problem in this conclusion:  it assumes evolution to be true to start with.  That is confirmation bias.   If we look at the evidence outside of that bias, it is just a fish with a set of odd tentacles or fins that has developed an ability to move with. The rest is personal interpretation.  Evolution is majority-wise uncharted.  If all the evidence is being accessed through the presupposed idea that evolution is true, how will any piece of evidence falsify it?  If it is mostly uncharted won’t we always be able to find a place for each new creature… or even re-arrange everything for that creature?
  • To protect the integrity of science as a respected discipline, I propose that we eliminate the usage of speculative terminology.  Respected scientific reporting agencies, school textbooks, and even many journal articles are rife with wordings such as “probably”, “could have”, “might have”, etc.  To respect science as a worthwhile means of attaining truth, we need to also recognize its limits.  Science should be contained to thing we can observe, test, and repeat.  I believe if we removed all speculative and interpretive articles from the scientific record and got back to strictly observation and testable models, then there would be no actual evidence for many historical theories and hypotheses.  I believe we have built model upon model without ever verifying the previous model, and historical science has simply become a school of confirmation bias.  It has come down to “where does this new evidence fit into the current model” instead of “what does this new evidence tell us”.








  • In observational science we do tests here in the present that can be repeated and verified by others.  These tests lead to cures to diseases, computers, vehicles, and men on the moon.  In historical science we can only collect evidence left over from the past and make interpretations.  These interpretive conclusions are essentially unverifiable.
  • Historical scientists will always make their conclusions about the evidence based on their starting condition: either the supernatural exists and God intervenes in the world OR only the natural world exists.  So the debate does not come down to evidence.  It comes down to interpretation.




  • Marc Surtees presentation called “Bones of Contention” provides undeniable evidence of the clear lacking of transitional fossils between australopiths (gorilla-types) and modern humans. He uses six key characteristics to show the great divide between the two categories, and the best part is he uses modern published scientific results that confirm his position.  See the video at the post below…



  • Nathaniel Jeanson reports a mathematical model which congregates the data accumulated from the full DNA sequencing report from humans, fruit flies, roundworms, and water fleas to show that actual mitochondrial DNA differences match creationist predictions almost perfectly and are wildly off from evolutionary estimations.
  • “The evolutionary results cannot in any way be explained by invoking a slower mutation rate in the past. First, this would be inconsistent with the assumption of constant rates and constant processes invoked in astronomy and geology. Second, for species to be as genetically similar as they are today yet as old as the evolutionists claim, they would need to mutate only once every 21,000–36,000 years and consistently so for millions of years. This incredibly slow rate is completely counter to the actual mutation rates observed in genetics; in fact, rates this slow seem biologically impossible. These results appear to present a dramatic challenge to the millions of years espoused by evolution and old-earth creation, and they seem to powerfully confirm the biblical account.”



  • Young-earth creation would predict that recorded human history would begin following the flood, approx. 4000 BC.  Data across multiple disciplines including historical civilizations, languages, population growths, and historical linguistics confirm this prediction.



  • The secular view of the fossil record records death, suffering, and even diseases like cancer before man comes on the scene.  At the end of God’s creation He calls all this “very good” (Gen. 1:31).  A theistic evolutionist has now made God the author of all suffering, disease, and death in the world.
  • In the Bible, death is always referred to a bad thing, as a sacrifice.  How is death a sacrifice if it was always part of the original design and referred to as “very good”?  Basically, you are saying that God says cancer is a “very good” thing.
  • God curses the ground.  Creationists believe this is the instance that changed the previous perfect creation into a gradually declining environment stricken with suffering, disease, and death.  The problem for those who believe in a God-initiated evolutionary process is the fact that thorns are found in the fossil record supposedly millions of years before man “evolved”.  Well, it seems you can’t have it both ways.  You can’t have thorn come after man’s sin, but already be around in the fossil record.
  • 3,624 years from Adam to Jesus, 5,640 years from Adam to today.
  • Creation says “light created before sun”, evolution says “no light before sun”. Creation says “stars after earth”, evolution says “stars before earth”.  Creation says “birds before reptiles”, evolution says “reptiles before birds”.  Creation says “man before woman”, evolution says “woman before man”.  It is not simply extending the days of creation out to millions of years.  The entire story is either right or wrong.









About Tim



12 thoughts on “11 Major Arguments against Evolution

  1. Very good article!

    Posted by Lee | December 20, 2014, 7:04 am
  2. #12 Stick your fingers in your ears and sing “la la la la I can’t hear any disconfirming evidence against my favorite fairy tale!”

    Posted by ladyatheist | December 25, 2014, 6:34 pm
  3. I have a question about the historical science versus observational science point. I’ve never been able to find this classification into two kinds of science in any science textbook unless it was published by a creationist publisher. Does this distinction appear in any science textbooks widely used at major universities?

    I ask not only to study further but to be able to properly cite major textbooks on this distinction in my footnotes. Of course, textbooks are not the only place I could look but I’m trying to determine just how common is this observational/historical distinction among scientists and, helpfully, textbooks tend to prioritize concepts according to where in the university curriculum a concept is presented. So far I’ve had a difficult time finding this particular type of distinction and definition outside of creationist sources.

    I find the terms quite strange because all sciences involve observation and every observation involves data collected from the past. Yes, some data comes from nanoseconds ago (e.g., photons reaching one’s eyes from some lab experiment), some data comes from not so long ago (a projection map of sunspots which records the sun’s data from 8+ minutes ago), and some data from very long ago (a distant galaxy seen through a microscope.) If “historical” is meant to be a relative term, then where is the boundary between the two kinds of science?

    Thank you for any assistance you can provide.

    Posted by Rock Miller | April 21, 2015, 6:58 pm
    • I do not know of anywhere in secular textbooks that the terms would be used in this way. It may be possible, but I’m not aware of it. I believe historical science would best be defined as the studying of indirect observations. In other words common ancestry is not directly observed. We didn’t nor can we ever actually observe it happening. We can’t repeat it. Thus it is indirect observations pulled from a particular interpretation of the data. In other words – the interpretation fuels the “observation” instead of the observation fueling the interpretation.

      Posted by Tim | April 22, 2015, 2:21 am
  4. According to something I read a short while back, there are no Young Earth Creationist geologists working for any major petroleum company involved in the search for oil. Can you speculate why this is?

    Aside from the more obvious answer, ”Perhaps they just do not want to work for Shell or BP”, what would your response be on the subject of the TTI, (Time Temperature Index) as it relates to oil exploration?

    Posted by Arkenaten | August 14, 2015, 2:11 pm
    • Well, first I can’t confirm that there are no YEC geologists working for petroleum companies. I don’t know. I would assume that there are some just seeing how prevalent YEC is in the society at large, but I don’t know. I could speculate several reasons why not, for example: perhaps they simply don’t agree with the philosophies/assumptions being used in the studies. It’s kinda like me working for the Field Museum in Chicago in their evolution exhibit – I wouldn’t do that – it’s a stark contrast to my worldview. OR it could be that these companies do not hire geologists who do not agree with their philosophies. I don’t really know, but I can surely speculate.

      You would need to expand on the TTI question. I don’t know what you mean by that.

      Posted by Tim | August 14, 2015, 2:29 pm
      • There is plenty of scientific data, but this site explains it well enough.
        Have a read and let me know?


        Posted by Arkenaten | August 14, 2015, 2:47 pm
        • A quick read through gives the idea that the author believes you have to understand deep time to search for oil. This makes no sense if you back up and think about it. Dig in the ground – find oil… done. That’s all it takes. Maybe we can understand the oil and its origin in different ways depending on our different ideologies, but what in the world does that have to do with finding oil in the ground? YECs would expect their to be oil for the same reason old-earth folks would: burial. Same concept with fossils. We all believe oil and fossils were created by rapid burial. The only thing we differ on is how long it took to be buried.

          The author makes the misunderstanding that YECs would not expect to find oil because the earth is young. She is using her assumption that oil takes a long time to form to fuel her misunderstanding of the YEC position. If you search Google for “oil formed quickly”, this (http://creation.com/how-fast-can-oil-form) is the first result.

          Posted by Tim | August 14, 2015, 3:21 pm
  5. The final couple of paragraphs actually capture the entire essence of the articlet.

    Every major oil company employs kinetic models in their search for hydrocarbons, based on the techniques that I have described above. Since these models assume that we correctly know the age of rocks and their temperature history, petroleum exploration provides us with millions of ongoing scientific tests, which collectively could disprove the conventional geologic timescale and confirm the young-Earth paradigm.

    Of course, they don’t.

    Instead, the widespread success of oil and gas exploration is perhaps the greatest testament to the accuracy of our age estimates. If the geologic column were created within the past 6,000 years, then no oil or gas should be found today, for the same reason you can’t make a medium-rare pot roast in only 30 seconds. By asserting that the age of rocks is somehow irrelevant to exploration techniques, Dr. Snelling has essentially told every cook to throw out their timers. But I think you all know better than this, and for that matter, so does Andrew Snelling.

    Posted by Arkenaten | August 14, 2015, 3:36 pm
    • That quote just reaffirms what I said about the article. They believe YECs can’t be geologists because there is not enough time to create oil, yet YECs have plenty of explanations/scenarios of oil creation. We have shown how oil can be created quickly under the right conditions, and thus we believe the worldwide flood would have provided the perfect conditions for this oil production.

      So the ironic thing ends up being that they say there is no evidence for a worldwide flood yet the existence of the oil IS the evidence. 🙂

      Posted by Tim | August 14, 2015, 8:49 pm


  1. Pingback: Hope in a Hopeless world | Grace with Salt - October 2, 2015

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: