In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[Soldier4Christ]

In the upcoming days I will be posting portions of a book that is available on-line. I would post the link to it but there is advertising on the web-site for articles for sale and therefore would be against forum rules. This is an excellent book to be used for the teaching of creation from a scientific point of view and is highly recommended for homeschoolers, church groups or private studies.

The author, Dr. Walt Brown of the Center for Scientific Creation gives the following permission on his web-site:

Any portion of this book may be reproduced for teaching or classroom use.

[Soldier4Christ]

Preface

As a reader of this book, you may have several questions: Why was the book written? How is it organized and why? For whom is it intended? Where is the creation-evolution issue headed?

This study began unexpectedly in June 1970.  I was a Christian, an evolutionist, and a new professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy.  I heard surprising claims that Noah’s Ark rested near the 14,000-foot level of Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey. If a gigantic boat was ever at that elevation, a huge flood must have occurred. However, the biblical flood was always hard for me to imagine. After all, where could so much water come from? Where did it all go? Every attempt I had heard to answer the first question was shallow at best. Few, if any, ever tried to adequately answer the second.

For several years I pondered these issues, reading most of what was written about claimed Ark sightings and talking with many “Ark hunters.” Almost daily I gazed up at 14,000-foot Rocky Mountain peaks and tried to imagine, at one of their summits, an object large enough to fill a football stadium. The case for the Ark’s existence grew stronger as many of my questions were answered.

With this growing possibility came a problem. If that much water sloshed over the earth for a year, many dead animals and plants would have been buried in vast amounts of mud and other sediments. This could explain how almost all fossils formed, especially those on the highest mountains. But the fossil record was supposedly the best evidence for evolution, a theory I had passively accepted. If a global flood produced most fossils, where was the evidence for evolution? The more I struggled with this question, the more amazed I became at the lack of evidence supporting evolution and the abundant evidence supporting creation.  By 1972, I had become a creationist.

As I began to talk with friends and colleagues about origins, invitations to speak arose. Speaking publicly on the subject forced me to organize my thoughts. In this way, the first edition of this book began to “evolve.”

In 1978, my wife and I decided the subject was so broad and important that I should pursue it full time. Therefore, I should leave a demanding, interesting, and successful military career at the first opportunity. That came in 1980. Since then, study, research (particularly development of the hydroplate theory which deals with the flood), writing, debates, “In the Beginning” Seminars, and other speaking engagements have kept me busy. It has been exciting to see how greater awareness of creation profoundly affects so many people.  You may discover this yourself.

Initially, those attending the full-day “In the Beginning” Seminar were given material summarizing the seminar content and answering many frequently asked questions. The first three editions of this book served that purpose. Later, outside requests for the book grew to the point that it had to be modified for those who had not attended. However, the book’s basic organization still follows the seminar format—an ideal format for learning this subject.

Part I of this book begins with a summary of the scientific evidence dealing with origins. That evidence falls into nine areas: three in the life sciences, three in the astronomical and physical sciences, and three in the earth sciences. Figure 1 on page xi shows this organization. Part II contains the most popular of those nine areas, as demonstrated in 200 seminars and by letters and phone calls we receive daily. Scientists, in particular, are struck by the number of diverse problems the hydroplate theory easily solves. Part III contains 30 questions most frequently asked during question and answer sessions at seminars and in media interviews—questions not already answered in Parts I and II.

This format and a comprehensive index allow a reader to focus on areas of primary interest while keeping the “big picture” in mind. Parts I, II, and III, which are quite different, may be read independently and in any order. Difficult parts can be skipped. Readers are often amazed at the endnotes, which contain many revealing and surprising quotations—usually by evolutionists.

The intended reader is anyone interested in the subject of origins—from high school students with little scientific background to people with multiple Ph.D.s in science. Parents have even paraphrased topics for their children at mealtime or bedtime.

Here is an offer for students, parents, and educators who read the entire book. Rather than place you in the awkward position of debating with science teachers or professors who are evolutionists, let me suggest an interesting alternative. As you read this book, identify questions to ask educators. If they object to any scientific information or conclusion in the book, I will be happy to discuss it with them by telephone, provided you are part of our three-way conversation. With their permission, you may record our conversation for the entire class. If nothing else, this will sharpen everyone’s critical thinking skills, put more information “on the table,” and move us a little closer to the truth.

Where is the creation-evolution controversy headed? I believe the battle will be won—not in courts, legislatures, boards of education, or church councils—but by grass-roots science education. Yes, today evolutionists generally control higher education, science journals, and the media, but the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports creation and a global flood. (If you find someone who disagrees, please refer them to the preceding paragraph and to pages 344–346. Challenge them—then watch what happens.) Throughout the history of science, controversies have raged. Perhaps none has had the profound social consequences—and therefore, the interest and emotion—of this origins debate. In the end, the side with the scientific evidence has always prevailed. The Galileo episode is one example.

Our task, then, is to educate the public, including students. People who are aware of this evidence will inevitably bring pressure and embarrassment on the entrenched interests, starting in the classroom. This is already happening. How can more be done? Dozens of pictures in this book could be fascinating subjects for a grade-school child’s classroom report. High school students could go further by reading and analyzing articles and reports related to such pictures. College students could extend this by interviewing and critiquing scientists specializing in the subject. Adults will enjoy explaining these and hundreds of other points of evidence to friends. (Many conduct courses using this book.) As more people learn, more will want to learn. Increasingly, the public will ask—or tell—educators, publishers, museums, and the media to educate themselves and stop perpetuating misinformation and bad science.

Although many people helped with this book and offered constructive suggestions, five must be mentioned: Brad Anderson, Peggy Brown, David Hull, Stuart Patterson, and Jon Schoenfield. To them and many others who helped, I am immensely grateful. The mistakes, of course, are mine alone.

My hope is that In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood will help you, the reader, as you explore the amazing events “in the beginning.”

Walt Brown

[Soldier4Christ]

I realise that this chart may be hard to read on here but it will be explained futher on. It may be easier to see if you right click on the image then click on "View Image".

[Soldier4Christ]

Part I: The Scientific Case for Creation

Part I is a brief summary, in outline form, of 131 categories of scientific evidence that support a sudden creation and oppose gradual evolution. As Figure 1 shows, categories 1–42 relate to the life sciences, 43–94 relate generally to the astronomical and physical sciences, and 95–131 relate to the earth sciences.

Quotations, references, and notes on pages 47–98 provide supporting details for specific conclusions. Usually, these details are based on research done by evolutionists who are experts in that particular field. Choosing evolutionists rather than creationists will minimize charges of bias. (Besides, no testimony is more convincing than that from a “hostile witness.”) Most people find the quotations, highlighted in blue type, fascinating.

For many years, students, teachers, and professors have been unaware of most of this information, especially the broader conclusions that can be reached. Those conclusions are stated in Figure 1 and in the following pages in large, bold captions. The larger the caption, the broader the conclusion. There is one overall conclusion for the life sciences, one for the astronomical and physical sciences, and one for the earth sciences. Each has three supporting conclusions, for a total of nine. Each conclusion is based upon about a dozen categories of evidence. All 131 are summarized in the following pages. Figure 1 shows the relationships of these 3 + 9 broad conclusions and the 131 categories of evidence.

Scientific information cannot be suppressed for long, so it is not surprising to see a growing awareness and excitement concerning this information. Some evidence involves new discoveries. Other evidence, discovered long ago, has been poorly disseminated. If all this information were openly presented in science classrooms, better education would result. Regardless of your age or education, you can learn and help others learn this information about a subject that holds great interest for most people—the subject of origins.

[Soldier4Christ]

Introduction

The scientific evidence showing the hand of the Creator falls into three major areas: life sciences, astronomical and physical sciences, and earth sciences. Generally speaking, the life sciences operate in the biosphere (the atmosphere, oceans, and other surface waters); astronomical sciences deal with phenomena above the biosphere; and earth sciences deal with phenomena below the biosphere.

Three fascinating objects are depicted on the opposite page—one representing each of these three areas of science. Each involves new discoveries which excite layman and scientist alike. Each object is an amazing reminder of a designer whose attributes are too big, too complex, and too powerful for the mind of man to grasp.

[Soldier4Christ]

Life Sciences

Shown in the circular inset at the bottom of Figure 2 is the double helix representing DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Duplicate copies of this long tape of coded information are coiled up in each of the 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) cells in your body. You have 46 segments of DNA in almost all of your cells. You received 23 segments from your mother and 23 from your father. DNA contains the unique information that determines what you look like, much of your personality, and how every cell in your body is to function throughout your life.

If the DNA (46 segments) in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected, and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details could not be seen, even under an electron microscope. If all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the Moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon more than 75 times.  If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin! Understanding DNA is just one small reason for believing you are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Ps 139:14) [See “Genetic Information” on page 72 for the above calculations.]

[Soldier4Christ]

Astronomical and Physical Sciences

Space exploration has brought into our living rooms some of the marvels of the universe. Few people, however, appreciate how many of these recent discoveries were not what evolution theory had predicted. The phrase “back to the drawing board” frequently follows discoveries in space. Saturn, shown on the opposite page, has provided many such examples.

Many space exploration programs tried to learn how the Earth, Moon, and solar system evolved. Ironically, not one of these questions has been answered, and for scientists who start with evolutionary assumptions, many perplexing problems have arisen. For example, after the $20,000,000,000 Moon exploration program, no evolutionist can explain with any knowledge and confidence how the Moon formed. Those who try encounter either a barrage of scientific objections or resort to philosophical speculations. Isn’t it ironic that many science teachers and professors uncritically teach outdated and illogical theories in the very subject that should encourage critical thinking? Far too many textbook authors and popular science commentators, who influence teachers and students alike, do not understand that “the heavens are telling of the glory of God.” (Ps 19:1)

[Soldier4Christ]

Earth Sciences

The center object on the opposite page represents Noah’s Ark. This drawing is based on a detailed and convincing description by a man who claimed to have twice walked on the Ark in the early 1900s. His information has been checked in ways he never could have imagined. Every known detail has supported his story. We must emphasize, however, there is no proof the Ark exists, although there are many alleged sightings. We must patiently wait for a verifiable discovery of this huge object that is reportedly buried under rock and ice near the 14,000-foot level of rugged Mount Ararat in a remote part of eastern Turkey.

The implications of a worldwide flood for the earth sciences, for the theory of evolution, and for mankind in general, deserve the serious reflection of every thoughtful person. Earth has many features which scientists with evolutionary presuppositions cannot explain. But these features can be explained by a gigantic flood—the most cataclysmic and literally earthshaking event the world has ever experienced—which also formed deep ocean trenches, most mountains, and many other amazing features.

A detailed and scientific reconstruction of these events now can be made independently of Scripture. This reconstruction, based only on what is seen on Earth today, is explained in Part II, “The Fountains of the Great Deep” on pages 100–255. If you study both this explanation and the biblical descriptions of the flood—two completely different perspectives—you may be startled by their agreement and the sheer power and violence of that event. Both biblical scholars and scientists have been surprised at the extent to which each perspective illuminates the other. After reading “The Fountains of the Great Deep,” you will more deeply appreciate what the psalmist wrote 3,000 years ago, “The waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down ... [so the waters] may not return to cover the earth.” (Ps 104:6–9)

[Soldier4Christ]

Figure 3: Dog Variability.  When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations.  It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man.  Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

[Soldier4Christ]

Life Sciences

Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution. [See Figure 4 on page 6.] Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal (or even downward)” change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity.  Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution.  [micro + time  ≠  macro]

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities, increasing complexity, that results from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy. Therefore, in this book, the term “organic evolution” will mean macroevolution.



Figure 4: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution. Notice that macroevolution would require an upward change in the complexity of certain traits and organs. Microevolution involves only horizontal (or even downward) changes—no increasing complexity.

Because science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible, what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with intermediates.

[Soldier4Christ]

The Theory of Organic Evolution Is Invalid.
Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed.


1.   The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.a

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis.b However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life only comes from life.

[Soldier4Christ]

2.   Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited.a For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child.  Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief.  On occasion, Darwin did.b

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimalc genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery.d

Also, rates of variation within a kind (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation.e Such situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

[Soldier4Christ]

3.   Mendel’s Laws

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. [See Figure 3 on page 5.] A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation.a Breeding experimentsb and common observationsc also confirm these boundaries.

4.   Bounded Variations

While Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists.a For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles.b Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few.c New features apparently don’t evolve.

[Soldier4Christ]

5.   Natural Selection

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.  This is called natural selection.a

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.b

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

    * a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something evolved,c
    * a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport capacity of certain proteins,
    * a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more,d or
    * a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.e

While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest.f Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.g

[Soldier4Christ]

6.   Mutations

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.a Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal.b No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors.c


7.   Fruit Flies

A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates.a



8.   Complex Molecules and Organs

Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are questionable. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support.a

There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye,b the ear, or the brain.c For example, an adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections,d more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.e


9.   Fully-Developed Organs

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design.a There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes,b skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of thousands of other vital organs. Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing.c  [See Figure 4.]