From Mark Copeland... "THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD" The Deity Of The Holy Spirit

                        "THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD"

                      The Deity Of The Holy Spirit


1. At this point in our study, we are simply trying to understand who or
   what the Holy Spirit is...
   a. Our last study concluded that the Holy Spirit is a personal being,
      and not some impersonal force or power
   b. We noted that His personality is manifested by:
      1) His works
      2) His characteristics
      3) His slights and injuries which He can suffer

2. But what else can we learn from the Scriptures concerning His nature?
   In this lesson...
   a. We shall present evidence that illustrates His deity
   b. We shall try to reconcile the concept of the Holy Spirit as deity
      with the Biblical teaching that there is only one God

[Let's begin by noting the evidence that...]


      1. He is "omniscient" (knows all things) - 1Co 2:10-11
      2. He is "omnipresent" (everywhere) - Ps 139:7-10
      3. He is called the "eternal" Spirit - He 9:14

      1. He was involved in the "creation" of the world - Gen 1:2; cf.
         also Job 33:4
      2. He was involved in the "working of miracles" - Mt 12:28; Ro 15:19
      3. He was involved in the "redemption" of man - He 9:14
      4. He is involved in the "regeneration" of man - Jn 3:5; Tit 3:4-6

[All this supports thinking of the Holy Spirit as deity.  In fact, Peter
spoke of the Holy Spirit and God interchangeably in Ac 5:3-4,9.  This
makes sense only if the Holy Spirit is indeed God! But if the Holy
Spirit is a personal, divine being...

   - Does that mean the Bible teaches a polytheistic concept of God?
   - Are there three Gods, or only one God?
   - What relationship does the Holy Spirit maintain with the Father and
     with Jesus Christ?

These questions that have challenged the minds of men throughout the
ages.  I don't pretend to set the issue at rest in one simple lesson.
But here are some thoughts on the subject...]


      1. This view holds that there are three gods
      2. That is, that the "Father" is a god, the "Son" (Jesus) is a
         god, and the "Holy Spirit" is a god - three separate and distinct gods
      3. This is truly polytheism (a belief in more than one god)
      4. Mormons hold to a slight variation of this view, in that they
         do not limit it to just three gods, but believe there many more gods

      1. Named after Arius, who lived in Alexandria in the fourth
         century A.D. and taught this view
      2. According to Arius...
         a. God the Father existed from eternity
         b. Jesus (God the Son) was created in time by the Father
         c. The Holy Spirit is a creation of the Son (therefore, a
            creature of a creature)
      3. Members of The Watchtower Society (who call themselves
         "Jehovah's Witnesses") hold similar views, believing that...
         a. Jesus is a created being
         b. The Holy Spirit is just an impersonal force sent by God to
            accomplish His purpose

      1. Named after Sabellius, who lived in the third century A.D.
      2. This view holds that God is one person...
         a. Who has manifested Himself in three different ways or three
            different modes
         b. Not simultaneously, but successively; for example...
            1) At one moment God presents Himself as Creator (or Father)
            2) At another moment, as Redeemer (or Son)
            3) Then again, as Revealer (or Holy Spirit)
      3. This view is held by many modern theologians, and by those who
         emphasize baptism in the name of Jesus "only"(United Pentecostal Church)

      1. This is the doctrine of the trinity
         a. The word trinity comes from the Latin "trinitas"
         b. From another Latin word, trinus, which means "threefold"
         c. Meaning a triad, or "group of three", suggesting both unity
            and diversity
      2. This view holds that God is one God...
         a. But that the one God exists eternally in three persons
            (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
         b. That in this one God there is both unity and diversity:
            1) The unity consists, not in the unity of purpose only, but
               in one common nature, in the sameness of "Godhood"
            2) The diversity is seen in that the Father, Son, and Holy
               Spirit are distinguishable
      3. The doctrine of the trinity can be stated in three propositions
         a. First, God is one God
         b. Second, the Son is fully God and is distinct from God the
            Father and God the Spirit
            1) There is nothing in concept of God (deity), no quality,
               no attribute, which the Son does not possess
            2) Yet He is not the same person as the Father or the Spirit
         c. Third, the Spirit is fully God, is distinct from the Father
            and the Son, and is personal
            a) The Spirit is not a created being or energy from God, but
               is deity
            b) He is different in His "person" and "mission" from the
               Father and the Son
      4. This is the view held by most Catholics and Protestants today

[Which of these four views is correct?  Is the Holy Spirit...

   - a god (Tritheism)?
   - a creature or force emanating from God (Arianism)?
   - God in just another form, but not in any way distinct from the
     Father or Son (Sabellianism)?
   - God, but a distinct personality from the Father and Son who
     together make up the One True God (Trinitarianism)?

Not Tritheism for that is polytheistic, and the Bible teaches "Hear, O
Israel:  The Lord our God, the Lord is one!" (Deut 6:4)  Let's consider,then...]


      1. All were present, but in different forms, at Jesus' baptism
         - Mt 3:16-17
      2. In His teaching about the Holy Spirit, Jesus clearly makes a
         a. "I (Jesus) will pray the Father, and He will give you
            another (note:  another, not the same) Helper (Holy Spirit),
            that He may abide with you forever." - Jn 14:16
         b. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
            in My (Jesus') name..." - Jn 14:26
         c. "But when the Helper (Holy Spirit) comes, whom I (Jesus)
            shall send to you from the Father..." - Jn 15:26
      3. A distinction is made in the command to baptize people in the
         name "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" 
         - Mt28:19
      4. Paul makes a distinction in his benediction in 2Co 13:14
         a. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ..."
         b. "...and the love of God..."
         c. "...and the communion of the Holy Spirit..."
      5. John refers to "both the Father and the Son" - 2Jn 9
         a. Note the use of the word "both", which implies two
         b. How can you have "both" if they are exactly one and the same
      -- This evidence rules out "Sabellianism" (or the "oneness"
         doctrine of the UPC)

      1. The Father is clearly God (deity) - 1Co 1:3
      2. The Son is also God (deity) - cf. Jn 1:1-3,14; Mt 1:21-23
         Ro9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; 1Ti 6:14-16; He 1:8-12
      3. The Holy Spirit also possesses deity (as noted earlier)
      -- This evidence makes "Arianism" untenable (or the view
         propagated by The Watchtower Society, i.e., "JWs")

      1. Suggested by a Hebrew name for God (Elohim) used throughout the
         O  T - Gen 1:1
         a. The word "elohim" is plural in form, not singular
         b. The plurality of "personality" in one God is implied in the
            plural pronouns "us" and "our" in Gen 1:26
      2. Even the covenant name of God (YHWH, Jehovah or Yahweh), is
         used at times to show a plurality of "personalities" in the one
         a. Bear in mind that this name can only be applied to the one
            true God - Isa 42:8; 45:5
         b. Yet notice that this name is used in prophecy to refer to
            Jesus - Isa 40:3 (Mt 3:1-3)
         c. In at least two passages, when YHWH speaks, He says YHWH sent him!
            1) Notice carefully, Isa 48:12-16 and Zech 2:8-9
            2) This indicates a plurality of personalities (i.e.,
               Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)!
      3. The only way I know to be true to all of the Biblical evidence
         for the nature of God is to draw the conclusion suggested by
         the words in Deut 6:4
         a. There is one God - "The LORD (YHWH, or Jehovah)..."
         b. But within this "Godhead" are three distinct personalities
            - "...our God (Elohim, suggesting plurality of some sort)"
         c. These three distinct personalities are one in substance,
            essence, purpose - "the LORD (YHWH) is one (in the sense of
            being united)"
         d. Yes, "Jehovah, our Elohim, is united Jehovah"!


1. Admittedly, trying to comprehend the nature of God is difficult...
   a. It is like trying to comprehend the infinite reaches of the universe
   b. With our finite minds, both are impossible

2. For those who accept the Bible as inspired of God, we must...
   a. Let the Bible reveal the nature of God
      1) Accept what it reveals by faith
      2) Even when we cannot comprehend it
   b. Avoid developing a concept of God (and the Holy Spirit)
      1) Through humanistic and rationalistic thinking
      2) Twisting the Scriptures to fit such concepts

3. I understand the Bible to reveal the Holy Spirit as...
   a. A distinct personality, possessing all the attributes of deity
   b. Yet one in essence, substance, and purpose with the Father and the Son
   3. A member of what is called the "Godhead"; truly a "mind-boggling" concept!

There is something else that should boggle our minds as well:  the love
God has for sinners! - cf. Ro 5:6-11...

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

Wonders of God’s Creation by Eric Lyons, M.Min.


Wonders of God’s Creation

According to the General Theory of Evolution, about 14 billion years ago “all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded” (Hurd, et al., p. 61). As a result of the alleged explosion of a period-sized ball of matter, billions of galaxies formed, and eventually planets such as Earth evolved. Supposedly, the evolution of galaxies, and every planet, moon, and star within these galaxies, all came about by non-purposeful, unintelligent accidents. Likewise, every life form that eventually appeared on Earth purportedly evolved by mindless, random chances over millions of years. Some life forms “just happened” to evolve the ability to reproduce asexually, while others “just happened” to develop the capability to reproduce sexually. Some life forms “just happened” to evolve the ability to walk along vertical ledges (e.g., geckos), while others “just happened” to evolve the “gift” of glowing (e.g., glow worms). Some life forms “just happened” to evolve the ability to make silk (e.g., spiders), which, pound-for-pound, is stronger than steel, while others “just happened” to evolve the ability to “turn 90 degrees in under 50 milliseconds” while flying in a straight line (e.g., the blowfly; Mueller, 2008, 213[4]:82). Allegedly, everything has come into existence by random chances over billions of years. According to the General Theory of Evolution, there was no Mind, no Intelligence, and no Designer that created the Universe and everything in it.
Ironically, though atheistic evolutionary scientists insist that the Earth and all living things on it have no grand, intelligent Designer, these same scientists consistently refer to amazing “design” in nature. Consider an example of such paradoxical language in a recent National Geographic article titled, “Biomimetics: Design by Nature” (Mueller, 2008). The word “design” (or one of its derivatives—designs, designed, etc.) appeared no less than seven times in the article in reference to “nature’s designs.” Evolutionary biologist Andrew Parker spoke of his collection of preserved animals as “a treasure-trove ofbrilliant design” (quoted in Mueller, 2008, 213[4]:75, emp. added). After interviewing Parker, National Geographic writer Tom Mueller noted how the capillaries between the scales of a thorny devil lizard are “evidently designed to guide water toward the lizard’s mouth” (p. 81, emp. added). He then explained how “[i]nsects offer an embarrassment of design riches” (p. 75, emp. added). Mueller referred to nature’s “sophistication” and “clever devices” (p. 79), and praised nature for being able to turn simple materials “into structures of fantastic complexity, strength, and toughness” (p. 79). After learning of the uncanny, complicated maneuverability of a little blowfly, Mueller even confessed to feeling the need to regard the insect “on bended knee in admiration” (p. 82). Why? Because of its “mysterious” and “complicated” design. Brilliant and well-funded scientists around the world admit that living things perform many feats “too mysterious and complicated to be able to replicate” (p. 82). They are “designed,” allegedly, with no “Designer.”
But how can you get design without purpose, intelligence, and deliberate planning? The first three definitions the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary gives for “design” (noun) are as follows: “1a:a particularpurpose held in view by an individual or group...b:deliberate purposive planning... 2:a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down; 3a:deliberate undercover project or scheme” (“Design,” 2008, emp. added). After defining “design” as a drawing, sketch, or “graphic representation of adetailed plan...,” the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language noted that design may be defined as “[t]he purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details” (2000, p. 492, emp. added). A design is preceded by “deliberate purposive planning,” “a detailed plan,” or an “inventive arrangement.” A design is the effect, not of time, chance, and unintelligent, random accidents, but of the purposeful planning and deliberate actions of an inventor or designer. A designer brings about a design. Thus, by definition, design demands a designer, and one with some measure of intelligence.
National Geographic purports that nature “blindly cobbles together myriad random experiments over thousands of generations” in order to produce complex, living organisms that the world’s “top scientists have yet to comprehend” (Mueller, 2008, 213[4]:90). We, on the other hand, choose to believe that, just as a painting demands a painter, and a poem a poet, the world’s amazing designs, which continually stump the most intelligent scientists on Earth, demand an intelligent Designer. Consider three wonders of God’s Creation—from the land, sea, and air—that testify on behalf of a grand Designer and against the random, chance processes of mindless evolution.


The height of an 18-foot giraffe, the tallest of all land animals, is quite daunting. The clumsy-looking giraffe’s ability to run 34 miles per hour is very impressive. Its minimal sleep requirements—only about 30 minutes a day, often broken up into several short naps—and its ability to go weeks without drinking is remarkable (“Giraffe,” 1999). Its 18-inch, prehensile tongue, eight-foot-long tail, and six-foot-tall newborns are all very striking. Most remarkable, however, is the design of the giraffe’s circulatory system.
Consider that a giraffe’s brain is about eight feet higher than its heart. In order to get blood from its heart up to its brain, a giraffe must have an enormous heart that can pump blood extremely hard against gravity. What’s more, it must maintain such blood pressure as long as the giraffe’s neck is vertically in the air. It should come as no surprise that this long-necked mammal is equipped with a two-foot-long, 20-plus-pound, thick-walled heart that is large enough and strong enough to pump blood eight feet high—creating blood pressure that is about twice that of any other large mammal, and as much as three times that of the average person (Foster, 1977, 152[3]:409).
But what about when a giraffe suddenly lowers its head several feetbelow its heart to get a drink of water? What happens to all of the blood that the heart normally pumps so powerfully against gravity to the brain? If the design of the giraffe were merely left up to time and chance, one would expect that the first time a giraffe tried to lower its neck to get a drink of water, the heart would pump so much blood to the brain that blood vessels in the brain would explode, or the brain would fill up with blood so quickly that the giraffe would pass out.
How does the giraffe keep from having brain bleeds, or from feeling woozy and passing out every time it bends down and raises back up? A National Geographic article on giraffes explains:
To withstand the surge of blood to and from the brain as its neck sweeps up and down, the giraffe has developed control valves in the jugular veins and a special network of blood vessels in its head. Known as the rete mirabile caroticum—wonder net of the carotids—this circulatory buffer keeps blood pressure constant in the brain” (Foster, p. 409).
A giraffe, then, has intricate valves in its jugular veins that help control how much blood gets to the brain during those times when a giraffe has its head lowered. Working together with these valves is a network of blood vessels that “controls the flow of blood into the head” (p. 411). Then, “[w]hen the head is raised, the same net counters the danger of blackouts from reduced blood pressure” (p. 411).
One might wonder how giraffes, which stand on their feet most of the day and have such high blood pressure, keep their lower extremities from pooling with blood. The fact is, even though “the blood vessels in the lower legs are under great pressure (because of the weight of fluid pressing down on them),” giraffes “have a very tight sheath of thick skin over their lower limbs that maintains high extravascular pressure” (“Giraffe,” 2008, parenthetical comment in orig.). Similar to a fighter pilot’s G-suit that “exerts pressure on the body and legs of the wearer under high acceleration and prevents blackout....[l]eakage from the capillaries in the giraffe’s legs, due to high blood pressure, is also probably prevented by a similar pressure of the tissue fluid outside the cells. In addition, the walls of the giraffe’s arteries are thicker than those in any other mammal” (Kofahl, 1992, 14[2]:23).
So, the giraffe has:
  • “a complex pressure-regulation system” (“Giraffe,” 2008).
  • “unique valves” that prevent overpressure when it lowers its head (Foster, 1977, p. 409).
  • a network of blood vessels that helps stabilize blood pressure as the giraffe moves its neck up and down.
  • a heart powerful enough to send an adequate amount of blood eight feet upwards against gravity.
  • arteries in the lower part of its body thick enough to withstand the high blood pressure.
  • skin tight enough to force blood back upward and keep capillaries in its lower extremities from bursting.
  • oversized lungs (large enough to hold 12 gallons of air) that “compensate for the volume of dead air” in its 10-foot long trachea (Foster, p. 409; “Mammals: Giraffe,” 2008). [“Without this extra air-pumping capacity a giraffe would breathe the same used air over and over” (Foster, p. 409).]
National Geographic would have us believe that “nature” provided giraffes with all of this “special equipment” (Foster, p. 411). Supposedly, giraffes’ specialized, necessary, “unique” control valves are “remarkable adaptations” that “developed” (p. 409, emp. added). In other words, multiplied millions of years of “evolution” have “modified the giraffe’s anatomy to allow this stretched-version mammal to function” (p. 409).
How do the mindless, purposeless, random processes of time and chance adequately explain “unique valves,” “a complex pressure-regulation system,” a “wonder net” that “keeps blood pressure constant in the brain” (whether the giraffe’s neck is raised or lowered), a heart, lungs, and arteries all just the right size, etc.? Even more difficult (impossible) for evolution to explain is how all of these sophisticated body parts came about simultaneously? After all, what good is a big heart without a network of blood vessels that stabilizes blood pressure? And what is the point of the rete mirabile caroticum, if the giraffe did not have a heart powerful enough to pump blood eight feet into the air? Evolutionist Robert Wesson openly addressed this issue in his book, Beyond Natural Selection. He wrote:
All these things had to be accomplished in step, and they must have been done rapidly.... That it could all have come about by synchronized random mutations strains the definition of random. The most critical question, however, is how the original impetus to giraffeness—and a million other adaptations—got started and acquired sufficient utility to have selective value.... The observer must be often tempted to suppose that organisms have responded to their conditions and needs more purposefully than strict Darwinian theory can allow (1991, p. 226, emp. added).
Truly, the amazingly intricate design of the giraffe’s circulatory system, as well as the rest of its anatomy and physiology, demand a better explanation than the random, chance processes of evolution. The fact is, the giraffe is brilliantly designed—a wonder of God’s creation.


Two colorful, eight-legged cephalopods, known as cuttlefish, recently graced the cover of the journal New Scientist (2008, 198[2653]). With bluish-green blood, iridescent skin, feeding tentacles that shoot from their mouths like birthday party blowers, and eyes like something from a Batman movie, it is no surprise that the editors of New Scientist used the term “alien” in their description of the cuttlefish; the animals do look bizarre—plain and simple. Make no mistake, however, these creatures are anything but simple. In fact, just above the cuttlefish was the cover title, “Alien IntelligenceSecret Code of an Eight-Legged Genius” (Brooks, 2008, emp. added). Michael Brooks, author of the feature article, declared that the cuttlefish is “the world’s most inventivemollusk” (2008, p. 31, emp. added) with a “sophisticated system for talking to one another” (p. 28, emp. added). Scientists have documented “around 40 different cuttlefish body patterns, many of which are used to communicate with other cuttlefish” (p. 29). At other times, cuttlefish send “tailor-made” signals to predators (p. 29, emp. added).
Even more incredible than their communication skills, is the cuttlefishes’ ability to blend in to their surroundings. Brooks described them as having “the world’s best camouflage skills” (p. 29). Similar to how these mollusks (cuttlefish have an internal shell called a cuttlebone, thus, scientists classify them as mollusks) communicate with other animals via a variety of bodypatterns, they also move their bodies into a variety of positions in hopes of staying hidden. For example, while swimming next to large seaweed, a cuttlefish can mimic the motion of the grass by positioning and waving its eight arms similar to how seaweed sways in water. This makes it very difficult for both attackers and possible prey to locate the cuttlefish. In a recent study, scientists placed either horizontal or vertical stripes on the walls of cuttlefish tanks. How did the cuttlefish react? According to Dr. Roger Hanlon, “If the stripes were vertical they would raise an arm. If the stripes were horizontal they would stretch their bodies out horizontally” (as quoted in Brooks, p. 31). Amazing! Cuttlefish can even change the texture of their skin to mimic the shape of certain barnacle-encrusted rocks or corals.
But what must give other sea life more problems than anything is the cuttlefish’s ability to change color—and to do it so quickly. A cuttlefish can change the color of its entire body in the blink of an eye. If this mollusk wants to change to red, it sends signals from its brain to its “pigment” sacs (called chromatophores) to change to red. Cuttlefish can hide from other sea life by changing to the color of sand or seaweed. They can also appear as a strobe light, blinking “on and off” very quickly. So extraordinary are these “masters of camouflage” (p. 28) that government researchers are even “looking into the possibility of copying cuttlefish camouflage for use in the military” (p. 31). Researchers are enamored with “how cuttlefish achieve their quick and convincing camouflage” (p. 30). Nevertheless, “[i]t’s highly unlikely that anyone could achieve that same level of camouflage” (p. 30). Scientists admittedly find it difficult “mimicking the colour-matching abilities of the cuttlefish...and its texture-matching ability, which utilizes the muscles beneath it” (p. 30). In fact, “[n]o one knows exactly” how cuttlefish match their backgrounds so effectively, especially since “[e]xperiments have shown that cuttlefish don’t look at their skin to check how well it matches the background” (p. 31, emp. added). What’s more, if, as scientists believe, this animal is colorblind, only seeing in shades of green (p. 31), how does it always choose the color most helpful (like changing to the color of sand when on the ocean floor)?
The cuttlefish is a remarkable creature. Evolutionists have called this animal a “genius.” Scientists admit that cuttlefish are “sophisticated,” “intelligent,” “tailor-made” creatures with a “secret code.” Yet “evolution” was the very first word Michael Brooks used in his New Scientist article to explain the existence of cuttlefish (p. 29). But how can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? How can something “tailor-made” have no tailor? No one would suggest that Morse code is the product of time and chance, yet Brooks and other evolutionists would have us believe that the cuttlefish’s “secret code” is the product of millions of years of mindless evolution (p. 31)? Preposterous! Nature cannot explain the cuttlefish. The real Code-Giver, the intelligent Designer Who “tailor-made” the cuttlefish, is God. He “created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21).


As of the summer of 2008, Usain Bolt was the fastest man alive. During the 2008 Olympics, Bolt set Olympic and World records by running 100 meters in 9.69 seconds. A human running at a speed of 28 miles per hour is quite impressive, but neither Usain Bolt nor any other human can maintain such a speed for more than a few seconds. Marathon runners may be able to run 26.2 miles without stopping, but no one averages more than 13 miles per hour while running great distances. Although the human body is a meticulously designed “machine” (see Jackson, 2000), which functions perfectly for its intended purpose on Earth, there are limits to what a person can do. When these limits are compared to the speed and distance a particular bird flew some time ago, one gains a greater appreciation for God’s wondrous creation.
In February 2007, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey fitted 16 shorebirds, known as bar-tailed godwits, with satellite transmitters. One of the godwits, dubbed E7, made its way from New Zealand to Alaska over the next three months, flying 9,340 miles with one five-week-long layover near the North Korea-China border (Hansford, 2007). After nearly four months, the godwit began its uninterrupted flight back to New Zealand. Amazingly, this little bird, which normally weighs less than one pound, flew 7,145 miles in nine days without stopping, averaging 34.8 mph. Without taking a break to eat, drink, or rest, the godwit flew “the equivalent of making a roundtrip flight between New York and San Francisco, and then flying back again to San Francisco without ever touching down” (“Bird Completes...,” 2007). Equally impressive, the godwit’s approximately 16,500-mile, roundtrip journey ended where it began. Without a map, a compass, or even a parent, godwits can fly tens of thousands of miles without getting lost.
Scientists have studied the migration of birds for decades and still cannot adequately explain this “age-old riddle” (Peterson, 1968, p. 108). Their stamina and sense of direction is mind-boggling. In his book Unsolved Mysteries of Science, evolutionist John Malone reported how much progress man has made over the last few centuries in understanding how birds are able to journey thousands of miles with pinpoint accuracy (2001, pp. 114-122). Yet, he concluded his chapter on bird migration with these words:
Partial explanations abound, but every book or scientific article on bird migration is full of conditional words and phrases: “It may be...but it also might not be.” We know more about how birds might achieve their epic flights around the world, but there are still far more mysteries than there are explanations. The tiny songbird that reappeared to build its nest in the apple tree outside your window—and we know from banding that it can indeed be exactly the same bird—has been to South America and back since you saw it last. How can that be? This is one case where it may be nicer not to know—simply allow yourself to be swept up by awe and wonder (p. 122, emp. added).
Try as they might, evolutionists attempting to explain the complexities of bird migration can only offer woeful (and often contradictory) theories, at best (Peterson, p. 108). How can a person reasonably conclude that non-intelligence, plus time, plus chance, equals a one-pound, bar-tailed godwit flying 7,145 miles in nine days without stopping for food, water, or rest? The “awe and wonder” to which John Malone alluded should be directed toward neither mindless evolution nor the birds themselves, but to the “great and awesome God” (Daniel 9:4) Who has done “wondrous works” and “awesome things” (Psalm 106:22), including endowing birds with the amazing trait we call “instinct.” Truly, it is not by evolution or man’s wisdom that a bird “soars, stretching his wings toward the south” (Job 39:26). Rather, “the stork in the sky knows her seasons; and the turtledove and the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration” (Jeremiah 8:7, NASB), because all-knowing, all-powerful Jehovah is the Creator of them all.


Whereas National Geographic highlights “nature” and encourages readers to “learn from what evolution has wrought” (Mueller, 2008, 213[4]:75, emp. added), mankind would do better to heed the example of a noble inventor/designer from the mid-1800s. Samuel Morse, who invented the telegraph system and Morse Code, sent the very first telegraph from Washington, D.C. to Baltimore, Maryland on May 24, 1844 (“Today...,” 2007). His message consisted of a brief quotation from Numbers 23:23: “What hath God wrought!” (emp. added). Samuel Morse unashamedly testified to what everyone should understand: design demands a designer. Morse’s code and the telegraph system were the immediate effects of a designer: Samuel Morse. But, the Grand Designer, Who created Morse and every material thing that Morse used to invent his telegraph system, is God. Morse recognized this marvelous, self-evident truth. Should we not recognize it as well, especially in view of the abilities of giraffes, cuttlefish, and godwits—wonders of God’s creation?
For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God (Hebrews 3:4).
The heavens are Yours, the earth also is Yours; the world and all its fullness, You have founded them. The north and the south, You have created them (Psalm 89:11-12).
This great and wide sea, in which are innumerable teeming things, living things both small and great. O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made them all (Psalm 104:25,24, emp. added).


“Bird Completes Epic Flight Across the Pacific” (2007), ScienceDaily, September 17, [On-line], http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070915131 205.htm.
Brooks, Michael (2008), “Do You Speak Cuttlefish?” New Scientist, 198[2653]: 28-31, April 26.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
“Design” (2008), Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, [On-line], URL: http://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ary.
Foster, Bristol (1977), “Africa’s Gentle Giants,” National Geographic, 152[3]:402-417, September.
“Giraffe” (1999), Smithsonian National Zoological Park, [On-line], URL: http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/AfricanSavanna/fact-giraffe.cfm.
“Giraffe” (2008), New World Encyclopedia, [On-line], URL: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Giraffe.
Hansford, Dave (2007), “Alaska Bird Makes Longest Nonstop Flight Ever Measured,” National Geographic News, September 14, [On-line], URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070913-longest-flight.html.
Hurd, Dean, George Mathias, and Susan Johnson, eds. (1992), General ScienceA Voyage of Discovery(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).
Jackson, Wayne (2000), The Human Body—Accident or Design? (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).
Kofahl, Robert (1992), “Do Drinking Giraffes Have Headaches?” Creation, 14[2]:22-23, March, [On-line],URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i2/giraffes.asp.
Malone, John (2001), Unsolved Mysteries of Science (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
“Mammals: Giraffe” (2008), San Diego Zoo, [On-line], URL: http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t- giraffe.html.
Mueller, Tom (2008), “Biomimetics: Design by Nature,” National Geographic, 213[4]:68-91, April.
Peterson, Roger (1968), The Birds (New York: Time-Life).
“Today in History: May 24” (2007), The Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/may24.html.
Wesson, Robert (1991), Beyond Natural Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Darwin in Light of 150 Years of Error by Eric Lyons, M.Min. Kyle Butt, M.A.


Darwin in Light of 150 Years of Error

If the latter part of 2009 is anything like its beginning, this year will go down in secular history as the year of Charles Darwin. The scientific establishment is rallying virtually its entire arsenal of resources to celebrate the life and writings of Charles Darwin. Scientific American’s January cover story is titled: “The Evolution of Evolution: How Darwin’s Theory Survives, Thrives, and Reshapes the World.” In his editor’s note that introduces the issue, John Rennie wrote: “Today, 200 years after his birth and 150 years after Origin of Species, Darwin’s legacy is a larger, richer, more diverse set of theories than he could have imagined” (300[1]:6). Contributing writers to NewScientistpenned an article titled “The Years of Thinking Dangerously” in which they polled scientific heavy-hitters, such as Paul Davies, Daniel Dennett, Matt Ridley, Steven Pinker, and Michael Ruse, to decide who deserves 2009’s “anniversary crown”—Charles Darwin or Galileo. The article stated: “In the end, our panel concluded (with two abstentions) that Darwin has done more to change our view of ourselves. For our rigorous peer reviews, 2009 is Darwin’s year!” (“The Years...,” 200[2687/2688]:70-71, emp. added). The official Darwin Day Web site informs viewers that 128 events are currently scheduled in 21 different countries to celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin on February 12, 2009 (“Darwin Day Celebration”). The site gives a description of many of these events, and includes a countdown of the days, hours, and seconds until the big day. (Incidentally, the debate between Dan Barker and Kyle Butt on the campus of the University of South Carolina in Columbia is listed among these events; see “Darwin Day Event Listing.”) In addition, the British Museum of Natural History has organized its “Darwin” exhibit, hailed as “the biggest ever exhibition about Charles Darwin. It celebrates Darwin’s ideas and their impact for his 200th birthday in 2009” (“Darwin: Big Idea, Big Exhibition”).
An exhaustive list of all such activities would take hundreds of pages. Needless to say, Darwin and his theory will be in the global spotlight this year. This being the case, it is a good time to analyze Darwin and his ideas. Is it true that Darwin left a legacy worthy to be celebrated? Or is it the case that Darwin’s ideas were not only wrong, but also harmful in that they have provided the basis for racism, devaluing human life, and erroneous scientific study? In truth, when Darwin’s contribution to society is critically considered, the publishing of The Origin of Species is an event that should be marked, not as worthy of celebration, but as an event that will live in infamy. This issue ofReason & Revelation will highlight several of the most glaring deficiencies of Darwin’s theory.


The late Theodosius Dobzhansky remains well-known for a particularly catchy article title that he penned in the 1970s. In fact, the title of his article contains an idea that is accepted and maintained by a large portion of the modern scientific community—“Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (1973). This idea—that without a “proper” understanding of evolution one cannot understand, much less contribute to, biological studies—has taken a firm hold of many professors and science teaching professionals. Professor Michael Dini of the Department of Biological Sciences at Texas Tech University stated: “The central, unifying principle of biology is the theory of evolution, which includes both micro- and macro-evolution, and which extends to ALL species. Someone who ignores the most important theory in biology cannot expect to properly practice in a field that is now so heavily based on biology” (n.d., emp. in orig.).
Is it true that a proper understanding of evolution is a prerequisite for any person who wishes “to properly practice” in some field of biology? The eminent evolutionist and outspoken Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, offered some interesting thoughts along these lines. In a discussion of one particular group of scientists, Dawkins stated:
They have decided, perhaps rightly, that they can do taxonomy better if they forget about evolution, and especially if they never use the concept of the ancestor in thinking about taxonomy. In the same way, a student of, say, nerve cells, might decide that he is not aided by thinking about evolution. The nerve specialist agrees that his nerve cells are the products of evolution, but he does not need to use this fact in his research. He needs to know a lot about physics and chemistry, but he believes that Darwinism is irrelevant to his day-to-day research on nerve impulses. That is a defensible position.... A physicist certainly doesn’t need Darwinism in order to do physics (1996, p. 283, emp. added).
According to Dawkins, it is very possible for a person to engage in productive cell research (an extremely important branch of biology) without using evolutionary ideas in any of his procedures. In fact, evolution could defensibly be “irrelevant to his day-to-day research.” Please notice, however, that Dawkins makes sure to include the idea that the researcher believes that the cells are the “products of evolution.”
But let us take Dawkins’ thoughts a step further. Could it be that the researcher would not have to believe that the cells are the product of evolution? Would that belief affect his “day-to-day research”? Dawkins must answer, “No.” Then, according to Dawkins’ line of thinking, a person who does not believe in evolution could be just as (or more) successful in the biological sciences than one who does believe in evolution.
It should not be surprising, then, to hear statements like the one made by Thomas Geelan. Geelan is a teacher of advanced placement biology in Buffalo, New York. His course is titled, “An Interdisciplinary Course in Evolution.” In the abstract that describes the class, the first line states: “Evolution is the central organizing theme in all biology, yet few biology courses are taught that way” (n.d., emp. added). In the introduction to the class, a similar statement is made: “Evolution is the central organizing theme in all biology, but it is ironic that most biology curricula are pitifully deficient in their treatment of it” (emp. added).
What is the primary reason for this deficiency in “most” biology courses? The answer simply is that evolution is of no practical value in day-to-day research. In fact, evolution can be considered an irrelevantidea that has no bearing on the outcome of any scientific experiment. The cell researcher does not need it. The physicist does not need it. The taxonomist not only does not need it, but it gets in his way so much that he is better off if he does not consider it. In truth, not only is evolution a false idea, it is light years away from being the central tenet of biology. It is a counterproductive, anti-knowledge theory that, at the least, is useless, and is often destructive. Dobzhansky’s title would be better worded, “Nothing in Biology Makes Any Sense in Light of Evolution.”


Charles Darwin did not always believe in evolution. In fact, at one time he believed in God as the Creator. He wrote in his autobiography: “Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality” (1958, p. 85, parenthetical item in orig.). But as he grew older, he changed his view and began to think that natural forces created the world. He described his “deconversion”: “Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct” (p. 87). Sadly, one of the reasons for his change in thinking came from a misunderstanding of the Bible.
In Darwin’s day, the Church of England misunderstood the biblical account of Creation. The book of Genesis says that animals multiply “according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21). However, the Church of England confused the biblical word “kind” with the word “species.” The Church of England taught that God had created every separate species in the world. This idea was called the “fixity of species.” The problem with this view was that it simply is not true; they had misunderstood the Bible (Garner, 2009).

Darwin’s Finches

When Charles Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, he discovered something that greatly interested him. He found several different species of finches which were unique to the islands. The basic differences between these species was the size and shape of their beaks. Some of the finches had short thick beaks, used to crack open seeds, while others had long, thin beaks that could be used to catch insects or drink nectar from flowers. As he studied the birds, he came to the conclusion that the finches were very similar and must have been related. In fact, Darwin believed that the species had originally diverged from a single species of birds. He guessed that long before he had arrived on the islands, a storm must have blown this flock of birds to the Galapagos Islands. To give a very simplified version of Darwin’s hypothesis, he thought the birds with long beaks stayed together and ate insects, while the birds with short, stout beaks were able to survive in different places on the islands where they could find seeds. Eventually, due to drought, climate change, and environmental pressures, each group became its own species through the process of natural selection. Darwin also thought that if nature could change one species of finch into several different species, then it could change an amoeba into a man. Here Darwin made a major mistake in his thinking. He did not realize that small changes have limits.
In recent years, two researchers have become well-known for their trips to the Galapagos Islands to study Darwin’s ideas about the Galapagos finches. In the July 14 issue of Science, Peter and Rosemary Grant presented a paper titled “Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches.” The thesis of the article is that one particular species of finch (Geospiza fortis) “evolved” a slightly smaller beak due to the arrival of a larger-beaked finch (G. magnirostris) competing for larger seeds of the Tribulus cistoides plant during a severe drought (Grant and Grant, 2006).
Randolph Schmid, an Associated Press author who reviewed the Grants’ article, opened his summary of their findings with these words: “Finches on the Galapagos Islands that inspired Charles Darwin to develop the concept of evolution are now helping confirm it—by evolving” (2006). Notice the subtle maneuver Schmid made in his introduction: he commingled two distinct definitions of evolution into his statement, falsely equating the two. The generally accepted definition for the concept of evolution proposed by Darwin is “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another,” often called Darwinism. But the “evolving” accomplished by the finches on the Galapagos Islands was simply “small changes within the same kind of organism.” Unfortunately, evolutionists often use this type of sleight-of -hand tactic.
Schmid interviewed Robert Fleischer, a scientist who works with the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, who stated that the Grants merely had documented an instance of “microevolution” (small changes within the same kind of organism). Yet, the titles of the articles by both Schmid and the Grants misleadingly imply that Darwinian evolution has been proven by the finch research—and Schmid goes so far as to assert this bold claim in his introductory paragraph.
What do the finches really prove? They prove that finches stay finches, and the only documented kind of “evolution” is that of small changes within the same kind of organism. The Grants have been studying the finches for 33 years, and this change in beak size, which amounted to about .6 millimeters in beak length and .8 millimeters in beak depth (“Study: Darwin’s...,” 2006), was “the strongest evolutionary change seen in the 33 years of the study” (Grant and Grant, 2006). Even more ironic is the fact that this “evolutionary” change to a smaller beak that allegedly helped the finches to survive might not be so helpful after all. In the same article for Science, the Grants alluded to research done in 1977 when a drought struck the same island and killed many of the finches. The Grants noted: “Most finches died that year, and mortality was heaviest among those with small beaks” (2006, emp. added). Thus, if G. fortis keeps “evolving” a smaller beak size, a major drought in the future could easily spell the bird’s demise.
Scientific observation has never produced a single shred of evidence that proves even the possibility of “huge genetic changes turning one kind of animal into another.” In fact, all the observable evidence proves that every living organism multiplies “according to its kind” exactly as stated in Genesis 1:24, small changes in beak size, body weight, or skin color notwithstanding.

The Fruit Fly

According to the prevailing theory of evolution, beneficial mutations acted upon by natural selection provide the driving force behind nature’s production of new creatures. Of course, since mechanisms that reproduce genetic information in organisms are remarkably efficient, genetic modification by mutations are extremely rare. What is more, the overwhelming majority of mutations are so detrimental to the welfare of the mutant organism, the mutant dies or becomes a victim of predation before it has the ability to pass on its genes, and thus nature eliminates the mutation from the gene pool. Allegedly, in the rarest of cases, a “good” mutation that confers an advantage on an organism slips into the gene pool. Since this “beneficial” mutation aids the organism’s survival and reproductive ability, more offspring are produced that have the mutation. Supposedly, myriad millions of these types of mutations have accrued, by which single-celled bacteria have evolved, over billions of years, into humans. When asked why we do not see this process taking place before our eyes, we are told that it simply happens too slowly, is too gradual, and cannot be tested or witnessed in a single human generation, or even in hundreds of years.
What if, however, the process could be expedited? What if we could find some way to introduce exaggerated numbers of mutations into an organism’s gene pool? Could we select the “beneficial” mutations and produce our own, humanly initiated, evolving creatures? If evolution was actually true, and we could find an organism that could be genetically manipulated satisfactorily, then we should be able to “reproduce” evolution in a lab.
Enter Drosophila melanogaster, also known as the common fruit fly. Drosophila maintains several characteristics that make it the perfect specimen for laboratory mutation experiments. First, the female fly is extremely fertile. She can potentially lay 100 eggs a day, up to 2,000 eggs in her life (Reeve and Black, 2001, p. 157). Second, Drosophila grows from an egg to an adult in 10-12 days, thus producing up to 30 generations per year (p. 157). Due to these and other ideal traits, the fruit fly has been one of, if not the, most often used organisms in genetic mutation experiments since 1901. Reeve and Black noted: “The exploitation that made Drosophila the most important organism for genetical research was its selection by the embryologist Thomas Hunt Morgan for his studies of mutation...” (p. 157).
Since the early 1900s, multiplied millions of fruit fly generations have been bred in laboratories across the globe. Scientists performing these experiments have introduced fruit flies to various levels of radiation and countless other factors designed to produce mutations. Sherwin noted that over 3,000 different mutations have been documented in the fruit fly gene pool (n.d.). These mutations have caused such physical characteristics as eyeless flies, flies with different colored eyes, flies with legs growing from their heads, extra pairs of wings, various colored bodies, wingless flies, flies with unusually large wings, flies with useless wings, flies with twisted wings, etc. The list could go on for hundreds of pages.
So extensive have fruit fly experiments been, that the massive numbers of generations produced, and the mutations created, would be the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. Furthermore, intelligent scientists have acted as the “selecting agent,” thus speeding up the accumulation of “beneficial” mutations. If evolution by genetic mutation and natural selection really can occur, we should discover that the fruit fly has mutated into several new kinds of animals that branch out from their “flyhood” into other types of organisms. We should see creatures that are part fly and part something else.
What do we see? Fruit flies. That is all we see. After a hundred years of experimentation, thousands of lab-induced mutations in multiplied millions of flies, and intelligent, purposeful selection acting on those mutations, the world’s most brilliant minds have not been able to produce any creatures other thanDrosophila. Concerning the fruit fly stasis, the late evolutionist Pierre Grassé stated: “The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times (as quoted in Sherwin, n.d.). Norman Macbeth highlighted the late evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt’s thoughts about the fruit fly: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species” (1971, p. 33). The bottom line of all experiments ever done on fruit flies is that they stay fruit flies.
The results of such experimentation “fly” in the face of evolution, but they are exactly what one would expect to find if the biblical story of Creation is true. Darwin’s finches, fruit flies, and all other living organisms in the material world have been producing after their own kind since the beginning of creation. Since Darwin refused to recognize that small changes within a kind cannot be used to extrapolate unlimited changes into many different kinds of animals, his theory cannot be maintained in the face of what true science teaches us about the biology of living organisms.


In the May 6, 2002 edition of Newsweek, Fred Guterl wrote a brief article titled “Evolution: Birds Do It” (139[18]:11). The gist of the article centered on the aforementioned Peter and Rosemary Grant, “a married team of biologists from Princeton, [who] have worked for three decades to fill in Darwin’s blanks” (emp. added).
The major problem with Mr. Guterl’s article, and many people’s understanding of Darwinian evolution, hinges on the fact that he apparently was not aware of the true “blanks” that need to be filled in with regard to Darwin’s theory. In the opening paragraph of the article he wrote: “Charles Darwin described how the daily struggle for food and sex ultimately determines the future of a species, be it dinosaur, bird or human.He had plenty of fossil evidence to back him up, but he never actually observed natural selection taking place” (emp. added).
In sharp contrast to this statement, the tenth chapter of The Origin of Species is titled “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.” In it, Darwin argued that, due to the process of natural selection, “so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous” (1860, p. 234). However, he went on to admit: “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be argued against this theory. The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record” (p. 234).
Darwin most certainly did not have “plenty of fossil evidence to back him up.” He hoped that future geological research would fill in those blanks, due to the fact that fossil evidence was the primary proof needed to verify his theory. Unfortunately for Darwin and his theory, that evidence has been much less forthcoming than he had hoped. In fact, if Mr. Guterl had checked his own publication’s archives before he printed his misleading article, he would have discovered that in the November 3, 1980 issue of Newsweek, Jerry Adler went on record as stating: “Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment” (96[18]:95, emp. added). Nothing in this regard has changed in the more than two decades since Mr. Adler made his admission.
The cover of the March 1-7, 2008 issue of NewScientist pictures an illustrator’s attempt at drawing a half fish/half reptilian creature. Above the illustration is the title: “Amazing Missing Links: Creatures that Reveal the Real Power of Evolution.” Allegedly, evolutionists “have abundant evidence for how all the major groups of animals are related, much of it in the form of excellent transitional fossils” (Prothero, 2008, 197[2645]:35). After making half a page of introductory comments, the author, Donald Prothero, listed several alleged transitional fossils, which supposedly “are conclusive proof that evolution has occurred, and is still occurring” (p. 41). Included in this list were a variety of animals—from velvet worms to dinosaurs, and giraffes to manatees. Readers, however, have to go no further than Prothero’s introduction to see the inaccuracy of his assertions.
Prothero introduced his list of “transitional forms” that supposedly prove evolution with two examples to which science dealt a crushing blow long ago. Prothero wrote: “Darwin’s 1859 prediction that transitional forms would be found was quickly confirmed. In 1861 the first specimen of Archaeopteryx—a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds—was discovered, and in the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35, emp. added). Of the alleged “numerous fossils and fossil sequences showing evolutionary change,” Prothero chose to begin his article with Archaeopteryx and the “sequence of horse fossils,” both of which are supposedly “documented” proof of evolution. In truth,Archaeopteryx and the horse family tree are light years away from confirming evolution.
Regarding horse evolution, the fossil record simply does not bear out what NewScientist writer Prothero claimed. In fact, due to the glaring lack of fossil evidence linking the various horse “family members” together, even prominent evolutionists have abandoned the “horse evolution” argument. Prothero claimed that as far back as “the 1870s the iconic sequence of fossil horses was documented” (p. 35). Since that time, however, evolutionists such as Dr. George Gaylord Simpson have admitted, “The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature” (Simpson, 1953, p. 125, emp. added). In a 2000 article that appeared in the journalNatural History, Dr. Stephen Jay Gould soundly criticized science textbooks’ use of misinformationsurrounding the evolution of horses. He wrote:
Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed...) [2000, 109[2]:45, emp. added].
In light of such statements by renowned evolutionists, one wonders how Prothero can be so confident that the evolution of horses was documented by fossils as far back as the 1870s. Is Prothero’s article just another example of how “misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent” in many evolutionary writings?
And what about Archaeopteryx? Is it a “confirmed” transitional form, as Prothero asserted? Simply becauseArchaeopteryx has teeth in its beak and claws on its wings, does not prove that it was the transitional form between reptiles and birds. Consider that some modern birds have claws on their wings, and yet no one thinks of them as being missing links. The African bird known as touraco has claws on its wings, as does the hoatzin of South America when it is young. Both of these birds use their fully functional claws to grasp branches and climb trees. If you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you might have noticed that it, too, has claws on each wing and can use them if attacked. Obviously, simply because a bird in the fossil record is discovered with claws on its wings does not mean that it is a transitional fossil.
In 1993, Science News reported that an odd fossil bird had been unearthed in Mongolia. It supposedly is millions of years younger than Archaeopteryx and, interestingly, had teeth in its beak (Monasterky, 1993, 143:245). As with the claws on the wings of Archaeopteryx, evolutionists cannot prove that the presence of teeth make the animal something more than a bird. What’s more, consider that while most reptiles have teeth, turtles do not. And, some fish and amphibians have teeth, while other fish and amphibians have no teeth. How can evolutionists be so sure that Archaeopteryx’s teeth make it a dinosaur-bird link? Such an assertion is based on unprovable assumptions.
Archaeopteryx also had fully formed feathers, just like living birds. Fossils of Archaeopteryx leave no hint of the animal being a half-scaly/half-feathered creature. It was not in some kind of in-between stage. Furthermore, “[e]xperts don’t know what Archaeopteryx’s closest [alleged—KB/EL] dinosaur ancestor looked like—fossils haven’t yet been found” (“Fossil Evidence,” 2007), i.e., evolutionists have been entirely unsuccessful in finding the real alleged transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds.
Finally, what makes the suggestion that Archaeopteryx was the missing link between reptiles and birds even more unbelievable is that “[a]nother bird fossil found in the desert of west Texas in 1983, Protoavis, is dated even earlier, 75 million years before Archaeopteryx” (DeYoung, 2000, p. 37, emp. added). Although some paleontologists have questions about the fossil remains of Protoavis (birds, after all, were not supposed to be around with the “earliest dinosaurs”), Dr. Chatterjee of Texas Tech University “has pointed out, the skull of Protoavis has 23 features that are fundamentally bird-like, as are the forelimbs, the shoulders, and the hip girdle” (Harrub and Thompson, 2001). In 1991, Science magazine ran a story titled “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” wherein Alan Anderson wrote: “His [Chaterjee’s—KB/EL] reconstruction also shows a flexible neck, large brain, binocular vision, and, crucially, portals running from the rear of the skull to the eye socket—a feature seen in modern birds but not dinosaurs” (253:35).
The fact is, the fossil record does not, in any way, demonstrate that dinosaurs evolved into birds or that horses evolved from little, dog-like creatures. Ironically, although Prothero, writing for New Scientist, wrote that a “favourite lie” of creationists is ‘there are no transitional fossils’” (2008, 197[2645]:35), evolutionistMark Ridley wrote an article for the same journal 27 years earlier and confessed that “no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation...” (1981, 90:832, emp. added).


Darwin’s theory of evolution is false for a host of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it cannot account for the origin of life. According to Darwin, the simple cell, which he honestly thought was simple—contrary to modern cell biology—could have arisen from non-living chemicals in a warm little chemical pond (Darwin, 1959, 2:202).
Every evolutionary scientist must recognize that the fundamental tenet of organic evolution is the idea that life arose from non-living material substances such as chemicals. This idea, often referred to as spontaneous generation, certainly is testable. Ironically, however, biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes. This fact is well-known and admitted even by evolutionary scientists. George Wald, the Harvard professor who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, wrote in Biological Sciences: “If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life—that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation” (1963, p. 42, emp. added). David Kirk noted: “By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum ‘All life from preexisting life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent” (1975, p. 7). Even the eminent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson and his colleagues observed that “there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (1965, p. 144, emp. added). And marine biologist Martin Moe stated:
A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and that the amount of DNA and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals (1981, p. 36, emp. added).
In 2005, Dr. Robert Hazen, a well-respected origins-of-life researcher, produced a college-level course titled “Origins of Life.” In that course, he made several telling admissions. He stated: “First, this course is unusual because at this point in time, there is much that we don’t know about how life emerged on Earth” (p. 5). He further declared:
This course focuses exclusively on the scientific approach to the question of life’s origins. In this lecture series, I make an assumption that life emerged from basic raw materials.... Even with this scientific approach, there is a possibility that we’ll never know how life originated.... If life is the result of an infinitely improbable succession of chemical steps, then any scientific attempt to understand life’s origin is doomed to failure (1:6, emp. added).
According, then, to every piece of experimental datum that has been collected, life in this material Universe does not arise from non-living chemicals. Thousands of experiments have been designed and executed, each of which verify this fact (for more information see Thompson, 1989). Biogenesis deals the crushing blow to Darwin’s theory.


In grappling with the moral implications of his theory, Charles Darwin arrived at the only conclusion that can be inferred logically. He stated: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones” (1958, p. 94, emp. added).
William Provine, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the distinguished Cornell University, commented on Darwin’s position on morals as they relate to evolution. Eleven years ago, Provine delivered the keynote address at the second annual Darwin Day on the campus of the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. In an abstract of that speech, on UT’s Darwin Day Web site, Provine’s introductory comments are recorded in the following words: “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent” (1998, emp. added).
Carefully notice the underlying effects of such assertions. If there is no God, as Darwin admitted evolution implies, then humans are not bound by any moral standard other than the instincts that each human desires to follow. Thus, if one person considers it best to beat his children, while another considers it best to lovingly nurture his children, according to evolution, both would be acting in accord with their evolutionary origins, and neither would be guilty of any real, moral right or wrong. [NOTE: cf. two previousReason & Revelation articles document what happens when Darwin’s thoughts are practically applied to the human experience (see Butt, 2008a, Butt, 2008b).] Heinously immoral actions, such as infanticide, rape, murder, sexual promiscuity, pedophilia, homosexuality, adultery, and abortion, have all found justification in Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory implies that humans can act like animals without any moral responsibility.


In the creation/evolution debate, 2009 promises to be an eventful year. Darwin will be honored, adored, praised, and worshiped by his faithful followers, in spite of the fact that his ideas were not only wrong, but often detrimental to the moral fabric of human society. In this article, we have provided only a few of the myriad evidences that disprove evolution. We could multiply this material by 100 and still only scratch the surface of all the lines of evidence that “kill” the theory of evolution. As Darwin himself said years ago: “To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact” (“The Quotable Darwin,” 2009).


Adler, Jerry (1980), “Is Man a Subtle Accident?,” Newsweek, 96[18]:95, November 3.
Anderson, Alan (1991), “Early Bird Threatens Archaeopteryx’s Perch,” Science, 253:35, July 5.
Butt, Kyle (2008a), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3740.
Butt, Kyle (2008b), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism [Part II],” Reason & Revelation, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3762.
“Darwin: Big Idea, Big Exhibition” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/darwin/index.html.
Darwin, Charles (1860), The Origin of Species (New York: The Modern Library, reprint).
Darwin, Charles (1958), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, ed. Nora Barlow (New York: W.W. Norton).
“Darwin Day Celebration” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.darwinday.org/.
“Darwin Day Event Listing” (2009), [On-line], URL: http://www.darwinday.org/events/listing.php?id=12491.
Darwin, Francis (1959), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (New York: Basic Books).
Dawkins, Richard (1996), The Blind Watch­maker (New York: W.W. Norton).
DeYoung, Don (2000), Dinosaurs and Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Dini, Michael (no date), “Letters of Recommendation,” [On-line], URL:http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/dini/Personal/letters.htm.
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1973), “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” The American Biology Teacher, March, [On-line], URL:http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dobzhansky_abt_35_125-29.html.
“Fossil Evidence” (2007), NOVA, [On-line], URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/transitional.html.
Garner, Paul (2009), “Do Species Change?,” Answers In Genesis [On-line], URL:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/species-change#fn species-change#fnMark_1_1_1.
Geelan, Thomas (no date), “An Interdisciplinary Course in Evolution,” [On-line], URL:http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/AEF/1996/geelan_evolution.html.
Gould, Stephen Jay (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March.
Grant, Peter and Rosemary Grant (2006), “Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s Finches,”Science, 313[5784]:224-226, July 14, [On-line], URL:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5784/224.
Guterl, Fred (2002), “Evolution: Birds Do It,” Newsweek, 139[18]:11, May 6.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2001), “ArchaeopteryxArchaeoraptor, and the ‘Dinosaurs-to-Birds’ Theory [Part 1],” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/473.
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Kirk, David (1975), Biology Today (New York: Random House).
Moe, Martin A. (1981), “Genes on Ice,” Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December.
MacBeth, Norman (1971), Darwin Retried (Boston, MA: Gambit).
Monastersky, Richard (1993), “A Clawed Wonder Unearthed in Mongolia,” Science News, 143:245, April 17.
Prothero, Donald (2008), “What Missing Link?” NewScientist, 197[2645]:35-41, March 1-7.
Provine, William (1998), “Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life,” [On-line], URL:http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/DarwinDayProvine Address.htm.
“The Quotable Darwin” (2009), Scientific American, 300[1]:41.
Reeve, E.C. and Isobel Black, eds. (2001), Encyclopedia of Genetics, [On-line], URL:http://books.google.com/books?id=JjLWYKqehRsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Drosophila+Fruit+fly+mutations&source=web&ots=V5yPPBPE6h&sig=fOkUS_qLsARelWN Dqpe5uhq70mI&hl=en.
Rennie, John (2009), “Dynamic Darwinism,” Scientific American, 300[1]:6.
Ridley, Mark (1981), “Who Doubts Evolution?” NewScientist, June 25, 90: 832.
Schmid, Randolph (2006), “Finches on Galapagos Islands Evolving,” [On-line], URL:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060713/ap_on_sc/darwin_evolution;_ylt= AtMK7RaDjqo_NxNgdj2Hih.s0NUE;_ylu= X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBH NlYwM3NTM-.
Sherwin, Frank (no date), “Fruit Flies in the Face of Macroevolution,” [On-line], URL:http://www.icr.org/article/2602/.
Simpson, George Gaylord (1953), Life of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Simpson, G.G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World).
“Study: Darwin’s Finches Rapidly Evolving” (2006), [On-line], URL: http://www.macnews world.com/story/dP6qz1CRQ QfO4/-Study-Darwins-Finches-Rapidly-Evolv­ing.
Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.
Wald, George (1963), Biological Science: An Inquiry Into Life (New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World).
“The Years of Thinking Dangerously” (2008-2009), NewScientist, 200[2687/2688]:70-71.