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

                        "THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD"

                   The Indwelling Of The Holy Spirit


1. Several passages speak of the Spirit given to the Christian...
   a. Jesus promised the Spirit in some way that would be unique 
      - cf. Jn 7:37-39
      1) "...Christ is speaking here of what is peculiar to his own
         personal reign and administration." - Robert Milligan, Scheme
         of Redemption, p.283
      2) "He manifestly refers in this passage to something which had
         hitherto been enjoyed by no one, and which could be enjoyed by
         none until after that he himself was glorified." - ibid.
      3) "This, it would seem, could not have reference to the mediate
         agency of the Spirit, through the written word and the ordinary
         workings of God's providence; for through these media the
         Spirit had always operated on the minds of both Jews and
         Patriarchs." - ibid.
      4) This promise also does not have reference to any miraculous
         manifestation of the Spirit, as such had been experienced prior
         to the glorification of Jesus - e.g., Lk 1:41,67
   b. Peter promised the Spirit to those who repent and are baptized 
      - cf. Ac 2:38-39
      1) "The gift of the Spirit promised in Ac 2:38 was the Spirit
         itself" - David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers
      2) "The expression means the Holy Spirit as a gift" - J.W.
         McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts of Apostles
      3) "Certainly the gift of the Spirit is the Spirit itself given."
         - Moses Lard, Lard's Quarterly
      4) "The gift of the Holy Spirit is not some definite thing the
         Holy Spirit gives, but the Holy Spirit as a gift." - R. L.
         Whiteside, Reflections
   c. Other passages to consider are Ac 5:32; Ro 5:5

2. Such promises of the Spirit likely refer to what is called the
   indwelling of the Spirit...
   a. "Since the gift of the Spirit in Acts 2:38 is promised to all
      believing penitents who are baptized into Christ, and since the
      Spirit dwells in all Christians, this is the gift of the Spirit
      which was promised in Ac 2:38. - James D. Bales, The Holy Spirit
      And The Christian, p.13
   b. "...the reference is to that indwelling of the Holy Spirit by
      which we bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, and without which
      we are not of Christ." - J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts of
      Apostles, p.39 (commenting on Ac 2:38)
   c. "If they would repent and be baptized, receiving and cherishing
      the word of God in their hearts, this Holy Spirit as the
      indwelling guest of the church and the Christian would be their
      portion." - David Lipscomb, Queries and Answers, p.222 
      (commenting on Ac 2:38)

[Whether certain passages (such as Jn 7:37-39; Ac 2:38) specifically
refer to the Spirit's indwelling may be debatable.  But one thing is
certain, and that is...]


      1. The church is the temple of God, in which the Spirit dwells 
         - 1Co 3:16
      2. The church is a dwelling place of God in the Spirit 
         - Ep 2:21-22
      3. "...God, by means of the Spirit, dwells in the spiritual
         temple, in the hearts of believers. This temple is composed of
         'living stones' (1Pe 2:5), has a holy priesthood, and
         spiritual sacrifices." - B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament
         (commenting on Ep 2:22)
      4. "Christians are builded together in Christ, for a habitation, a
         dwelling place of God on earth. He dwells in this holy 
         habitation in the person of the Spirit." - J.W. Shepherd, A
         Commentary on the New Testament Epistles, Vol. IV, p.53
         (commenting on Ep 2:22)
      -- Thus the Spirit dwells in the church as a whole, making it
         possible for the church to be a temple in which God may dwell

      1. Necessary to belonging to Christ, to receiving life in our
         mortal bodies - Ro 8:9-11
         a. If we do not have the Spirit, we are not His
         b. If we have the Spirit, He will impart life to our 
            mortal bodies
      2. A reason to flee sexual immorality - 1Co 6:18-19
         a. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit
         b. What is said of the church as whole in 1Co 3:16, is now
            said here of our bodies
      -- Thus the Spirit dwells in each Christian individually, which
         ought to inspire godly living

[No Christian disputes the fact of the Spirit's indwelling.  What is
often disputed is...]


      1. Is the Spirit's indwelling literal, personal?
         a. Does the Spirit literally dwell in the Christian?
         b. Does He somehow personally reside in the body of 
            each Christian?
      2. Is the Spirit's indwelling mediated, through the Word only?
         a. Does the Spirit figuratively dwell in the Christian?
         b. Does He dwell in the Christian only in the sense that the
            Word abides in us?
      -- I understand the Spirit to literally and personally dwell in
         the Christian

      1. Primary support for such a view - 1Co 6:18-19
         a. Note the metaphor used by Paul
            1) The body of the Christian is the "temple" of the Holy
            2) Just as the body is a tabernacle for our spirit 
               (cf. 2 Co 5:1-4; 2Pe 1:13-14)
            3) So also the body is a dwelling place for the 
               Spirit of God
         b. Note the prepositions used by Paul
            1) The Spirit is "in" the Christian
            2) The Christian has the Spirit "from" God
         c. Note the line of reasoning used by Paul
            1) Paul argues from the indicative to the imperative
               a) From a statement of fact or condition to a command to
                  be obeyed
               b) Because the Spirit dwells in them (statement of fact),
                  they need to flee sexual immorality 
                  (command to be obeyed)
               c) Paul argues that because the Spirit is in them, they
                  need to obey the Word
            2) Through-the-Word-only advocates argue from the imperative
               to the indicative
               a) This view argues that a Christian must obey the word
                  (imperative) in order for the Spirit to 
                  indwell (indicative)
               b) I.e., one must flee fornication (heed the Word) so the
                  Spirit will dwell in them
               c) Exactly opposite to the line of reasoning used 
                  by Paul!
         -- Through use of metaphor, prepositions, line of reasoning,
            Paul depicts the Spirit as dwelling in the body of 
            the Christian
      2. Other passages for such a view
         a. God has sent the Spirit "into" our hearts - Ga 4:6
            1) Note this occurs because we are His sons; i.e., something
               beyond simply hearing and obeying the Word of God
            2) The effect is one of producing endearment in our
               relationship to God - cf. Ro 8:15
         b. God strengthens us by "His Spirit in the inner man" 
            - Ep 3:16
            1) God is at work in us as we work out our salvation 
               - Php 2:12-13; 4:13
            2) One way He does this is by His Spirit in the inner man 
               - Ep 3:16
            3) With the Spirit as His instrumental agent, God is "able
               to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or
               think, according to the power that works in us" - Ep 3:20
      -- The plain and simple reading of the Scriptures lead me to
         believe that the Spirit's indwelling is literal and personal

[I find arguments against a literal, personal indwelling of the Spirit
unconvincing, and may address them in another study.  But let's conclude
this lesson by reviewing some of...]


      1. We have been "sealed" by the Holy Spirit of promise - Ep 1:13;
         cf. 2Co 1:21-22
      2. The word "seal" (Gr. sphragizo) - "mark (with a seal) as a
         means of identification...; so that the mark which denotes
         ownership also caries with it the protection of the owner (see
         Re 7:3)... This forms a basis for understanding the symbolic
         expression which speaks of those who enter the Christian 
         fellowship as being sealed with or by the Holy Spirit" 
         - Arndt & Gingrich, p.796
      3. "The word "seal" is used in several important senses"
         a. "A seal authenticates a document and proves its genuineness
            (e.g., notary public seal or seal of an official 
             on a document)"
         b. "It is a mark of ownership (e.g., seals on ancient jars,
            brands on animals)"
         c. "It is a mark of security (e.g., railroad cars closed and
            sealed; medicine bottles)"
         -- Ferrell Jenkins, The Finger of God, p.19
      4. "It is our conviction that when a person obeys the gospel he is
         given the Holy Spirit.  In this way God seals the person."
         a. "In effect God says 'This person belongs to me; let everyone
            take note."
         b. "The other side of the coin is that the Christian greets
            this reception of the Spirit as a guarantee (earnest or
            pledge) of eternal inheritance." (see point B, mac)
         -- ibid., p.19
      -- Though not expressly stated, giving us His Spirit may be how
         God's "seals" or "marks" us as one of His own - cf. Ga 4:6

      1. The Spirit is given as an "earnest" (KJV) of our inheritance 
         - Ep 1:13-14; cf. 2Co 1:21-22
         a. Translated "guarantee" (NKJV)
         b. Translated "pledge" (NASB, NRSV)
      2. The word "earnest" (Gr. arrabon) - "first installment, deposit,
         down payment, pledge, that pays a part of the purchase price in
         advance, and so secures a legal claim to the article in
         question, or makes a contract valid...in any case, [arrabon] is
         a payment which obligates the contracting party to make further
         payments." - Arndt & Gingrich, p.109
      3. Vine points out that the word is closely connected to the
         modern Greek word for engagement ring - Expository Dictionary of
         New Testament Words, Vol. II, p.11
      4. "The Holy Spirit is God's earnest (down payment) to the
         Christian as assurance of the complete promised inheritance."
         a. "There is no comfort here for the advocate of the
            impossibility of apostasy."
         b. "The Christian can 'grieve' the Spirit (Ep 4:30)."
         c. "We can forfeit the down payment and not receive 
             the inheritance."
         -- Ferrell Jenkins, The Finger of God, p.19
      -- Receiving the Spirit is an indication that we are the children
         of God, and joint-heirs with Christ of the inheritance of which
         the Spirit is an "earnest" - Ro 8:14-17

      1. God strengthens us by His Spirit in the inner man - Ep 3:16
      2. It is by the Spirit we are able to put to death the deeds of
         the body - Ro 8:13
      3. The Spirit helps in our weaknesses - Ro 8:26a
      -- The Spirit serves as God's instrumental agent by which He
         imparts strength and support to the Christian

      1. Necessary if we are to be the sons of God - Ro 8:14
      2. Necessary if we are not to fulfill the lust of the flesh 
         - Ga 5:16
      3. Necessary if we are not to fall under condemnation of the law 
         - Ga 5:18
      -- How the Spirit leads, we shall examine more closely in the 
         next lesson

      1. The fruit of a person led by the Spirit includes love, joy,
         peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
         gentleness, self-control - cf. Ga 5:22-23
      2. We can be filled with peace and all joy in believing,  and
         abound in hope by the power of the Spirit - Ro 15:13
      -- Producing such fruit is contingent on setting our minds on the
         things of the Spirit - Ro 8:5-9


1. Exactly how the Spirit indwells the Christian may remain a mystery...
   a. Many understand the indwelling as literal, with the Spirit
      personally abiding in the Christian
   b. Others view it as figurative, the Spirit dwelling through the 
      Word only
   -- I used to hold the latter view; I now lean strongly toward 
      the former

2. Whatever the exact nature of the Spirit's indwelling, we must be
   careful to not...
   a. Grieve the Spirit, by whom we sealed for the day of redemption
   b. Anger the Father, who has given us His Spirit as a pledge of our
   -- Which we can do by continuing in willful sin - cf. He 10:26-31

3. Whatever the exact nature of the Spirit's indwelling, we must be
   careful to...
   a. Bring glory to God, by producing the fruit of the Spirit
   b. Walk after the Spirit, being strengthened by the Spirit
   -- Which we can do by being led by the Spirit, as we set our minds on
      the things of the Spirit - Ro 8:5-14

In our next study, we will look more closely at how the Spirit leads. 
In the meantime, don't forget that the Spirit is given to those who are
the sons of God (Ga 4:6).

Have you considered how one becomes a child of God? - cf. Jn 3:5; Ga 3:
26-27; Tit 3:5; Mk 16:16

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

eXTReMe Tracker 

God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 1]

Macroevolution vs. the Law of Biogenesis

In the nineteenth century, German scientist Rudolf Virchow expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Bio­genesis. Virchow “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition...,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (Gallik, 2013, emp. added). TheEncyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (‘every living thing [arises] from a [preexisting] living thing’) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (see “Rudolf Virchow,” 1973, 23:35, emp. added, parenthetical items and brackets in orig.). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.
In the words of the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, “biogenesis” is the “development of a living organism from a similar living organism” (2003, p. 239, emp. added). In the words of Stephen Meyer, whose doctoral dissertation at Cambridge University was in origin-of-life biology, “From ancient times, humans have known a few basic facts about living things. The first is that all life comes from life. Omne vivum ex vivo. The second is that when living things reproduce themselves, the resulting offspring resemble their parents. Like produces like” (2009, Ch. 3, italics in orig., emp. added). For the same reason that dog-like creatures do not give birth to cats, horse-like creatures do not produce pigs, and frog-like creatures do not have snakes, it is also true that ape-like creatures do not give rise to humans. However, if evolutionary theory is true, this is, in essence, what happened.
Even if a miraculous occurrence of abiogenesis were granted, this chasm still remains for the evolutionist to cross in order for his theory to be true. Perhaps you have seen the standard pictures illustrating the gradual evolution of man from ape-like creatures? Evolutionists draw such pictures and proudly pronounce such ideas to be plausible and even factual. The result: Millions of disciples have been made. However, the Law of Biogenesis stands in the way of this assertion, because evolution requires that creatures do notgive rise to other creatures like themselves.
In the field of philosophy, there is a law of logic known as the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that every precisely stated proposition is either true or false (Jevons, 1888, p. 119). As long as one precisely states a proposition, it can be known to be either true or false. If we define a bald person as a person having fewer than 200 hairs on his head, then every person is either bald or not bald. Similarly, as long as we precisely define what a human being is (and scientists have done so), every creature either is or is not human. In order for evolution to be true, the evolutionist must argue that a non-human has, in fact, given rise to a human at some point in the past—either by birth or by transformation (i.e., a non-human suddenly transformed into a human while alive). A proponent of transformation would likely be scoffed at, and the birth of a human from a non-human would violate the Law of Biogenesis. So, again, evolutionary theory is left with a gaping chasm that it cannot cross in hopes of attaining validity.
In the timeless 1976 debate on the existence of God, philosopher and creationist Thomas Warren asked renowned, atheistic, evolutionary philosopher Antony Flew, of the University of Reading in England, questions pertaining to this quandary. Did a non-human being ever transform into or give birth to a human being? Flew could not answer this question in the affirmative and still retain credibility, in light of common sense, as well as the Law of Biogenesis. So, he rightly answered in the negative—tacitly yielding the evolutionary position (Flew and Warren, 1977, p. 248). When pressed further about the implications of his admission, unwilling to concede God, Flew moved into the realm of irrationality. He stated:
The position is that there are of course lots of cases where you can say without hesitation: “It is a lion, it is a horse, it is a man or it is not a man.” But it is, it seems to me a consequence of evolutionary theory that species shade off into one another. Hence when you are confronted by marginal cases, you cannot say this is definitely human or this is not definitely human (p. 25, emp. added).
So, there are creatures that are neither human nor non-human? As Warren stated in his rebuttal, such an illogical position denies the firmly established Law of Excluded Middle. As long as a “human” is precisely defined, everything is either human or not human. It is logically impossible to be neither human nor non-human. The more Warren pressed Flew on this matter, the more illogical Flew was required to become in order to hold to his position.
In his final speech on the first night of the debate, Flew shocked the audience when he stated: “About whether I have met anyone who was not unequivocally either human or non-human: yes, I am afraid I have. I have met people who were very senile. I have also met people who were mad…. Can we say that these former people are people any longer?” (p. 65). Senile and mad people are non-humans? There are several problems with such a position. First, common sense dictates that such people are still human. Second, as long as “human” is precisely defined, the Law of Excluded Middle still applies. Third, Flew tacitly (certainly unconsciously) acknowledged that the “senile” and “mad” are actually human by using the word “people” in conjunction with them. “I have met people who were very senile. I have also met peoplewho were mad.” Fourth, notice that he argues that such people may be considered non-human. He does not say that they are neither human nor non-human. “Can we say that these former people are people any longer?” He therefore admitted, unwittingly, that any being can be defined as human or non-human, even if his definition of a human is a ridiculous one. [NOTE: Flew’s examples (i.e., senility and madness), even if they were erroneously conceded as legitimate examples of Darwinian evolution, were actually counterproductive to his case, since they would only illustrate that digression occurs in evolution, rather than progression.]
The bottom line is that every being is either human or non-human. In order for evolution to be true, a non-human had to give rise to a human at some point in the past—either by transformation or birth. Based on the scientific evidence, neither is possible. And yet, there is no other option for the evolutionist, unless he contends that the first human just popped intact into existence spontaneously—like a fairy or like a mythical dwarf springing from the ground. And yet this assertion would violate the First Law of Thermodynamics (cf.Miller, 2013), the Law of Biogenesis (cf. Miller, 2012), and, of course, reason itself. Life comes from life of its own kind. Period.
Even the evolutionary textbooks admit as much. Concerning the reproduction of living organisms, Prentice Hall’s textbook, Life Science, states: “Another characteristic of organisms is the ability to reproduce, or produce offspring that are similar to the parents. For example, robins lay eggs that develop into young robins that closely resemble their parents” (Coolidge-Stolz, et al., 2005, p. 35, emp. added). Robins make robins. There may be small differences in color, height, beak size, etc. However, the offspring is still a robin—not a shark and not a hawk. Evolutionary theory is not in keeping with the scientific evidence. However, the biblical model, once again, is in perfect harmony with the scientific evidence. God, the Being Who wrote the Law of Biogenesis, created life (Genesis 2:7; Acts 17:25) and made it to produce after its kind (Genesis 1:11,24).

Genetics vs. Evolution

But hasn’t genetics proved that evolution can happen through genetic mutations? Gregor Mendel is known by many today as the “Father of Genetics” (Considine, 1976, p. 1155). His work led to the series of genetic principles known as “Mendel’s laws” (Davis and Kenyon, 1989, p. 60). After his work was published in theTransactions of the Natural History Society of Brünn, his work was left essentially untouched and unknown for some 35 years, until other well-known geneticists conducted research which cited his. One of those—Hugo de Vries, a Dutch evolutionary botanist—is credited with having discovered the existence of genetic mutations (“Hugo de Vries,” 2013).

The Evolution of Evolution

The Law of Biogenesis’ claim that life reproduces according to its kind, while arguably macroscopic in its application to biogenesis, is in keeping with the evidence at the genetic level as well. It provides further support for that important concept: life reproduces according to its kind.
Darwin’s theory of evolution has, itself, evolved over the decades. With further scientific investigation into the legitimacy of Darwin’s theory, time and again, evolutionists have been forced to admit that the current version of evolution cannot do what they previously thought it could. It never completely lines up with the evidence. The alleged evolutionary timeline, therefore, must be revised constantly: dates change as to when various animals lived in the distant past; the order of evolutionary development is endlessly revised; new theories attempting to explain why various animals developed particular body parts are constantly being developed. The theory of evolution evolves.
And truly, the evolution of evolution is not a process that has been in effect for only a few decades. Evolution itself did not originate with Charles Darwin. Forms of evolution have been considered for millennia, at least as far back as the 600s B.C., with Thales and his Milesian school and the Ionian school (Conford, 1957). And for millennia, those ideas have had to be continually revised to attempt to stay in keeping with the latest scientific understanding.
While it is true that one should expect scientific theories to be revised to a certain extent over time—revisions amounting to fine-tuning—the evolutionary model is not merely revised. It periodically requires complete overhauls in broad, fundamental areas of the theory that evolutionists had previously proclaimed as established fact (cf. Thompson, 1981; www.apologeticspress.org). The late, distinguished astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at University College, Cardiff, Wales, noted that we should “be suspicious of a theory if more and more hypotheses are needed to support it” (1981, p. 135). The Alcoholics Anonymous definition of “insanity” comes to mind: doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results. At some point, when attempts to prove a theory result in multiple, successive roadblocks, the sane person must surely ponder, “Maybe we should scrap this theory and start over.”
Regardless, Darwin came along at the right time in history for evolutionary theory to “take off” and gain followers. This circumstance was due to various reasons, not the least of which is surely the fact that he gave the irreligious a “respectable” reason to reject God. The result: Darwin is typically considered the “Father” of evolution.

Natural Selection and Neo-Darwinism

As is implied by the title of Darwin’s famous book (i.e., The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection..., 1859), the fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution was originally natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that nature selects those species that are most “fit” or suited to a particular environment for survival. Those species which are not as well-suited, and which do not migrate to environments more conducive to their anatomy, will die out. That idea is largely true and observable, and the creationist has no problem with it. It does not contradict the evidence or the Creation model.
The problem is that Darwin believed natural selection could be the means by which his evolutionary theory could happen—the mechanism that would accommodate the idea that all forms of life came about from previously existing, less complex life, starting with a single cell eons ago. But while natural selection might filter the unfit from a given population, it is not capable of creating anything—especially species that are not only complex, but more complex than their ancestors. John Sanford, co-inventor of the “Biolistic Particle Delivery System” (i.e., the “gene gun”), is one of the few elite individuals with the title of “population geneticist.” His Ph.D. in plant breeding and genetics, and years of further research in genetic engineering, as well as his position as a professor at Cornell University, placed him on the front lines of the scientific community in gathering evidence for and against natural selection and evolution. His work in plant genetics led him from being an ardent atheistic evolutionist to being a creationist. In his book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, Sanford explained:
For many people, including many biologists, natural selection is like a magic wand. There seems to be no limit to what one can imagine it accomplishing. This extremely naïve perspective toward natural selection is pervasive…. [N]atural selection is not a magic wand but is a very real phenomenon, it has very real capabilities and very real limitations. It is not all-powerful (2008, p. 46, italics in orig.).
Scientists have realized today that Darwin was wrong. Natural selection alone would not suffice to cause evolution to occur. Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University once explained, “The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well” (1977, p. 28, emp. added). Therein lies the problem. Evolutionists recognize today that they cannot even claim that natural selection could create the fit. Hugo de Vries long ago said, “Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest” (1905, pp. 825-826, emp. added).
Bottom line: evolutionists have realized that natural selection cannot provide the mechanism required for evolutionary change. Enter neo-Darwinism, the version of evolution that is now en vogue. Neo-Darwinism, also known as the “Primary Axiom” (Sanford, 2008), attempts to revise Darwinism by contending that natural selection coupled with genetic mutations—random DNA accidents—provide the mechanism for evolution to occur. In the words of molecular and cell biologist Jonathan Wells of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle,
It was not until the 1930s that Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics were combined in what became known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis. According to neo-Darwinian theory, traits are passed on by genes that reside on microscopic thread-like structures in the cell called chromosomes, and new traits arise from accidental genetic mutations (2011, p. 18, emp. added).
According to neo-Darwinism, random mutations could accidentally create new species over time, and natural selection could eliminate the unfit ones, leaving the better, more evolved species in existence.
Concerning neo-Darwinism, molecular biologist John McFadden wrote: “Over millions of years, organisms will evolve by selection of mutant offspring which are fitter than their parents. Mutations are therefore the elusive source of the variation that Darwin needed to complete his theory of evolution. They provide the raw material for all evolutionary change” (2000, p. 65, emp. added). Years ago, George Gaylord Simpson and his co-authors said, “Mutations are the ultimate raw materials for evolution” (1957, p. 430). One genetics textbook put it this way: “Mutations constitute the raw material for evolution; they are the basis for the variability in a population on which natural (or artificial) selection acts to preserve those combinations of genes best adapted to a particular environment” (Snyder, et al., 1985, p. 353, parenthetical item in orig.). Is it true that mutations can provide the raw material and mechanism for Darwinian evolution to occur over millions of years? Do mutations eliminate the need for a supernatural Source to explain the origin of species?

Creating Information: A Prerequisite for Evolution

Recall Stephen Meyer, origin-of-life biologist and doctoral graduate of Cambridge University. In his book on the origin of genetic information, he discussed one of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century—the structure of the DNA molecule by James Watson and Francis Crick. He noted that “when Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they also discovered that DNA stores information using a four-character chemical alphabet. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals called nucleotide bases store and transmit the assembly instructions—the information—for building the crucial protein molecules and machines the cell needs to survive” (2009, Ch. 1). Information is packed into our genes, and its transfer during reproduction is critical. Without the transfer of information, there would be no such thing as life.
Information scientist, professor, and control engineer Werner Gitt, retired director of the Information Technology Division at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, noted that,
The concept of “information” is not only of prime importance for informatics theories and communication techniques, but it is a fundamental quantity in such wide-ranging sciences as cybernetics, linguistics, biology, history, and theology. Many scientists therefore justly regard information as the third fundamental entity alongside matter and energy (2007, Ch. 3).
Meyer argues that “[o]ur actions show that we not only value information, but that we regard it as a real entity, on par with matter and energy” (2009, Ch. 1). Indeed, “[a]t the close of the nineteenth century, most biologists thought life consisted solely of matter and energy. But after Watson and Crick, biologists came to recognize the importance of a third fundamental entity in living things: information” (Ch. 3).
How does this third “fundamental entity in living things” relate to the evolution question? In order for evolution to occur, information would have to be created—at the beginning of life and at every macroevolutionary jump between living kinds. This presents a problem for evolution, which Bernd-Olaf Kuppers, biophysicist, professor of natural philosophy, and director of the Frege Centre for Structural Sciences at the University of Jena, summarized: “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information” (1990, p. 170). In the book, In the Beginning was Information, Gitt makes the compelling argument that “[t]he question ‘How did life originate?’ which interests us all, is inseparably linked to the question ‘Where did the information come from?’… All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question” (Ch. 6). Neil Shubin, paleontologist and professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago wrote:
I can share with you one true law that all of us can agree upon. This law is so profound that most of us take it completely for granted. Yet it is the starting point for almost everything we do in paleontology, developmental biology, and genetics. This biological “law of everything” is that every living thing on the planet had parents. Every person you’ve ever known has biological parents, as does every bird, salamander, or shark you have ever seen.... To put it in a more precise form: every living thing sprang from some parental genetic information (2009, p. 174, emp. added).
The scientific evidence indicates that genetic information is always passed from parents (even though if evolution is true, originally there could not have been parents). It does not spring into existence. So how did it originate? How could it originate, without an initial Parent capable of creating genetic information?
Obviously, the existence of genetic information, its transfer from parent to offspring, and the mechanism—the software and the hardware—by which it transfers are critical to life. More importantly, their origin must be explained, since the creation/evolution debate hinges on that explanation. Under the evolutionary model, the first life had to be information rich, though being the product of non-living matter. From that life, an immense amount of other information had to be “written” into the genome over time through mutations during reproduction in order for humans to be in existence today. And yet, in the words of Gitt, “There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter” (Ch. 6).
While there are proposals attempting to explain the origin of the genetic code through natural means, according to Gitt, those proposals are “purely imaginary models. It has not been shown empirically how information can arise in matter” (Ch. 6). Naturalism simply cannot explain the origin of information. Gitt continues, “The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded” (Ch. 11). Meyer explained, “[S]elf-organizational laws or processes of necessity cannot generate—as opposed to merely transmit—new information” (Ch. 15). After reviewing the many attempts over the years to explain the origin of information, Meyer summarized:
Every attempt to explain the origin of biological information either failed because it transferredthe problem elsewhere or “succeeded” only by presupposing unexplained sources of information…. Every major origin-of-life scenario—whether based on chance, necessity, or the combination—failed to explain the origin of specified information. Thus, ironically, origin-of-life research itself confirms that undirected chemical processes do not produce large amounts of specified information starting from purely physical or chemical antecedents(Ch. 15, emp. added).
Several years ago, evolutionary scientists gathered in Mainz, Germany and discussed some of the problems that had yet to be solved by naturalists (and still have not been solved today) regarding origins. Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry at Johannes Gutenberg University wrote concerning the findings of the seventh “International Conference on the Origins of Life”:
A further puzzle remains, namely the question of the origin of biological information, i.e., the information residing in our genes today…. The Mainz report may have an equally important historical impact, because for the first time it has now been determined unequivocally by a large number of scientists that all evolutionary theses that living systems developed from poly-nucleotides which originated spontaneously, are devoid of any empirical base (1983, pp. 968-969, emp. added).
In other words, no scientist has any empirical evidence that biological information could spontaneously generate. But evolution requires the spontaneous generation of information. Without such a process, naturalistic evolution has no mechanism for the initial generation of information at the onset of life or for interkind transformation.

Mutations, Manuals, and New Information

Though neo-Darwinism has been proposed as the solution to rectify the inadequacy of natural selection in causing macroevolution, in reality, it has its own problems as well. Simply put, genetic mutations do not create new raw material or information—which is necessary for the kind of change required by evolutionary theory. Mutations cannot explain the origin of new information. Speaking to that issue, British engineer and physicist Alan Hayward, said years ago:
[M]utations do not appear to bring progressive changes. Genes seem to be built so as to allow changes to occur within certain narrow limits, and to prevent those limits from being crossed. To oversimplify a little: mutations very easily produce new varieties within a species, and might occasionally produce a new (though similar) species, but—despite enormous efforts by experimenters and breeders—mutations seem unable to produce entirely new forms of life(1985, p. 55, emp. added).
Gould said, concerning mutations, “A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species…. That’s a common idea people have; that evolution is due to random mutations. A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change” (1980, emp. added). A mutation does not “produce major new raw material”? What does that mean?
Sanford likens the genome to an instruction manual for making human beings. In his analogy, letters correspond to nucleotides, words correspond to small clusters of nucleotides, “which combine to form genes (the chapters of our manual), which combine to form chromosomes (the volumes of our manual), which combine to form the whole genome (the entire library)” (2008, p. 2, italics in orig.). In the printing, re-typing, or digital copying of a book, errors—or mutations—will sometimes appear when you examine the finished product. For example, individual words could be garbled—a few letters of a word could be changed to other letters, termed codon errors in genetics. Duplication could occur—the idea that words, sentences, and even entire paragraphs could be duplicated somewhere within the book. Translocation could occur—where sections from one part of the book are moved and inserted elsewhere in the book. Deletion could occur—where segments of the book are simply lost.
Though these kinds of errors or mutations (and others) can occur, no new material is written when they do. No new information has been added to the book. A new sentence has not been written into the story. The problem with evolutionary theory is that it requires new sentences and even chapters to have been written through mutations in the genetic “book.” In fact, it requires sequels of the book to write themselves into existence through random mutation.


Conford, F.M. (1957), “Pattern of Ionian Cosmogony,” in Theories of the Universe, ed. Milton K. Munitz (Glencoe, IL: Free Press).
Considine, Douglas M. (1976), Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold), fifth edition.
Coolidge-Stolz, Elizabeth, Jan Jenner, Marylin Lisowski, Donald Cronkite, and Linda Cronin Jones (2005),Life Science (Boston, MA: Prentice Hall).
Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray).
Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon (1989), Of Pandas and People (Dallas, TX: Haughton).
“Definition: Rudolf Virchow” (2006), Webster’s Online Dictionary with Multilingual Thesaurus Translation,http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/virchow.
De Vries, Hugo (1905), Species and Varieties: Their Origin by Mutation, ed. Daniel Trembly MacDougal (Chicago, IL: Open Court).
Dose, K. (1983), “The Origin of Life,” Nachrichten aus Chemie, Technik und Laboratorium, 31[12]:968-969.
Flew, Antony G.N. and Thomas B. Warren (1977), The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God(Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).
Gallik, Stephen (2013), “Exercise 1. The Discovery of Cells. D. Schleiden, Schwann, Virchow and the Cell Theory,” The On-line Lab Manual for Cell Biology 4.0,http://stevegallik.org/cellbiologyolm_Ex001_P04.html.
Gitt, Werner (2007), In the Beginning was Information (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), Kindle file.
Gould, Stephen J. (1980), “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Hobart College speech, 2-14-80; quoted in Luther Sunderland (1984), Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego, CA: Master Books).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1977), “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, 86[5]:12-16, May.
Hayward, Alan (1985), Creation or Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies (London: Triangle Books).
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
“Hugo de Vries” (2013), Encyclopaedia Britannica Online,http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/633337/Hugo-de-Vries.
Jevons, W. Stanley (1888), Elementary Lessons in Logic: Deductive & Inductive (New York: MacMillan).
Kuppers, Bernd-Olaf (1990), Information and the Origin of Life (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press).
McFadden, John J. (2000), Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life (New York: W.W. Norton).
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Meyer, Stephen C. (2009), Signature in the Cell (New York: Harper Collins), Kindle file.
Miller, Jeff (2012), “The Law of Biogenesis [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 32[1]:1-5,9-11, January.
Miller, Jeff (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press,http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article= 2786.
“Rudolf Virchow” (1973), Encyclopaedia Britannica (London: William Benton Publisher).
Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.
Shubin, Neil (2009), Your Inner Fish (New York: Vintage Books).
Simpson, George G., C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace).
Snyder, Leon A., David Freifelder, and Daniel L. Hartl (1985), General Genetics (Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett).
Thompson, Bert (1981), The History of Evolutionary Thought (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Wells, Jonathan (2011), The Myth of Junk DNA (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press).

God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 2] by Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Part 2]

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part 1 of this two-part series appeared in the January issue. Part 2 follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]
In answer to the question, “Can new information originate through mutations?” Gitt responded, “This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information” (Gitt, 2007, Ch. 11, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.). Meyer explains,
“[N]atural selection can ‘select’ only what random mutations first produce. And for the evolutionary process to produce new forms of life, random mutations must first have produced new genetic information for building novel proteins” (2009, Ch. 9). And  again, that simply does not happen.
[M]utations of the kind that macroevolution doesn’t need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don’t occur. According to Darwin (1859, p. 108) natural selection cannot act until favorable variations arise in a population. Yet there is no evidence from developmental genetics that the kind of variations required by neo-Darwinism—namely, favorable body plan mutations—ever occur.... [M]utations in DNA alone cannot account for the morphological changes required to build a new body plan (Meyer, 2004, emp. added).
Mutation simply “does not constitute an adequate causal explanation of the origination of biological form in the higher taxonomic groups” (Meyer, 2004).
Meyer summarized the problem for neo-Darwinism:
Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, namely, within the genetic text. Yet major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans (2004, italics in orig., emp. added).
In the words of Sanford:
[E]ven when ignoring deleterious mutations, mutation/selection cannot create a single gene within the human evolutionary timescale. When deleterious mutations are factored back in, we see that mutation/selection cannot create a single gene, ever. This is overwhelming evidence against the Primary Axiom.In my opinion this constitutes what is essentially a formal proof that the Primary Axiom is false (2008, p. 139, emp. and italics in orig.).
Michael Behe, biochemist and Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, points out that some microorganisms have been shown to be able to rapidly adapt to new environments. However, in doing so, those organisms never develop new internal functions. According to Behe, their adaptations amount, not to innovation, but merely fine-tuning (2007).
So in the words of Gould, mutations do not “produce major new raw material.” They simply change something that already exists. They alter what is already present. They are variations within types of already existing genes. They might cause a fly to have extra wings, a fish to have extra eyes, or a person to have an extra toe; but mutations cannot create a new kind of creature. A mutation would not cause a wing to appear on a creature unless the creature already had wings in its genetic code. If a fish does not already have antlers in its genes, it is not going to grow them. If a dog does not have webbed duck feet or feathers in its genes, neither it nor its descendants are going to grow them. If a person does not have tank treads in his genes, he will never be able to roll over to his neighbor’s house, regardless of how long he (or his progeny) lives and mutates. Neo-Darwinian evolution simply cannot happen. Sanford lamented:
Very regrettably, evolutionists have treated two very different phenomenon, adaptation to environments and evolution of higher life forms, as if they were the same thing. We do not need to be geniuses to see that these are different issues. Adaptation can routinely be accomplished by loss of information or even developmental degeneration (loss of organs). However, development of higher life forms (representing more specified complexity) always requires a large increase in information (p. 202, italics in orig.).
And Darwinian evolution cannot provide it.


East German scientist J. Peil wrote, “Information is neither a physical nor a chemical principle like energy and matter, even though the latter are required as carriers” (as quoted in Gitt, 2007, Ch. 3). The late American mathematician Norbert Wiener, previously professor of mathematics at M.I.T., graduate of Harvard University, and considered to be the originator of the field of cybernetics, long ago said, “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day” (1965, p. 132). What does that truth imply about information?
In the words of Gitt, in what he calls “Theorem 1,” “[t]he fundamental quantity information is a non-material (mental) entity. It is not a property of matter, so that purely material processes are fundamentally precluded as sources of information” (Ch. 3, emp. added). He further explains, “Information is always based on the will of a sender who issues the information…. Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act” (Ch. 3). “[I]t is clear that the information present in living organisms requires an intelligent source…. Any model for the origin of life (and of information) based solely on physical and/or chemical processes, is inherently false” (Ch. 4, parenthetical item in orig.). Gitt proposes Theorem 29 as a summary of that truth: “Every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind” (Ch. 8). In other words, “[n]ew information can only originate in a creative thought process” (Ch. 8).
What about the findings from computerized evolutionary algorithms and ribozyme-engineering experiments? Don’t they prove neo-Darwinian evolution could happen? Meyer responds:
[M]inds can produce biologically relevant structures and forms of information, but without mind or intelligence little, if any, information arises…. [I]ntelligent agents can produce information. And since all evolutionary algorithms require preexisting sources of information provided by designing minds, they show the power—if not the necessity—of intelligent design….
[R]ibozyme-engineering experiments demonstrate the power—if not, again, the need for—intelligence to produce information—in this case, the information necessary to enhance the function of RNA enzymes…. Undirected materialistic causes have not demonstrated the capacity to generate significant amounts of specified information. At the same time, conscious intelligence has repeatedly shown itself capable of producing such information. It follows that mind—conscious, rational, intelligent agency—what philosophers call “agent causation,” now stands as the only cause known to be capable of generating large amounts of specified information starting from a nonliving state (2009, Ch. 15).
Radiologist Henry Quastler, who pioneered the use of isotopes to study cell kinetics and “was one of the first to apply Information Theory to biology” (Ducoff, 2007), long ago stated, “[C]reation of information is habitually associated with conscious activity” (Quastler, 1964, p. 16). If this be the case—if all the evidence points to an intelligent Designer for the origin of information—why reject the evidence? “Whatever information is—whether thought or an elaborate arrangement of matter—one thing seems clear. What humans recognize as information certainly originates from thought—from conscious or intelligent activity” (Meyer, 2009, Ch. 1, italics in orig.).


Even if genetic mutation could sporadically provide new information, there are other, even more significant issues. Meyer explains, “[A]ny minimally complex protocell resembling cells we have today would have required not only genetic information, but a sizable preexisting suite of proteins for processing that information” (2009, Ch. 9). And what’s more,
scientists investigating the origin of life must now explain the origin of at least three key features of life. First, they must explain the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information in the cell, DNA’s capacity to store digitally encoded information. Second, they must explain the origin of the large amount of specified complexity or functionally specified information in DNA. Third, they must explain the origin of the integrated complexity—the functional interdependence of parts—of the cell’s information-processing system (2009, Ch. 5).
Sanford points out further how Darwinian evolution would still not be possible with sporadic instances of new information:
I believe the “going down” aspect of the genome is subject to concrete analysis. Such analysis persuasively argues that net information must be declining. If this is true [and the primary focus of his book illustrates that it is—JM], then even if it could be shown that there were specific cases where new information might be synthesized via mutation/selection, it would still be meaningless since such new information would promptly then begin to degenerate again. The net direction would still be down, and complex genomes could never have arisen spontaneously. If the genome is actually degenerating, it is…bad news for evolutionary theory. If mutation/selection cannot preserve the information already within the genome, it is difficult to imagine how it could have created all that information in the first place! We cannot rationally speak of genome-building when there is a net loss of information every generation! Halting degeneration is just a small prerequisite step before the much more difficult question ofinformation-building can reasonably be opened for discussion (pp. 105-106, italics in orig.).
Wells argues that
even if scientists eventually observe the origin of a new species by natural selection, the observation would not mean that natural selection can also explain the origin of significantly new organs or body plans. But the fact that scientists have not observed even the first step in macroevolution means that “evolution’s smoking gun” is still missing. Despite the lack of direct evidence for speciation [i.e., the origin of new species—JM] by natural selection, Darwin’s followers still assume that he was essentially correct and regard changes within existing species as evidence for their theory (2011, p. 13, emp. added).
Once again, speculation and conjecture without supporting evidence rule the day in evolutionary circles and textbooks. All the while, mounds of evidence exist which indicate that new information is not possible through genetic mutation. So neo-Darwinian evolution is not possible.


Mutations are, by definition, “errors”—mistakes in the replication of DNA (cf. Ayala, 1978, 239[3]:56-69). There are three possible kinds of mutations: bad, good, and neutral (i.e., those that have no net effect on a species one way or the other)—none of which add new raw material or information to the genome. Evolution hinges on the idea that beneficial mutations must be the trend, since evolution requires aprogression in species (and those mutations must simultaneously add new raw material in order to evolve a new species).
However, in truth, the scientific evidence indicates that this trend is not the case. Renowned geneticist of Stanford University, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, head of the International Human Genome Diversity Project, said, “Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect or a deleterious one” (2000, p. 176, emp. added). Prominent evolutionary taxonomist, Ernst Mayr (professor emeritus of Harvard), wrote, “[T]he occurrence of beneficial mutations is rather rare” (2001, p. 98, emp. added). In fact, it has long been realized that, after eliminating the neutral mutations from the discussion, 99% of the remaining mutations are said to be actually harmful—not beneficial (Crow, 1997; Cartwright, 2000, p. 98; Winchester, 1951, p. 228; Martin, 1953, 41:100; Ayala, 1968, 162:1436; Morris, 1984, p. 203; Klotz, 1985, p. 181). This was recognized as long ago as 1950, when Nobel laureate and geneticist, Hermann J. Muller said, “The great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way” (1950, 38:35, emp. added). Famous evolutionary geneticist of Rockefeller University, Theodosius Dobzhansky, admitted that beneficial mutations make up less than 1% of all mutations (as quoted in Davidheiser, 1969, p. 209).
Several decades of further research did not help matters. The late evolutionary geneticist of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst Lynn Margulis, and her co-author, science writer Dorion Sagan, referenced Muller’s historic work, emphasizing that “as was pointed out very early by Hermann J. Muller (1890-1967), the Nobel prizewinner who showed X-rays to be mutagenic in fruit flies, 99.9 percent of the mutations are [still—JM] deleterious. Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change” (2002, pp. 11-12, emp. added). According to theoretical evolutionary geneticist Philip Gerrish of the University of New Mexico and Richard Lenski, experimental evolutionary biologist of Michigan State University, it seems that the best estimates for beneficial mutations are now “roughly one in a million” (1998, 102/103:132). That’s one ten-thousandth of one percent. Thomas Bataillon, evolutionary biologist of Aarhus University’s Bioinformatics Research Centre, and Santiago Elena, molecular and evolutionary geneticist of the Institute of Molecular and Cellular Plant Biology in Spain, argue that the rate of beneficial mutations is so low that it cannot even be measured (Bataillon, 2000; Elena, et al., 1998). Behe even argues, based on a thorough examination of relevant evolutionary experiments over the last few decades, that those mutations which are considered to be “beneficial” for an organism still typically involved a loss of function (i.e., a loss of genetic information)—not a gain. In the summary of his 2010 article in the Quarterly Review of Biology, he says, “The results of decades of experi-mental [sic] laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT [i.e., loss of function—JM] and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate” (2010, p. 441). In truth, this circumstance should be expected, since mutations are, by definition, deviations from what would have occurred in the replication of DNA, if everything worked in the way that it should.
So mutations do not provide the progressive, beneficial trend required by evolution, but rather, reveal adigressive trend. Mutations, by and large, are deleterious, not beneficial to the genome. That is what thescientific evidence indicates—an avalanche of harmful mutations sweeping all species on the planet down the slope of deterioration, decay, and digression. This trend is in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics—entropy is inevitable (see Sanford, 2008 for a decisive treatise on the truth of genetic entropy). The genome will inevitably deteriorate, not evolve. This trend is also supported by information theory (Gitt, 2007).
“Error catastrophe” is the term used to describe what happens when natural selection cannot adequately counter the loss of information that occurs due to deleterious mutations—a situation we are currently facing. During the final phase of degeneration, “mutational meltdown” occurs (Bernardes, 1996)—the “rapid collapse of the population and sudden extinction” of the species (Sanford, p. 220). Kevin Higgins and Michael Lynch, evolutionary biologists of Indiana University and the University of Oregon, respectively, argue that extinction is currently a significant risk for many mammals and other animals because of the existing state of deterioration in the genome due to mutations. “Under synchronous environmental fluctuations, the acceleration of extinction caused by mutation accumulation is striking…. [F]or a large globally dispersing metapopulation with mutation accumulation, the extinction time is just slightly longer than 100 generations” (2001, p. 2932). There is no doubt that genetic entropy is the trend, not genetic organization.
Behe argues, “[N]ot only does Darwinism not have answers for how information got into the genome, it doesn’t even have answers for how it could remain there” (as quoted in Sanford, 2008, back cover, emp. added). Genetic entropy prohibits it. No wonder Sanford wrote, “Degeneration is the precise antithesis of evolutionary theory. Therefore the reality of Genetic Entropy is positively fatal to Darwinism” (p. 206, italics in orig., emp. added). Expounding on that idea, he said:
If the genome must degenerate, then the Primary Axiom is wrong. It is not just implausible. It is not just unlikely. It is absolutely dead wrong. It is not just a false axiom. It is an unsupported and discredited hypothesis, and can be confidently rejected. Mutation/selection cannot stop the loss of genomic information, let alone create the genome! Why is this? It is because selection occurs on the level of the whole organism. It cannot stop the loss of information (which is immeasurably complex) due to mutation, and is happening on the molecular level. It is like trying to fix a computer with a hammer (p. 147, italics and emp. in orig.).
Due to entropy, the genetic trend is downward. But evolution demands an upward trend—not good for Darwinian evolution.
Notice again, however, that while deterioration destroys evolutionary theory, the trend towards deterioration is in keeping with the Creation model, which argues that the genome was originally pristine in the Garden before sin entered the world, initiating the decay process (Romans 5:12; Psalm 102:25-27). The natural trend all around us is clearly that living creatures are being swept down the proverbial mountainside in an avalanche of entropy. Yet evolutionary theory irrationally postulates that the trend for the mindless, accidental evolution of species has actually been up the mountain-side against an oppressive wall of tumbling snow.


No wonder, like Gould and Hayward, Margulis and Sagan strongly expressed their disagreement with the idea that genetic mutations could be the mechanism for evolution, as neo-Darwinism contends. They said, “[R]andom mutation, a small part of the evolutionary saga, has been dogmatically overemphasized” (2002, p. 15). “Many ways to induce mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues…. We show here that the major source of inherited variation is not random mutation” (pp. 11-12, emp. added). Evolutionist Pierre-Paul Grassé, who was the chair of evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for over 30 years, said, “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution” (1977, p. 103, emp. added). Nobel laureate, Sir Ernst Chain, who is credited with having purified penicillin in such a way that it could be used as an antibiotic, said years ago, “To postulate…that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations…seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts” (1970, p. 25, emp. added). As we have seen, such profound statements are still relevant today.
Indeed, due to the nature of genetics, mutations simply do not provide a mechanism for Darwinian evolution to occur. In the words of Sanford, “The demise of the Primary Axiom leaves evolutionary theory without any viable mechanism. Without any naturalistic mechanism, evolution is not significantly different from any faith-based religion” (2008, p. 206; cf. Houts, 2007). [NOTE: “Faith” is used by Sanford here to describe those who believe in God without evidence—an idea which the Bible does not support (cf. John 8:32; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1; Miller, 2013).] Neo-Darwinism has no mechanism for progressing towards new species, and the origin of the genetic code remains a mystery for naturalists. Evolutionist Douglas Hofstadter, physicist and Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science at Indiana University in Bloomington once said:
There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground on this most central of all central questions: “How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules) originate?” For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe rather than with an answer (1980, p. 548, emp. added).
Writing in Nature, evolutionist John Maddox said, “[I]t is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code isstill as obscure as the origin of life itself” (1994, 367:111, emp. added). The unfortunate truth is that so many, both theists and atheists alike, have been steamrolled into believing Darwinian religion by the naturalist crowd. Evolution has been foisted upon the minds of children and touted as scientific fact for decades, when all the while, upon closer examination of the evidence, evolution is found to be baseless in its attempt to explain the origin of species. All along, an explanation for the origin of the kinds of creatures we see on Earth has been available that does not contradict the scientific evidence.


In the words of famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist of Cambridge University, Stephen Hawking, “[T]he Universe is a machine governed by principles or laws—laws that can be understood by the human mind.... But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe” (“Curiosity…,” 2011, emp. added). As with everything else in the law-abiding Universe, reproduction behaves in accordance with governing laws. Life produces according to its kind.
The Bible, which articulates the Creation model in simple terms, stated long ago a truth that has stood the test of time and continues to be verified by modern science. God made living creatures and then established the ordinances which would govern their reproduction. The phrase “according to its kind” is used repeatedly (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25), highlighting the clear barriers that God established between various forms of life—distinctions which evolutionary theory seeks to dissolve. [NOTE: The word “kind” was written in Genesis long before the modern taxonomic categories developed. While there may be no direct equivalent to the present taxonomic system, the “family” of a creature may be the best parallel in most cases.] Genesis 1:11-12 and 1:24 recount for us the general law that God wrote at the creation of the Universe regarding life and reproduction: plants and animals were to reproduce “according to their kind.” That simple statement has profound import and denies the theory of evolution, which requires inter-kind leaps—evolution across phylogenic boundaries—prohibited by the evidence from genetics. The Creation model, however, passes the genetics test with flying colors.


Ayala, Francisco (1968), “Genotype, Environment, and Population Numbers,” Science, 162:1436.
Ayala, Francisco (1978), “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, 239[3]:56-59, September.
Bataillon, T. (2000), “Estimation of Spontaneous Genome-wide Mutation Rate Parameters: Whither Beneficial Mutations?” Heredity, 84:497-501.
Behe, Michael (2007), The Edge of Evolution (New York: Free Press).
Behe, M.J. (2010), “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85[4]:419-445.
Bernardes, A.T. (1996), “Mutation Load and the Extinction of Large Populations,” Physica ACTA, 230:156-173.
Cartwright, John (2000), Evolution and Human Behavior (London: Macmillan).
Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (2000), Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North Point Press).
Chain, Ernst (1970), Social Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society (London: Council of Christians and Jews).
Crow, J.F. (1997), “The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate: Is it a Health Risk?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94:8380-8386.
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7.
Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray).
Davidheiser, Bolton (1969), Evolution and Christian Faith (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).
Ducoff, Howard (2007), “University of Illinois Biophysics: The First Half-Century,” Center for Biophysics and Computational Biology: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,http://biophysics.illinois.edu/program/history.html.
Elena, S.F., L. Ekunwe, N. Hajela, S.A. Oden, and R.E. Lenski (1998), “Distribution of Fitness Effects Caused by Random Insertion Mutations in Escherichia Coli,” Genetica, 102-103[1-6]:349-358.
Gerrish, Philip J. and Richard E. Lenski (1998), “The Fate of Competing Beneficial Mutations in an Asexual Population,” Genetica, 102/103:127-144.
Gitt, Werner (2007), In the Beginning was Information (Green Forest, AR: Master Books), Kindle file.
Grassé, Pierre-Paul (1977), The Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press).
Higgins, Kevin and Michael Lynch (2001), “Metapopulation Extinction Caused by Mutation Accumulation,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98[5]:2928-2933.
Hofstadter, Douglas R. (1980), Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (New York: Vintage Books).
Houts, Michael G. (2007), “Evolution is Religion—Not Science [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 27[11]:81-87, November, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/27_11/0711.pdf.
Klotz, John (1985), Studies in Creation (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).
Maddox, John (1994), “The Genesis Code by Numbers,” Nature, 367:111, January 13.
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan (2002), Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species (New York: Basic Books).
Martin, C.P. (1953), “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” American Scientist,41[1]:100-106, January.
Mayr, Ernst (2001), What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books).
Meyer, Stephen C. (2004), “Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117[2]:213-239,http://www.discovery.org/a/2177.
Meyer, Stephen C. (2009), Signature in the Cell (New York: Harper Collins), Kindle file.
Miller, Jeff (2013), "Unlike Naturalists, You Creationists Have a Blind Faith," Reason & Revelation,33[7]:76-83, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1125&article=2164.
Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Muller, Hermann J. (1950), “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” American Scientist, 38[1]:33-50,126, January.
Quastler, Henry (1964), The Emergence of Biological Organization (New Haven, CT: Yale University).
Sanford, J.C. (2008), Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications), Kindle file.
Wells, Jonathan (2011), The Myth of Junk DNA (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press).
Wiener, Norbert (1965), Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine(Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.).
Winchester, A.M. (1951), Genetics (Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin).