Creation Supercamp 2013

[A review of this year’s Creation SuperCamp at Philip Island in January, by one of the more than 800 attendees, Ps Chris Field, who has long been a supporter of Creation Ministries International (CMI) and who brought along his 2 youngest children and his 2 oldest grandchildren.]

The Creation SuperCamp this year gave me yet more powerful insights into the poverty of evolution. I could not get past how obvious it was that evolution is a Dead Duck!

Here are some things I gleaned and thoughts that sprang from the various sessions, although I must admit that some of the technical detail went over my head, especially when we got to formulas.

In our dynamic solar system the greatest possible time of earth’s existence between tidal locking with the sun and too great a distance to sustain life is a mere 50 million years. This time frame is far below the time evolutionists demand to allow for their imagined evolutionary processes.

The ‘out of Africa’ story promoted by evolutionists asks us to believe that primates left the relative safety of their tree habitats in order to live on the savage savannahs of Africa, which no modern person would do without a gun in hand. This was supposedly such a promising option for these primates that they abandoned their tree-friendly anatomy for the wonders of living with giant hyenas and a host of other savage creatures. Those monkeys were not only out of their tree, they were out of their mind!

The incredible complexity of the simplest living cell contains so many layers of exacting processes that previously required time frames for random chance mutations to create them must be expanded multiple times over.

Each new discovery of increased microbiological complexity is a mystery and a huge burden for naturalistic evolution, but it is expected by Creationists and celebrated each time it is uncovered.

Evidence for the powerful forces of water at work during the global flood is overwhelmingly obvious, right before our eyes, such as planation surfaces. And that evidence readily accounts for common features that defy explanation by the popular steady state long ages geological theories.

Evolution as a worldview is not held to because it makes good science but because the alternative of special creation at the hands of an omnipotent God is rejected.

A primordial soup is not only ineffective in providing the birthplace of amino acids and proteins but the presence of water destroys those essential ingredients for life.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics defies the notion of an eternal universe because its processes lead everything from a position of readily available energy to a position of heat death, where energy is no longer available. Thus the universe had a beginning and is marching steadily towards a place where everything will be totally rundown and inactive (though Christians have the guarantee of God’s intervention long before that fate).

Arbitrarily given names for at least one star constellation show evidence of consistency in cultures as disparate as Australian Aboriginals and the ancient Greeks, supporting the Biblical account of cultures having a common origin prior to the Babel confusion of languages.

Evolution is suffering from ‘information overload’. Complex Information Systems do not rise by chance and they evidence intelligence in conceiving the message, creating the code, transmission of the coded information, activation of the interpretative processes, interpretation of the coded message and activation of an outcome caused by the message being received. The incredible amount of information and the high levels of complexity abundantly evident in living cells defy all possibility of chance random occurrence and shout the reality of an intelligent designer.

Evolution’s ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest as props for evolutionary development only kick in when self-sustaining, reproducing organisms exist. So the incredibly complex information systems needed to get to the point of a living, reproducing organism are not benefited by evolution’s magic wands. The creation of reproducing organisms that can then benefit from natural selection is unaccounted for by evolutionary models.

While highly qualified creationist scientists abound, including the speakers at the SuperCamp, it is also exciting to hear of unqualified creationists who become expert in their chosen field of science just by taking interest and correctly interpreting the evidence for what it is, not denying the implications and foiling their mind with unrealistic notions.
We heard of an extremely knowledgeable geologist in Germany who has no formal qualifications in geology but has eagerly consumed creationist research into the subject. This inspires us to become an expert in our chosen field because we are free to see and evaluate the evidence for what it is, not what it is supposed to be by false ideology.

Human diversity is not only accounted for by reproduction and adaptation by selection, which overall leads to loss of information in the individual’s genetic code, but also by epigenetic switches which can cause adaptation with no genetic change.
Despite visible diversity we are all one human family with no more genetic diversity between races than is found within any people group.

The enormous quantities of dark matter and dark energy imagined by cosmologists to explain the universe are completely unnecessary to the creationist, but necessary to make the big bang model work. There is reason to seriously doubt their existence.

Gene expression to form proteins involves four levels of coding, not just the sequence of amino acids. Each level is itself statistically impossible in terms of probability, and the higher levels, such as arranging placement and then folding to bring together matching elements in the protein, is staggeringly clever and involves intelligence of a very high order.
Random chance processes cannot be invoked to account for this, yet it is ubiquitous in all living things and would have been necessary for the hypothetical ‘original common ancestor’ organism as well.

Evolution is ‘running out of time’ because observations of natural processes, such as the earth’s minute movement away from the sun, restrict the time spans available for evolution, and yet discoveries of increased complexity and intricate, multipart information systems in abundance significantly extend the time frames needed by evolutionists.

Biblical explanations for what we see around us are perfectly sufficient and fit observable science so well that despite some remaining challenges, which exist for all broad scientific models, Christians do not need an impossible evolution process to explain anything.
In fact, particles-to-people evolution presents far more improbabilities and inexplicable factors and prompts the creation of unseen forces and substances, such as dark energy and dark matter, than the scientifically consistent explanation given in the Bible.
Who needs evolution? Only those who want to deny God.
We don’t need it. It is completely redundant to our lives and only blinds people to the observable evidence right before them. How sad.

Time is evolution’s Poison Pill. Evolutionists demand great expanses of time to allow for their impossible microbiological evolutionary models (anything is possible – “given enough time”), yet increases in time crash into limits in the solar system and more.
Evolution’s miracle cure (great expanses of time) is a poison pill.

Just as the Scribes took away the ‘key of knowledge’ from people in Jesus’ day so evolution takes away the key of knowledge in much of science today, by misdirecting people to stories, myths and naturalistic explanations that deny the realities of a global flood, recent creation, intelligent design, perfectly reasonable complexity and much more.

Evolution is on ‘artificial life support’ by its advocates, pumping flimsy explanations and invoking unreal factors into scientific thought, while there are no vital signs of life in the theory at all.

Richard Dawkins has labelled those who believe in evolution as ‘ignorant baboons’, thus choosing to mock all the great creationist scientists upon whose shoulders modern science now rests.
It is interesting to think of Dawkins mocking Sir Isaac Newton and many other great men and women as ‘ignorant baboons’.

With SuperCamp behind me I find myself encouraged to take greater interest in observable science, including looking at the stars above and rock formations all around me.
Thanks to CMI and all the great speakers, and to all those who worked together to make this huge event possible.

[Chris Field is a Melbourne-based Christian minister who first took the Creation message seriously in the mid 1980’s following a CMI presentation. He and his family have been helped by CMI speakers, books and videos and by subscribing to the Creation Magazine over the past quarter century.]

Myths and Gods

Suggestion that the Bible book of Genesis is simply a reworking of pre-existing Assyrian myths is latched onto by those who wish to reject the claims of the true and living God. Babylonian mythology creates an effective smoke-screen for those who wish to hide from reality.

So it is valuable to review the ideas presented in the ancient Assyrian stories which supposedly led to the Bible history.

Rejecting God and Embracing Myths

It should be noted at the outset that once a person has rejected the revelation of our creator God they have no alternative but to discredit all historical evidence for His existence. The physical creation has to be explained in naturalistic terms, as science asserts it has done through evolution. And the historical accounts of God’s actions in the earth, such as creation and judgement (including the global flood), must be explained away as mere man-made stories.

When people reject God they must retreat into the woodlands of mythology. They have to create a mythology about how the world came to be. And they must turn historical evidence into mythological writings. When people reject God they become enmeshed in mythology.

A popular academic and philosophical myth is that religion has evolved, in the same way people believe biology and society have evolved. Thus we can find such statements as the following assertion. “Man’s earliest prereligious fear of the forces of nature gradually became religious as nature became personalized, spiritized, and eventually deified in human consciousness. Religion of a primitive type was therefore a natural biologic consequence of the psychologic inertia of evolving animal minds after such minds had once entertained concepts of the supernatural.”

Where such ideas fall apart is that the religious evolutionary path is nowhere to be found. Polytheistic ideas have existed alongside monotheism from earliest records. Rather than religion evolving it is divided. The true revelation of the Living God on one hand, and deception on the other, lead to different streams of religious thought.


Polytheism is evident in the ancient Assyrian culture. The myths which are supposed to have informed the Bible writers are riddled with inglorious deities fighting, taking revenge, competing and killing each other.

The Gilgamesh Epic, Epic of Atrahasis and Enuma Elish are stories about capricious and evil gods who kill their own family members, indulge in gratuitous violence, display intolerance, know nothing of forgiveness, gain prominence by domination and despise humanity.

Yet, for all the Assyrians apparent reverence for the gods, they treated those gods with contempt. Different cities repackaged their versions of these stories, identifying their own favourite deity as the hero. For example, Babylon changed the hero to Marduk, since he was the deity who supposedly established their city. By so doing, the Babylonians reveal that the previously honoured deity had no real worth, since he or she could be so easily displaced.

The stories, then, become nothing more than PR material, with nothing more than human value, to validate one people over another. This is a very shallow form of pantheism, where gods are multiplied and their reality is demeaned by the whim of man.

Note that Greek mythology displays this same callow polytheism, where temples are multiplied to multiple deities, but no-one expects the gods to have any real part in the affairs of men. Those gods are blighted with human foibles and demeaned as having no moral superiority to man.

Hindu polytheism similarly allows devotees to accommodate a multiplicity of values, since there is a deity for just about all the good and evil of the human heart.

There is no moral substance to the gods in such cases. There is no divine imperative. There is no fear of God.


The Assyrian gods of their creation and flood myths have no moral standard. Hatred, murder, violence, revenge, despisement, dominance and the like are their displayed characteristics.

A striking contrast between the ancient Assyrian concept of deity and the Bible’s revelation of the one true God is the issue of morality. Almighty God is an exquisitely moral being. He is described as being “holy”, which carries with it the idea of being so perfect that He will never veer off course by the slightest degree. Thus, in four thousand years of Biblical history and two thousand subsequent years of the Church Age our Creator God has not changed, nor violated His character. He is supremely and uniquely consistent.

God not only displays personal morality, but He holds all of humanity accountable against His own moral being.

The Assyrians were led to see themselves as a despised and menial creation, subject to the vagaries of unstable heavens, where deities may make war on one another and have modelled the most shameless evils. There is no moral accountability in such a world. There is no reason for any human to act above the basest instincts which were demonstrated by the gods.

The Place of Man

Another striking contrast between the Assyrian polytheistic myths and the revelation of creation given to us in the Bible is the place of mankind. According to the ancient creation myths mankind was made to serve the gods. The gods wanted worship and food. Mankind was to have the menial task of placating the appetite of the gods.

Various notions of how man was created are seen, involving the blood of a murdered god, or, alternatively, the spittle of many gods, mixed with clay.

We also find that the gods objected to the noise made by the human population, and so it was decided to wipe them all out. This capricious act was foiled when one of the gods warned someone to make a boat and escape destruction.

The Bible account not only gives noble place to God, but grants high and holy place to mankind as well. Man is made in God’s image, to receive blessings from God. God makes multiple gifts to mankind, to give him every advantage.

The decline of humankind is not in any way brought upon them by God, but by their own failure to be moral beings. The global flood of judgement is precipitated by the fact that mankind had become excessively evil in deed and in their imaginations.

Here again the distinctions between the Book of Genesis and the Assyrian myths is startling.

Expert Opinions

Dr Clifford Wilson quotes from experts who have reviewed the ideas of links between Genesis and the Assyrian myths. I take the following from Dr Wilson’s notes.

English Professor Alan Millard was one of two scholars who re-discovered the Babylonian Epic of Atrahasis.  He stated in his survey in The Tyndale Biblical Archaeology Lecture for 1966: “All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and re-interpretation in a fashion which cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing … Careful comparison of ancient texts and literary methods is the only way to the understanding of the early chapters of Genesis ….. so the Epic of Atrahasis adds to knowledge of parallel Babylonian traditions, and of their literary form.  All speculation apart, it underlines the uniqueness of the Hebrew primeval history in the form in which it now exists.”

Professor Kenneth Kitchen is also quoted by Dr Wilson: “The common assumption that the Hebrew account is simply a purged and simplified version of the Babylonian legend (applied also to the Flood stories) is fallacious on methodological grounds.  In the Ancient Near East, the rule is that simple accounts or traditions may give rise (by accretion and embellishment) to elaborate legends, but not vice versa.”

No Need For Myths

Those who reject the Almighty Creator God of the Bible must engage in mythology, by making up their own ideas and by turning truth into myth in their own opinion. Those who believe in the one true God do not need myths or multiple gods.

In these modern times we have some of the world’s finest minds making up stories about punctuated equilibrium, life from outer space, naturalistic miracles and many other mythological notions. So mythology is not an ancient process which we have evolved past, but a necessary mindset when one has rejected the one true God.

I am thankful to Dr Clifford Wilson and his wife Dr Barbara Wilson for their inspiration and guidance in my own exploration of Biblical archaeology. As friend, academic supervisor and mentor, Dr Clifford has keenly encouraged my interest in archaeology, as he has for many others in decades past.
In honour of his on-going work and his world-wide impact I am compiling various posts on archaeology, based on the excellent work of Drs Clifford and Barbara, while adding my own personal style and insights. Drs Clifford and Barbara Wilson are building a website to present their work. You can visit the website at

Enuma Elish Creation Story

In 1876, just four years after publication of the Epic of Gilgamesh, George Smith completed and published his translation of Enuma Elish. This ancient Assyrian document was immediately acclaimed as an equivalent creation story to that given in the Bible.

Part of the Barrage

This new document came as yet another wave of challenge to the authenticity of the Book of Genesis. Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”, published in 1859 compounded the growing scientific assault on Genesis, propelled forward by Charles Lyell’s geological uniformity concepts.

The 1872 publication of the Gilgamesh Epic brought criticism of Genesis from a new quarter. Archaeology seemed to bring solid evidence that the supposedly divine revelations in Genesis were mere re-workings of ancient stories. The pile of discarded clay tablets, with their “bird track” markings proved to be more valuable than the initial treasure hunters expected. While the ruins of ancient Assyrian palaces from the Nineveh site were scoured for gold and priceless artefacts, the tens of thousands of small clay tablets were simply shovelled out of the way. But when George Smith put his unique self-taught talents to work on deciphering the cuneiform script new evidence against Genesis seemed to leap from the rubble.

Evidence of the exaltation of Enuma Elish as a direct challenge to the authority of Genesis is testified by George Smith’s title for publication of his translation, under the auspices of the British Museum, “The Chaldean Genesis“.

The Link Asserted

In 1895 German author Herrmann Gunkel HeHerrr

published an influential book, proclaiming that the Genesis account is merely an expansion of the pre-existing Enuma Elish story. Since that book scholars have taken it for granted that the two accounts are directly linked.

Gunkel contended that the ancient Near Eastern myth of creation, especially as formulated in the Enuma Elish, was the underlying document upon which the Genesis account was formulated. He claimed that the myth was modified by Bible writers to bring it into agreement with the Israelite religion.

Seven Clay Tablets

Enuma Elish is an ancient story about warfare and barbarism among a group of gods. Seven clay tablets from the ancient library of the Assyrian King Ashurbanipal told the story as it existed in Babylon. Variations of the story have been found, reducing the status of Enuma Elish as a “creation” narrative, since the battle story is presented in some cases, without any reference to creation.

King Ashurbanipal ordered his servants to collect written works from around the realm, from Egypt to India. 100,000 clay tablets filled his famous library, which housed the first such collection in history. From the excavations of his library some 26,000 tablets survived, with many being destroyed or damaged in the hunt for more valuable antiquities.

The seven clay tablets were not without damage and some parts of the story have been untranslatable. George Smith translated what was still readable. The fifth tablet speaks of creation of the earth and sky from the carcase of a murdered god. The sixth of seven tablets mentions the plan by the victorious warring gods to create mankind. Note, then, that creation is a small part of the overall story, and is not recorded in other telling of the same war among the gods.

Rebellion in Heaven

Enuma Elish is a grotesque and barbaric story about bloodshed among the gods. These gods, rather than being divine in nature, are very human in their relationships and actions. They marry, give birth to other gods, are able to be killed and so on.

When the family of gods makes too much disturbance for the principal male god, Apsu, from whom the others sprang in several generations, he decides to destroy them all. One of the younger gods, Ea, great-grandson to Apsu, kills the patriarch god. The widow and great-grandmother, Tiamat, is enraged and seeks vengeance against Ea. She creates eleven monsters, marries Kingu, and goes to war.

Tiamat’s vengeful rampage at first seems unstoppable. However, a great-great grandson god, Marduk, who is supposed to have founded Babylon, successfully destroys Tiamat, by bludgeoning her to death and cutting her body in pieces from which various creations are made. Marduk then appoints the various gods their own places, which researchers have noted correspond to Babylonian astrology.

Marduk decides to create mankind to serve the gods by maintaining temples for their worship, and to perform menial tasks for the gods. Marduk murders Kingu, using his blood and bones as the substance to form humanity.

The Creation Account

Since Enuma Elish is cited today as proof that the Genesis creation record is somehow taken from earlier creation accounts, it is important to see the account from which Moses is supposed to have gained his inspiration.

There are approx 1,160 lines of text in the whole Enuma Elish story. Of that complete text the account of earth’s creation occupies no more than 30 lines and the account of the man’s creation occupies 8 lines. Here I quote text related the creation, from LW Kings 1902 translation, published as The Seven Tablets of Creation.

“He split her up like a flat fish into two halves;
One half of her he stablished as a covering for heaven.
He fixed a bolt, he stationed a watchman,
And bade them not to let her waters come forth.
He passed through the heavens, he surveyed the regions thereof,
And over against the Deep he set the dwelling of Nudimmud.
And the lord measured the structure of the Deep,
And he founded E-sara, a mansion like unto it.
The mansion E-sara which he created as heaven,
He caused Anu, Bel, and Ea in their districts to inhabit.”

Another 24 lines speak of the moon and sun in their orbits, as dividing the year into twelve months.

Thus less than four percent of the whole document relates to creation, and that account, as you can see by what is quoted here, has no meaningful relationship with the account of Genesis 1.

The Creation of Man

Of the more than one thousand lines on seven tablets there are but a few scant words about the creation of man. Here I again quote from LW Kings The Seven Tablets of Creation.

“My blood will I take and bone will I fashion
I will make man, that man may ….
I will create man who shall inhabit the earth,
That the service of the gods may be established, and that their shrines may be built.”

A more complete translation of the Enuma Elish document, compiled from other sources as well, adds to these four lines just a few more.

“Out of his blood they fashioned mankind.
He imposed on him the service and let free the gods.
After Ea, the wise, had created mankind,
Had imposed upon them the service of the gods-”

What Comparison?

Enuma Elish has nothing to do with the Genesis account. The fact that the reality of creation is reflected in an ancient myth only goes to prove the human consciousness of that event, not the creation of a lie which Moses inherited.

The one true God, acting in a fashion consistent with His actions through the whole of recorded history, created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, as described in the Book of Genesis. He acted as a holy, loving creator, who made man in His own image, to enjoy the delight of inclusion into His eternal existence. God does not need man, nor does God act with the vain impulses we see in man.

God created out of nothing (ex nihilo) not from the remains of some other deity whom He butchered. God created life as a gift to those He made. He did not create as a self-serving exercise to indulge His needs or have menials at His disposal.

There is next to nothing that links the Enuma Elish to the Genesis record, except that it speaks of creation. Yet thousands of ignorant people were beguiled into believing that the authority of scripture had been decimated by the sunburnt clay tablets.

I am thankful to Dr Clifford Wilson and his wife Dr Barbara Wilson for their inspiration and guidance in my own exploration of Biblical archaeology. As friend, academic supervisor and mentor, Dr Clifford has keenly encouraged my interest in archaeology, as he has for many others in decades past.
In honour of his on-going work and his world-wide impact I am compiling various posts on archaeology, based on the excellent work of Drs Clifford and Barbara, while adding my own personal style and insights. Drs Clifford and Barbara Wilson are building a website to present their work. You can visit the website at

The Truth About Natural Selection

When Charles Darwin observed Natural Selection and proposed that it was the alternative to divine creation, the world stood in awe of his amazing insight. But I am here today to show that Darwin’s guess was completely the reverse of reality. Darwin was a good observer, but a failed prognosticator. He failed to interpret reality and he distracted, fooled or misled generations of the most brilliant minds.

So it is time to take stock of the truth about natural selection.

Diversity Observed

Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace both published their concepts of evolution in the same year. They had both travelled to strange and exotic places and observed creatures which were new to their audiences. The mystique of their amazing travels and the authority which they could purvey on the basis of their experiences outside those of other men, gave their ideas an undeserved level of credibility.

What Charles Darwin observed on his six year voyage as naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle was ‘diversity’. He observed the same process which breeders had known for centuries.

The Bible records the selective breeding activities of Jacob, grandson of Abraham, almost 4,000 years ago. So the creation or refinement of diversity through breeding activities is nothing new.

Darwin observed finches and tortoises on the Galapagos Islands, as if he was discovering something profound and new. He certainly was observing diversity and the results of selective breeding by the natural isolation of animal communities. In this work he was not remiss.

Natural Selection

Rather than selection by human agency, such as animal and plant breeders would do, Darwin celebrated nature’s ability to provide the selection process. Here, without human intelligence, the process took place regardless.

Darwin’s religious perspective (seeking to prove creation without a creator) prompted him to an interpretation that misled generations of the world’s best minds. Darwin, happy to find an alternative to the reality and presence of an all-knowing and holy God, postulated that ignorant and mindless ‘nature’ could take a hand in the selection process. This allowed room for something other than an intelligent and divine creator.

Here Darwin stopped being an observer and became an interpreter. But every interpreter is influenced by his underlying premises. No scientist operates in a vacuum, but in the context of his or her frame of reference. Darwin’s frame of reference was antithetical to true science. His religious notions, when woven with his scientific observations, took on a scientific significance that has beguiled the world ever since.

Now We Know

Darwin was blind to many realities which we now know. He considered the cell to be a very simple entity. We now know that the simplest cell is more complex than a modern highly integrated city. Darwin imagined that the fossil record held evidence it did not contain. Darwin imagined that such processes as sexual relations contributed to the process of transformation of the physiology of a creature (sexually transmitted physiology into adult organisms).

Charles Darwin was patently wrong on these and many other accounts. As a prognosticator he was a miserable failure. As a hypothesiser he was a miserable failure. As a theorist he was a miserable failure. He was a good observer and there he should have stopped.

The Underlying DNA

What Darwin did not know is that the underlying DNA code does not just describe the organism as it is observed and as it currently functions, but that DNA also contains a much more vast scope of possibilities for the organism.

From an evolutionary point of view each new and discreet function is seen as advancement. It is seen as the ‘emergence’ of something new.

And there evolution is patently deceptive and patently wrong.

Evolution seeks to explain the creation of new features. But that creation happened only once, by a supernatural act of a supreme intelligence. No evolution has happened in the beginning or since. No evolution will ever happen. It is a fool’s notion.

What is really happening is that no new features are created, but the features which have already been gifted into the organism’s DNA are able to be activated or deactivated by the breeding process.

Each new and discreet function within an organism is not a creative process but a process of activation or switching, so that previously unseen features are now displayed. However, there is no new information within the organism. Nothing new has been created.

That is why the evolutionists are at a complete loss to explain the ongoing creative process. There is no such process! Evolutionists point to natural selection, as Darwin did, with the religious conviction that such an invocation will bring along a favourable fairy to solve their problem. But they are empty handed.

Of Breeds and Breeding

Any breeder knows that while you may be able to cross come creatures sexually the new animal may be sterile. This sterility factor is the means by which scientists are able to identify the genetic relationship between apparently similar kinds.

The mule is an example of a cross that creates a sterile animal. Dog breeders have proven the wolf as the ancestor to the modern dog breeds by this sterility factor.

“A wild wolf is genetically little more distant from the domesticated dog than a wild mustang is to a quarter horse. (That wolf and dog can be hybridized, while a fox and dog cannot, points to the genetic and ancestral affinities of wolf and dog.)….”In actuality, a poodle, like any purebred dog, already has innumerable wolf genes since they share a close common ancestry.” Dr. Michael W. Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., D.Sc., Vice President, Bioethics, Humane Society of the United States. Affidavit.

Note in the quote from Dr Fox that the wolf and dog can be successfully bred together (hybridised) but the fox and dog cannot. There is an underlying DNA connection between the wolf and all the varieties of dog. There is no underlying DNA connection between the fox and dog. By this it can be determined that the dog was not bred from the fox, but from the wolf.

Full Genetic Complement

Note also that the fully hybridised dog variety still contains “innumerable wolf genes”. Hybridisation does not even have to involve the “loss of information” which many creationists refer to. It is possible to have remarkable hybridisation of a species and yet to have the entire underlying DNA intact. The function is not necessarily the addition or removal of DNA elements but the activity of “gene expressors” which effectively flick the switch to turn on or turn off certain genes.

Thus Brisbin notes that there is no discernible DNA distinction between dog breeds, despite the obvious physiological distinctions which we readily recognise.

“….Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. … there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990

The Truth About Natural Selection

Natural Selection is just a fancy term for breeding that takes place without human involvement. The truth about natural selection is that it is not in any way related to the mythical concept of evolution. Natural Selection, as is the case with all breeding and cross-breeding, involves activation and deactivation of the pre-existing, and continuing DNA information contained within the organism since the entire genus was created.

There is no new information. Darwin and all who follow after cannot postulate a valid scientific process for the creation of new information, because there is no such process. There never has been such a process. There is no need for such a process.

God created the vast library of genetic options into the various kinds when He created them and we have had much amazement ever since as we have explored the limits of that genetic variety.

Modern science attests to this reality. The DNA of dogs and the DNA of the Galapagos Tortoise are all evidence for initial creation.

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to:

Despite Diversity Dogs Defy Definition

OK, so it’s a silly title, but I just like the alliteration. So, what is this all about? It’s about the fact that there is no way to distinguish a poodle from a wolf!

I’m Not Joking

This is not a joke. What we all take for granted as enormous physiological distinctions, clearly visible to our eyes, are almost non-existent! There is just about no way to distinguish between the myriad breeds of dog scientifically.

Isn’t that amazing? I am really stunned by that fact.

I have always assumed that a visible distinction would be clearly discernible in the DNA of a creature and that these very obvious features would have equally obvious genetic descriptors. It is not so!

What the Experts Say

I know you won’t believe me, so let me quote from an authority on the subject.

Here is a published quote based on a letter written by a Research Professor on Jan 30, 1990.

“….Breeds of dogs can not be distinguished from each other by any known anatomical attribute or even biochemical genetic test, including DNA fingerprinting. Since a given breed of dog can not be defined by any scientific means currently known, our contention is that it is not possible to write any ordinance or law that would single them out for special treatment since they cannot be so defined in a legal sense. “Recently I attended a canine genetics workshop at Texas A & M University in which it was further emphasized that there is no biochemical genetic test that can even distinguish wolves from domestic dogs. “….I would taxonomically identify all wolves, wolf hybrids and domestic dogs as the species Canis lupus. Technically, the domestic dog and wolf hybrids should be designated as the sub-species “domesticus”. I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr., Research Professor, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia. Letter, 30, Jan. 1990

Those Distracting Physical Distinctions

If dogs that are as diverse as the Chihuahua, the Great Dane and the Poodle can defy definition despite diversity (just to use my alliteration again) then we see the opposite of evolution before our eyes.

What the diversity of dogs does is do a deadly duel with dilly-dallying dodos ……

Oops… Sorry about that.

Evolutionary thought starts with observation of diversity and superiority of function and tries to imagine how these things emerged from nothing. Evolution must justify distinctions that facilitate the survival of the fittest, allowing for natural selection. It must then imagine how the very physical feature itself could have developed through progressive stages.

Evolution’s starting point is those distracting physical distinctions. But we have seen that those wonderfully diverse and distinct evidences creating quite individual superiorities of function can be invisible in the genetic code.

Punctuated Equilibrium

The progressive evolutionary concept is so fraught with difficulties, such as degeneration of the existing structure in the process of moving toward a more suitable structure, that it simply defies all logical suggestion.

Thus some evolutionists have tried to conceive of a more miraculous (all evolution is a miracle) spontaneous transition process. Stephen Jay Gould proposed the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium, which recognises that transitional forms do not exist but that rapid transition is more supportable from evolutionary interpretation of fossil layers (note that Noah’s global flood gives another much more plausible explanation for the fossil layers – but that factor is not acceptable to atheistic scientists who must reject the evidence and the historical records to support their empty theories).

Punctuation, then, is the magical process by which a new expression of an animal species can suddenly appear as if from nowhere. Those who believe in Punctuated Equilibrium do so with sober expression on their faces and then expect the waiting world to accept such explanations as: “What Is The Mechanism Of Evolution In These Cases? The theory of Punctuated Equilibrium does not say, and it shouldn’t.”

It shouldn’t? I beg your pardon, sirs, but you MUST! Otherwise you are simply distracting the wonderful minds which God created into a backwater of vain speculation so they will commit intellectual suicide and throw their marvellous minds into the trash can of evolutionary delusion.

The Amazing Genetic Library

The scientific study of dogs, however, is not supportive of progressive evolutionary progress nor of punctuation. Instead it supports the concept of an amazing genetic library from which each species can draw to find its most suitable advantage in diverse settings.

Natural Selection is not a tool of evolution, but a servant of the created genetic code. Charles Darwin’s observations do not support the God-less ideas of the evolutionists but the very opposite. The concepts of natural selection and “survival of the fittest” fit the scientific evidence of a profound genetic pool for each species, from which diversity can spring, even in a punctuated expression, contrary to evolution.

Punctuation Is God’s Tool, not Evolution

Describing Punctuated Evolution it is said that, “The point of the theory is only that evolution is more likely to happen to small groups, isolated from the homogenizing effect of the larger main group.”

This is not a description of evolution at work, but of natural selection drawing particular gene expressions from the pre-existing genetic pool. An isolated small group will experience in-breeding and thus the accentuation of some genetic expressions. That smaller group will either be weakened or strengthened by the resultant manifestation of selected features. Survival of the fittest will allow the appropriate expressions to gain some ascendancy.

Voila! God’s amazing and loving provision for His creation is activated to positive effect. A new breed of dog emerges, better adapted to the situation.

No New Genetic Information

Yet, as we saw earlier, there is no discernible change in the genetic information. Scientists cannot take the gene and distinguish it from the gene of the parent community, or even the originating source community after thousands of years.

There is no new genetic information. There is simply a fresh genetic expression.

Gene expressors and selectors are probably the key elements here. But that is not good news for the evolutionists. Gene expressors are not part of the creation of new genetic code, but simply the switching from one piece of code to another.

It’s A Dog’s Day for Darwin

Dear Charles, Sir, you were wrong. You were desperately and deceptively wrong. You turned everyone’s attention to the visible, discernible qualities, such as those you observed at Galapagos, when all along it wasn’t about the physically discernible distinctions at all.

You distracted science from its core business of exploring the glory of God and had wonderful young men and women digging in the dirt for non-existent missing links and scouring the world for evidence of something that simply does not happen. You destroyed several generations of brilliant minds. Shame on you.

It is recorded that you loved dogs and had eight of them in your large household. You should have asked them about your theories – they have more to reveal about the things you questioned than your own books possess.

You should have talked with your dog.

For more information about the failure of evolution and for evidence for special creation go to: