Scientific Evidence for a young earth

The Evolution of a Creationist

By Greg Morgan

As I grew up, I believed in evolution and an ancient earth. My teachers, and several science films, said as much. One film in particular stands out. “Hemo the Magnificent” was intended by Frank Capra as an explanation of how evolution and Christianity were consistent, but to my mind it showed that evolution was true and Christianity was unnecessary and probably false. For me, and for many others, evolution undermined my early faith in God. When I came home and told my parents I believed in evolution, my father did not really care. As an agnostic, he was undisturbed, but my mother, as a Southern Baptist, was appalled.

But she had no scientific reasons to argue with my new understanding, so, although I did not like upsetting her, I stuck with my new beliefs.

I continued to believe in evolution, as I went to four high schools in four states, and earned Manzano High School's math and science prize (of 499 students, in 1973). I believed while I got a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of New Mexico in 1977.

I then reported to a Navy aircraft squadron at Whidbey Island, Washington. Two fellow officers met me after work -separately - and explained how I needed to accept Jesus Christ as my Savior. As an evolutionist, I was amused. As a human, I tried to keep my amusement to myself. For 18 months, they witnessed to me. I went with one to his church - for the social life (I was a young man, with normal interest in women). I went with the other to Officers Christian Fellowship - I cannot figure out why I went there.

After those 18 months, with no real change in my beliefs, I was supervising the launching of our airplanes from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The last airplane to leave the deck was from my squadron, and I watched it pitch its nose down, and crash into the ocean at 150 miles per hour. As two men I knew died in front of me, I accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior.

But that did not change my mind about evolution. I continued to believe as I gathered evidence for three more years. After three years, the evidence led me to reject evolution. I became an old-earth creationist. It took another 12 years, and a visit to a Back To Genesis Seminar from ICR (http://www.icr.org/). There, in 12 hours of presentations by PhD level scientists, I learned how the scientific evidence contradicted the old-earth view, and more importantly, how the sequence of (1) Creation, (2) Corruption by sin, (3) the Catastrophe of the flood, (4) the Confusion of languages and mankind at the tower of Babel, (5) Christ, (6) the Cross, and the yet-to-come (7) Consummation when Christ return, explains the evidence in the world around us.

How? For one thing, the Flood was far more catastrophic that a 40-day rain. It also involved massive volcanic eruptions, tidal waves, and continents splitting apart.

At the seminar, I became a young earth creationist. And since then, the evidence has become overwhelming. Some of it is presented here.

But why is Creation a significant issue? Because, at some level, we all act based on what we believe. And the theory of evolution is racist at its core. The full title of Darwin’s 1859 book was ”On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Whatever you may think of “Favoured Races”, Darwin was not speaking of subspecies of squirrels. He believed, and his theory teaches, that darker-colored humans are inferior to lighter-colored humans. I do not. Repeat, I do not. Recently, Dr. James Watson of DNA fame made racist statements based on a belief that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically”. He was fired, but Discover Magazine defended him (Discover, March 2008). Why are our schools allowed to teach such an evil theory? Why are they actually required to teach the basis for racism? The same basis which Adolf Hitler used to try to wipe out the Jews of Europe?

Is it because evolution is scientific and therefore true? Are you aware that evolution is a scientifically controversial theory? Most people who believe in evolution do not acknowledge the controversy – but that does not make the controversy go away. There are hundreds – thousands really – of PhD-level scientists who believe in a recent creation of the earth. There is a book available, In Six Days, which presents arguments from 50 of these scientists, saying why they believe in a recent creation. There is also a major movie out, “Expelled”, which shows the professional persecution of scientists who challenge Darwin.

Most people who know about the controversy view it as a debate between science and religion. Is it? Consider these facts. Charles Darwin had one degree – in theology. That’s religion. Darwin’s strongest argument was that no god would have created things as we find them. That is a religious argument. Those who think most deeply about evolution still make their arguments from religious premises.

Here are a few other facts of note. Radioactive carbon is found in “ancient” fossils (http://globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html). These fossils are dated as being over 120,000 years old, which means they should be more than 20 “half-lives” of carbon old. After 20 half-lives, there should be only 0.000095 percent of modern carbon, but they contain 0.12 to 0.58 percent modern carbon- they are “radiocarbon dated” as being only 54,000 years old to as little as 42 thousand years old. There are many such examples where radiocarbon dating says one thing, but other evidence says something else. Radioactive dating of rocks of known ages often gives false results. The most-used method for dating rocks relies on the decay of potassium into argon. But a Google search shows 12,800 hits for “excess argon”. One third of these reports are from creationists, one third from evolutionists, and one third from scientific groups reporting scientific discrepancies. The scientific discrepancies reflect radioactive dating giving falsely old ages, when the lava rocks were seen to flow recently. The bottom line is, rocks and fossils do not come with date stamps or birth certificates, and radioactive dating does not improve the situation.

The theory of evolution proposes that simple life forms evolved first, and are buried lower in the rocks, but the Grand Canyon has complex life in rocks near the bottom, and simple sponges don’t appear till near the top. This might not mean much if it were only at one location, but this pattern is repeated around the world.

Short-period comets exist. If the solar system is ancient, they should all have evaporated. Yes, I know about the Oort cloud, the proposed place from which new comets come. I also know that it has never been observed. Comets, and other findings in our solar system, argue for a young universe. Furthermore, Jupiter and Saturn, and even Saturn’s tiny moon Enceladus, give off more heat than they absorb from the Sun. No scientific explanation passes the reality checks. Except the explanation, that they are young and have not cooled off yet.

That film I watched in school, said that sea water resembles our blood, and that the ocean contains the amount of salt that reflects its ancient origin. But, our blood chemistry is not at all like sea water (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/blood.asp). Further, sea water contains far less salt than it should – if the earth is ancient. If the earth were a billion years old, the ocean would be thousands of times as salty as it is.

Dinosaur fossils, including a T Rex, have been discovered with soft tissue and protein (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/year-in-science-2007/t-rex-time-machine). This soft tissue should not be there – unless the dinosaurs were buried recently. Say, about 2348 BC, during the global Flood. Ancient cliff paintings and pottery are found on every continent, and many of them show dinosaurs living with men (http://www.creationism.org/swift/index.htm). Men lived with dinosaurs. This means, dinosaurs are not ancient, and the earth is probably not ancient either.

These facts, and thousands of others, argue for a recent creation. Astronomy, geology, and biology all provide facts supporting recent creation. Recent, Biblical, creation.

For more facts and books check http://www.answersingenesis.org/, http://www.icr.org/, http://www.globalflood.org/, and http://www.creationsafaris.org/ (click on News). For how to meet the One who created us, come by any Bible-believing church. Please. You will be glad you did, and we will be glad you did.

Greg Morgan