Why as a biologist I believe in creation

Biology is the study of living organisms like bacteria, animals, plants and fungi. It investigates the origin, growth, reproduction, structure, function, behavior and distribution of living organisms. As a Christian biologist, I believe in creation.

This article is based on a talk given by Dr Don Batten of Creation Ministries International.

In 1998, William Provine said “evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented”. The idea of evolution makes atheists. And that’s why atheists promote evolution. They use it to explain everything without God. And that’s the whole point of it. This billboard put up in the United States by the Freedom from Religion Foundation says it all, “Praise Darwin, evolve beyond belief”. That’s the atheist club in the United States that wants people to be atheists rather than Christians. And so they want them to believe in evolution rather than God. So it’s about God fundamentally.

Created kinds

As Romans chapter 1 says, it’s obvious that God exists from His creation. The interesting thing to me as someone who did 17 years of full-time research on tropical/subtropical fruit is that the first things God created were fruit trees on day three of creation week. And the Bible says that God created fruit trees producing fruit with seed in them “according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:11-12). Now what does that mean? When you plant a mango seed, you get another mango tree. And 10 times in Genesis chapter 1, it says that God made things “according to their kinds”. So cats produce cats, dogs produce dogs, humans produce humans. Nobody has ever seen anything different.

In fact, we get all sorts of varieties of creatures like humans for example, but we’re all human because we’re all descended from Noah and his family and then back to Adam and Eve. And there are varieties of horses, different species within a kind. Different species of frogs, they’re all frogs in the frog kind. And dogs range from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane and they’re all dogs. They all come from the Canis familiaris bred in a couple of thousand years. And you don’t see any evidence in living things that one kind of thing could change into another. That worms could change into people, for example, which is what evolutionists claim (Morris, 2003).

Fossils

But evolutionists say, “Oh, but the fossils show evolution. Evolution is too slow to see it now, but the fossils show evolution of one kind of thing into another.” Well, let’s have a look at the dinosaur fossils, for example. There’s plenty of those. And this is a diagram from a review on the evolution of dinosaurs written by an expert (Sereno, 1999). It has silhouettes of the dinosaurs across the top, Stegosaurus, or T-Rex or one of the Apatosaurus, and Brachiosaurus. And moving down the page represents the fossil record down through the rock layers.

Because it’s about the evolution of dinosaurs, all these different sorts of dinosaurs are put together into a big family tree. And we have these dashed lines and open bars down the bottom here connecting it all up showing how they all evolve from a common ancestor down the bottom.

How much evidence is there for the evolution? The only evidence is the dark bars as the fossil evidence. The rest of it – the dashed lies and open bars – is where there’s no fossil evidence. When we erase the stuff that’s not based on evidence, what happens to evolution? It disappears! Evolution is imposed on the data, not derived from the data.

In the past evolutionists would say, we haven’t found enough fossils yet. When we dig and find enough fossils, we will find all the ancestors. Well, there’s thousands of fossils of the different sorts of dinosaurs. There should be thousands of fossils showing their ancestors, but they’re not there because it never happened. God created various kinds of dinosaurs which we see in the diagram. In fact, I think there’s about 30 basic kinds of dinosaurs created by God and that’s it. And they don’t change. There’s no drifting from one type into another. When you dig up a fossil, it’s pretty clearly one thing or another. The big picture is that the transitional fossils for dinosaurs and all other plants and animals are missing in the fossil record.

And something else which is a big problem for their story is the fact that in the fossil record you find lots of things which are just the same as they are today (stasis). They’re still living and they’re just the same. And here’s one of the more extreme ones in terms of the dating, it’s 560 million years ago. That’s way down in the fossil record according to their story. And here’s a fossil of a Sea pen (a soft coral). And this is a modern living one. Sea pens are still Sea pens. Where’s the evolution? In much less than that time frame, worms are supposed to change into humans, dinosaurs, birds, all sorts of reptiles, mammals, and fish. It is claimed that they have all evolved from worms. And yet the fossils don’t show that. And here we have things that don’t change at all or very little. They’re called “living fossils”. And they’re a huge problem. There are thousands of them like that. There’s jellyfish, starfish, brachiopods, all sorts of things which are still present today and in the fossil record. It’s a serious problem for evolution.

Steven Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge were famous evolutionists and they said it’s a serious problem, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem” (Gould and Eldredge, 1993). In the fossil record we don’t see things changing into other things, but we see stability. Species go extinct. They disappear. But you don’t get one thing changing into another. They just stay the same or similar. There’s variation, but it’s within the kind.

Natural selection

But the idea is we came from worms (Morris, 2003). It’s goo to you by way of the zoo type of idea. That’s the story. So, how do evolutionists convince children and students at university that this is a viable idea? Well, they say for example that evolution is just change. The  dictionary says that “evolution” means “change”. And so evolutionists say evolution just means change. Therefore, here’s an example of change – like a minor variation in moth colors. That’s evolution. You better believe it.

And then they get a bit more sophisticated and say evolution is just change in gene frequencies. So we have natural selection and we change the gene frequencies because this particular individual has more offspring. A famous evolutionist, Ernst Mayer said, “I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977), that the reductionist (oversimplified) explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades that evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations – is not only not explanatory, but it is in fact misleading.” And in fact, the universities and schools are misleading students telling them this. It’s a lie.

Let me explain. Suppose we have some wolves with pairs of genes for eye color and pairs of genes for all sorts of things. For example, consider a gene that determines hair length, which is additive and not recessive or dominant. One gene makes short hair, and another one makes long hair. If a wolf has a gene for long hair and one for short hair (heterozygous), the combined effect means that they have medium length hair. If two wolves with medium length hair (heterozygous) have offspring, the gene sort in the offspring is 25% have short hair (homozygous), 50% have medium hair (heterozygous), and 25% have long hair . (homozygous). This is Mendelian inheritance and year 10 genetics. If two wolves with long length hair (homozygous) have offspring, they all have long hair (homozygous). And if two wolves with short length hair (homozygous) have offspring, they all have short hair (homozygous).

So after the flood, there’s all these wolves breeding up after they got off the ark and there’s an ice age after the flood. And which wolves are best adapted to the cold conditions and the ice age up in the high latitude areas? Obviously the ones with the long hair. And so the other ones die off. They’re not adapted to the cold. And so we’re left with those with long hair. When they reproduce they can only have long-haired offspring. They can’t have short hair or medium length hair offspring. So what’s natural selection done? It’s removed the short hair gene from the population. It gets rid of information. It doesn’t create information. So natural selection only sorts existing information. Evolutionists give students and especially in high school examples of natural selection and say that’s evolution. It’s very deceptive because natural selection removes information. It doesn’t create.

The simplest bacterium that could live, has the equivalent of a Bible size book of information written on its DNA. Where’d that come from? From a chemical soup? No, it doesn’t happen. However, that’s the problem of the origin of life. Assume that you’ve got the bacterium. How do you change it into a human or a dinosaur or a bird? How many books of information do you have to add? There are a thousand books of information on our DNA. So, you’ve got to add 999 large books. But natural selection doesn’t add any information, it removes it.

There is a fundamental problem here. The modern theory of evolution is mutations and natural selection, not just natural selection. So the children in high school are being thoroughly misled telling them that natural selection equals evolution. So for example the Galapagos finches that were made made famous by Darwin, who didn’t even know they were finches. It was later on that biologists recognized them as finches. There’s one here with a fine beak, which is good for probing into flowers and getting insects. And if there’s a wet season, with lots of rain, and lots of flowers, and lots of insects, these ones do really well and they increase in numbers. Another one has a big fat beak which was good for cracking hard seeds. If there’s a drought and the only food available are seeds left over from the wet season, large seeds, those with the fine beaks can’t crack the seeds, so they decrease in numbers. Those with broad beaks do very well though because they can crack the hard seeds and they increase in numbers. And so adaptation is applied here. But variety in beaks does not even explain the origin of beaks, does it? This is deception. It is variation within a created kind. In fact, you see adaptation and natural selection, but you don’t see evolution. This again is trickery. It’s called equivocation.

You also get this sort of thing: “I see evolution happening in my laboratory. It’s a fact.” And the person at the university is imagining some minor changes in the color of moths or something like the classic example of the ones in England that supposedly went dark because of the soot during the industrial revolution and the ones that were dark survived better so that’s evolution. No it’s just variation within moths. It’s equivocation. Bait and switch is another way of putting it. It’s a trick in debating that’s applied to our children.

So, what does natural selection explain? And this goes right back to 1905. Hugo de Vries a famous evolutionist said, “natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest. And if we do not know what explains its arrival, then we do not understand the very origins of life’s diversity.”

So how do evolutionists explain this increase in the number of books of information? Since the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1950s, researchers discovered that an enormous amount of information is written on the DNA. Where’s the information come from? It doesn’t come from natural selection. It is assumed that it comes from mutations.

Mutations

Mutations are the only evolutionary explanation. Mutations are like typos in your DNA. And typos never improve your spelling! Your DNA is passed on to your children. In the process of copying your DNA and your wife’s DNA, your children get half of hers and half of yours and that makes a whole. That’s why they’re not identical to either parent but similar in some respects to each parent but some mistakes are made in copying the information. And in fact, about 100 new mutations are added to each generation. Now, back in the early 1900s when scientists discovered mutations, they got quite excited because they saw changes in things like fruit flies (Drosophila)  and they thought that’s mutations. That’s the mechanism of evolution. And so, evolutionists added mutations to the evolutionary story as a mechanism for creating all the new information. And they got quite excited about mutating things.

So scientists irradiated fruit flies with X-rays and gamma rays to make them mutate. But they ended up with all sorts of defective flies. There were curly wings and cut wings and rotated abdomen and defective eyes and vestigial wings that couldn’t fly. No one found super flies. It was very disappointing to the evolutionist. But children are exposed to all sorts of science fiction that reinforces the idea that mutations actually create us and make us into Superman. Think about X-Men. All their amazing features and abilities were due to mutations. It’s science fiction. But this is the way in which our culture indoctrinates our children into thinking that the idea of evolution of all organisms from a common ancestor successfully explains the development of life on earth.

Mutations cause diseases like sickle-cell anemia, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis and many other inherited diseases. In fact, there’s a whole website devoted to all the mutations that cause disease. Hemochromatosis is caused by defective genes. It’s caused by a genetic defect.

Mutations cause disease.

Sickle cell anemia is held up as being a beneficial mutation. But it’s a disease! How can that be beneficial? Well, if you happen to live in Africa where there’s malaria, you have some resistance to malaria because the malaria parasite doesn’t like misshapen blood cells caused by sickle cell anemia. So scientists call this a beneficial mutation! Now, it’s a one letter error in the DNA which results in the hemoglobin being very slightly different and then the blood cells are misshapen. In fact, because the hemoglobin’s defective, you can’t get the normal amount of oxygen into your body and if you try and run a marathon, you could drop dead. Would anybody want this beneficial mutation? You see how hard-pressed evolutionists are for beneficial mutations, but they’re not things that add information to living things. They’re not adding new genes. Mutations break things, they don’t make things! This is a fundamental problem for evolution.

Genetic entropy

There are about 100 new mutations in each generation. In the past the evolutionists said 98% of our DNA is junk. So 100 mutations means only two of them are in stuff that matters. So scientists could imagine that they weren’t going to kill us that way. But in the last 10 years it’s been found that there’s almost no junk DNA. So there’s a problem because it means that the 100 mutations are actually in stuff that matters and you can’t get rid of them. If you had just one or two mutations added in each generation that mattered, then if you have 10 children then the chances are you’ll have a couple of children that don’t have any new mutations and some will have two and some will have four. So you get a range of options in your children and some of them are going to be more fit than the others to survive. But when all these mutations are in stuff that matters, you can’t have enough children to have children without them. And so inevitably it means we’re running downhill. And it’s called genetic entropy – that our genes are deteriorating. They are like a rusty old car. And we’ve been deteriorating since the fall, since God withdrew some of his sustaining power when sin entered into the world. We’ve been going downhill. Adam and Eve were created from the hand of God, perfect. They didn’t have cancer and stuff like that. But this came in because of sin.

A new study showed that there’s more of these mutations (100-200 new mutations per generation) than what they thought (Porubsky, et al, 2025). They compared the DNA in four generations of a family to see how many new mutations have been added per generation. They also found much higher rates of non-point mutations. Point mutations are a one letter change. Non-point mutations involve insertions or deletions of a section of the genome. They also observed that some parts of the genome mutate much faster than others which goes against the evolutionary dogma that mutations are random.

This is becoming a huge problem. A Russian geneticist, Alexi Kondraov, some years ago said, “why aren’t we dead 100 times over?” He’s an evolutionist who has been studying the problem of these mutations. This is because he thinks that we evolved from a common ancestor, with the chimps, about 7 million years ago. So, he’s saying, why aren’t we dead a hundred times over because of all these mutations over millions of years? Mutations are killing us and not creating us! So the discoveries by experimental science defy the idea that we came about by mutations which are accidental changes to existing information.

The ATP synthase motor

According to the theory of biological evolution, life came from a chemical soup, which developed into bacteria, and then worms, followed by vertebrates, including humans. How did this happen? By mutations and natural selection. Experimental science today undoes this story totally. Do any structures in the cell resemble machines designed by humans? How do we account for such structures?

There is a rotary motor that’s operating inside your bodies right now. It spins around at about 10,000 revolutions per minute. And if it wasn’t, you’d be dead. If you take a dose of cyanide, it kills this motor. But each cell has thousands of these motors. Muscle cells have the most because they generate the energy that we need to live. They translate electrical energy into chemical energy. This is opposite to an electrical generator that uses fuel (chemical energy) to generate electricity. ATP synthase is the chemical energy that our bodies use (like to make proteins and move muscles). Every living thing has this motor. It’s made of proteins. And the proteins are made of amino acids. The order of the proteins is specified on the DNA. The DNA information is read and translated to form these proteins and assemble them into this motor which converts a proton current into chemical energy. The motor is so small that 100,000 would sit side by side in a millimeter. This has been discovered after 30 years of research. The Japanese scientists proposed that it was a rotary motor. But evolutionary scientists said no that’s not possible because how could it evolve. This shows how a belief in evolution kills science. But it was proven to be a rotary motor. This is amazing nano-technology. The scientists who studied this could have never imagined designing such a motor. Yet the same people will say “it just made itself by evolution without any intelligence”! This screams at us that we’re made by a super intelligent creator. And we should say, “Wow, how amazing is our creator”. How awesome is God. How awesome is the Lord Jesus Christ that through Him all these things were made. And this is just the top of the iceberg. There is so much like this. In the last 30 years there has been an explosion of information and knowledge about these things. And it just shouts at us how amazing we are, how awesome is our creator. We are fearfully and wonderfully made in an amazing way.

Other molecular machines

There is an amazing delivery system working inside your cells right now. And it is called the kinesin motor. And it walks on a road network of microtubules which are another type of protein. It is a protein that’s like a walking system mechanism and it carries bags of proteins being delivered to various parts of our cells. Now this is all incredibly small because you can’t see this under a light microscope. It’s a bit like the ATP synthase motor discussed above in terms of its size. There’s 125,000 steps in a millimeter. It works very fast. In fact, it’s involved in our thinking and in cell division. There’s different sorts of kinesin that are involved in all sorts of things. They use one ATP which is made by the rotary motor mentioned above to take each step. Each step takes one ATP to generate the energy to do it. The proteins are manufactured with an address label on them to say where they’re to go whether in the cell or outside the cell. The cell reads the address labels, packages them up together so that all the things going to the same destination are going together and then delivers them.

Now bacteria don’t have this delivery system. So if bacteria evolved into us, how did they invent this? No intelligence is allowed, just mutations. And all the parts have to work together for it to work at all. And it shouts at us, intelligent design. And again, like the ATP synthase, no scientist could ever have dreamt of designing it. All we’re doing is coming along after the event and understanding what God has designed. So the same people that are studying this stuff will tell you it evolved. If anybody has no excuse today it’s molecular biologists who study this stuff. It screams at us we have an amazing creator. Absolutely amazing. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The DNA molecule is a twisted double helix. But how’s it read? It has to be untwisted first. But if you untwist a rope it gets knots. There is a very complex machine that cuts the DNA, untwists it, and rejoins it. Even a molecular biologist could not imagine designing something like that! But they say that it all just made itself! Seriously! But this makes no sense of the evidence. Neither mutations nor natural selection create the information needed. So, evolution is an impossible process.

Ape men

But don’t ape men show we came from apes? What is believed to be the first ape is known as proconsul. But what scientific evidence is there for the transitional species between proconsul and Homo Sapiens?

Recent discoveries have shown that Neanderthal man (Homo Neanderthalensis) made and wore jewelry, played instruments, used tools, and wore makeup. We’ve even found that his brain was the same or slightly larger than the average human living today. In other words, Neanderthal man was actually just a man.

What about Homo Erectus? Recent discoveries have shown that Homo Erectus made tools, engaged in artwork, spoke intelligent language, and made and sailed boats. In other words, Homo Erectus was also just a man.

Have you ever heard of Lucy, the most famous so-called ape-man paraded in our museums? One of the very first Australopithecus apheresis species ever to be found. But what does the evidence reveal? She had a skull that was sloped and ape-like, nothing like human skulls. Fingers that were curved, not at all like human fingers. Toes that were curved, not at all like human toes. Wrists that had the ability to lock for knuckle walking. And a knee structure that was compatible with life in trees. So Lucy and her kind swung from trees and looked like today’s apes. Lucy is an extinct type of ape.

As we’ve just seen, Homo sapiens, Neanderthal man, and Homo Erectus were all men. Australopithecus apheresis and proconsul were both apes. Considering the ubiquity of the evolutionary icon, we’d really want to see some strong evidence for Homo Habilis, the pivotal point of transition between stooped ape and upright man, between basic instinct and intelligent thought, between animal noise and intelligent speech. The only problem is in the words of Ian Tattefrsa, Homo Habilis is a waste basket taxon little more than a convenient recipient for a motley assortment of hominin fossils. Other scientists referred to him as a garbage bag because the bones we have for him are a mixture of human and ape bones. In other words, Homo Habilis never existed. I think evolutionary professor Bernard Wood sums this up well, “Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are at loath to let it go.” But it is an illusion with the lack of evidence and agreement on the ape to human transition forms.

A better explanation is that man and apes have always coexisted and reproduced according to their own kind as stated in Genesis 1.

DNA similarities

So, what about the DNA similarities? You’ve probably heard the idea we’re only 1% different to chimps in our DNA. So, we’re only slightly different to chimps. As there’s about 3,000 million letters in our DNA, 1% would be 30 million letters, which is about 100 paperback-sized books. This is not a small amount. It’s a huge difference. In fact, just this year, a major study has been published documenting the genomes of all the great apes because they’ve only just been completed (Yoo et al, 2025). A lot of the genomes were a draft version. And with chimps, for example, scientists used a human DNA sequence as a scaffold for putting the chimp DNA on it. So that made it look much more humanlike than it really was. So now they’ve been able to document the full chimp DNA sequence properly and the difference between human and chimp DNA is actually about 15%, which is equivalent to over 900 paperback-sized books!

By making unrealistic assumptions in favor of evolution, evolutionists thought they’d account for 1% of the DNA difference, but 15% is way outside what they can explain even when making unrealistic assumptions in favor of evolution.

So, why would there be similarities? Well, if you’re going to design something, do you start from scratch and ignore everything else you made before? No, you start with what you’ve done before, and you modify it. You add things, subtract things, and so on. And what would God do in creating things? In fact, why do we have these similarities between the old VW Beetle car and the Porsche car? Because they had the same designer. And so God designed things and created things with similarities that make sense.

The waiting time problem

Another big problem for the evolutionary story is the waiting time problem in a model of the hominin population (Sanford et al, 2015). Hominin just means human related. This research used a computer model and could track the genes as they mutate in a human population over time and then spread through the population by natural selection. So they make assumptions in favor of evolution. In other words, in putting the stuff into the model, scientists have to make assumptions in favor of evolution to get it to work at all. Having made very unrealistic assumptions in favor of evolution, what did they find? They found that to get just two letters lined up next to one another on the DNA required 84 million years, just two letters lined up, not books of information, just two letters lined up. The differences between humans and chimps are not just random. That’s the evolutionary assumption. – they’re just random differences. No, we actually have 175 protein families which are missing in chimps. Now, protein families are like a family of people that look nothing like other people. So, these protein families cannot be explained by a few little changes in another protein family. They’re too different.

And chimps have stuff that we don’t have. So just one of these genes is enough to kill evolution because to get two letters lined up on the DNA together requires 84 million years. To get five letters lined up together, exceeds the age of the universe according to the evolutionary story. This shows that evolution of humans from a chimp-like ancestor is impossible. So scientists are never going to find an ape-man because they never existed.

So, experimental science tells us that evolution (of microbes to man) is impossible.

Genetic Adam and Eve

The genetic studies today show that we came from one woman and one man. It makes sense that these are Adam and Eve. That’s what the Bible tells us. Mitochondrial DNA is a little loop of DNA within the mitochondria of your cells that comes from your mother and doesn’t come from your father. So it’s in the egg that your mother produces and then it’s in you. So all that mitochondrial DNA comes through the mothers. So you can look at that mitochondrial DNA in the world and sequence it into the letter order and then you can compare it and see how it relates to one another and it points back to one mother (Thomas, 2016; Carter et al, 2018; Carter 2025).

Fig. 1 A phylogenetic tree of the major mtDNA branches found in modern humans. To reduce the number of branches, the minimum distance between any two sequences was set to >= 50 mutations. The length of the branch represents the number of mutations. The scale bar represents approximately 30 mutations and less than 140 mutations separate the most distant people.

Now you also can do the same thing with Y chromosome DNA because the Y chromosome only comes from the fathers. Ladies don’t have a Y chromosome. And so all the Y chromosomes in the world come from the fathers. And you can do the same thing. Look at all the Y chromosome DNA sequences around the world, put them into a computer program and guess what? It points back to one father (Carter et al, 2018). The evolutionists even called them Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve.

However, scientists said, “That’s not the biblical Eve and Adam.” It’s clearly not because they go back 200,000 years for Eve and 150,000 years for Adam. They never knew one another. So, they just happened to be the only DNA from Y chromosome that survived to today and the only mitochondrial DNA that survived to today. None of the other women that were around at the time have any descendants today. However, all that was based upon the assumption of evolution. Evolutionists say, “we came from a common ancestor with a chimp 7 million years ago.” Compare the human and chimp mitochondria DNA or the Y chromosome and then divide by the number of years or generations and you have the mutation rate. Then we calculate when did Eve live and when did Adam live. But that assumes evolution.

What happens if you actually measure the mutation rate by looking at one generation today and looking at the previous generation, and the next generation and compare them and see what the actual mutation rate is. What happens then? Well, a study in Nature showed that genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time. Evolutionists say 200,000 years ago using assumed mutation rates. But when you use measured mutation rates, you get about 6,000 years for mitochondrial Eve and about 4,500 years for the Y chromosome ancestor (Jeanson, 2015; Jeanson and Holland, 2019). There are big error bars on this, it’s not precise. But why would Y chromosome Adam be about 4,500 years ago? Well, men and the Y chromosome go back to Noah. His three sons all got their Y chromosome from Noah. The three sons were ancestors of all the nations. So, we go back to Noah, not to Adam. And Noah goes back to Adam. But with three women on the ark, they go back to Eve before the ark.

These diagrammatic trees and our additional analyses show that multiple haplogroup founders were surprisingly closely related suggesting a small population that underwent explosive population growth. What do we have after the flood? Eight people and rapid population growth giving rise to all the human Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups in the world.

There is no reason to reject a literal historical Adam and Eve. The genetic data are pointing strongly in that direction. In fact, the data we see are exactly what we would expect from the biblical account of human origins. According to Dr Robert Carter, “modern genetics has discovered the main outline of Genesis, including the creation, the flood and the tower of Babel”.

So, why do people reject this? Well, because it’s about God. The Bible talks about it, so it can’t be right. If Adam is our ancestor, like the Bible says, then God sets the rules and we break the rules. We’re sinners. We need a savior. We’re going to be judged unless we have the savior. And that’s why evolutionists don’t want to acknowledge this. They’d rather be the descendant of an ape and then have no rules at all. Make up your own. It’s just like the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve doing their own thing, rejecting God’s sovereignty over them. And that’s what people are still doing today. Sin is sin. It’s always been the same. Basically rejecting God’s right over us.

Mark Carhill is an evangelist working especially with young people. And he said, “I’m an evangelist. I go around and talk with people, one-on-one conversations. In my time talking to high schoolers, the number one answer I get for there not being a God so they don’t have to believe, is evolution”. It’s the great escape from dealing with the fact that God owns us and we’re accountable to God for our lives. And so our challenge is to be ready with answers. To be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asks you the reasons to hope that you have and do this with gentleness and respect (1 Pt. 3:15).

The information problem

The universe is made up of space, time, matter and information. Biological information is an essential part of life. It is a nonmaterial code that is placed on matter, but doesn’t come from matter. Where did the information necessary for life come from? As life requires such information, this means that all materialistic theories of the origin of life are doomed to failure.

In the study of the origin of life, the information problem refers to the challenge of how complex biological information, such as the genetic code, could have arisen from simpler chemical compounds. The Creation Information Barrier prohibits the creation of life from matter without the creation of information by an intelligent being. It shows that the story of evolution fails at the beginning.

Earlier we saw that a human being has 999 more large books of information in their DNA than a bacterium. But natural selection doesn’t add any information, it removes it. And mutations don’t add information to living things. They’re not adding new genes. Mutations break things and cause disease, they don’t make things! This shows that the story of evolution can’t add complexity to organisms.

The information barrier shows that the evolution of species from molecules to mankind is impossible.

Conclusion

I don’t believe in the idea of the unguided biological evolution of complex life from simple chemicals because:
– Variety within a kind of creature doesn’t lead to a different creature, it’s not evolution
– The fossils don’t show evolution, the supposed many transitional creatures are missing
– No transitional ape-men has been found between fossil apes and humans
– Natural selection doesn’t add any information to the DNA
– Mutations don’t add any information to the DNA
– The human genome is degrading because of genetic entropy
– There are many complex molecular machines within living cells
– There is about 15% difference between human and  chimpanzee DNA
– When it is based on experimental data, the genetic clock places our earliest human ancestor at about 6,000 years ago
– The information barrier shows that the evolution of species from molecules to mankind is impossible

So, I believe that the universe and everything in it was created by an intelligent being so that it was complex from the beginning. This is part of the real history of the universe.

References

Carter R W, Lee S and Sanford J C, 2018, An overview of the independent histories of the human Y-chromosome and the human mitochondrial chromosome,  Proc. of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 133–151. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Carter R W, 2025, When did Eve live? Biblically, about 6,000 years ago. Scientifically, the answer depends on the mutation rate, 18 September 2025.
Gould S J and Eldredge N, 1993, Punctuated equilibrium comes of age, Nature, 366, 223-227.
Jeanson N T, 2015, A young-earth  creation human mitochondrial DNA ‘clock’: Whole mitochondrial genome mutation rate confirms D-loop results, Answers Research J, 8, 375-378.
Jeanson N T and Holland A D, 2019, Evidence for a human Y chromosome molecular clock: Pedigree-based mutation mates suggest a 4,500 year history for human paternal inheritance, Answers Research J, 12, 393-404.
Morris, S C, 2003, Once we were worms, New Scientist, 179, 2406, 34ff.
Porunbsky, D et al, 2025, Human de novo mutation rates for a four-generation pedigree reference, Nature, 643, 427-436.
Sanford J et al, 2015, The waiting time problem in a model of hominin population, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, 12, #18.
Sereno P C, 1999, The evolution of dinosaurs, Science, 284, 5423, 2137-2147.
Thomas B, 2016, DNA trends confirm Noah’s family, Institute of Creation Research, June 30.
Yoo D et al, 2025, Complete sequencing of ape genomes, Nature, 641, 401–418.

Acknowledgement

This article is based on a talk given by Dr Don Batten of Creation Ministries International.

Published, September 2025

Also see: The creation information barrier
Genesis: the real history of the universe