The following picture is used as the opening image for the unit on evolution in a 7th grade textbook used throughout most of Los Angeles, California.¹

This image combines visual reconstructions of fossils from the famous ‘horse series’ (which supposedly shows the evolution of modern horses from 4/3 toed horses) and familiar evolutionary concepts to convey the message that fossil evidence shows that millions of years ago, adaptation and natural selection produced great physical change, leading to the evolution of all of life on earth.

This story does not at all fit with what we read in the book of Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, that on Day 6, God created each animal out of the ground ’according to their kinds,’ which would include horses and all other mammals. The plain meaning of these passages lead us to conclude that if the Bible is true, evolution is not, and vice versa. Therefore, when a science textbook presents convincing graphics that claim that evolution is true, it forces the student to choose between two worldviews.

Unfortunately, students are often not equipped with scientific answers to this type of evolutionary teaching.  Many of them assume that “creation is religion” and “evolution is science.”  Consequently, when it comes time to choose between worldviews, many students are more likely to choose evolution and its corollary: secular humanism.²

However, there are biblical and scientific answers to evolutionary teaching. Allow me to demonstrate by critiquing the picture from this LA textbook:

• In the picture, the term ‘physical change’ is used as a synonym for evolution. However, the picture fails to explain the difference between observable physical change, namely variation and adaptation, and macroevolution, the unobserved development of all of life from an evolutionary ancestor (i.e. Darwin’s ‘tree of life’).

• While adaptation and natural selection do work together to preserve the best varieties of a creature in its environment, they cannot create new structures (legs, hair, feathers, etc). This is because there is no natural process which can add new information to the genetic code of a creature. Adaptation and natural selection can only fine-tune what already exists. They do not and cannot create.³

• Fossil evidence is inconsistent with Darwin’s tree of life. Instead of showing simple varieties growing more complex and numerous, organisms appear fully-formed and complex from the start, with increasingly less variety being produced over time.⁴ A good example of this is with the horse series. Instead of the straight-line pattern towards the modern horse seen in the picture, paleontologists find a ‘branch’ pattern in the fossil record, in which both 3 and 1 toed horses lived together at the same time.⁵ However, only one-toed horses dominate today (although 3-toed horses are known to be born occasionally).⁶ This is an example of a loss of information and extinction, not evolution. Creation paleontologists interpret the variation in the fossils of the horse ‘series’ as an example of post-Flood diversification within a created kind.⁷

• Lastly, millions of years do not help evolution. The more time is allowed, the more time for bad mutations to add up and result in the extinction of a species. Time does not create; it can only destroy.³

Science textbooks often promote evolutionary beliefs, which can persuade students to accept the religion of secular humanism. Christian parents, please equip your children to combat such attempts to undermine their faith in God our Creator!

You can get started by selecting your child’s textbook from our Jr. High and High School Biology pages and getting biblical resources!

Free Resources for Further Reading:

Chapter 4: Do Fossils Show Evolution?

Gone in Only One Generation: Battle for Kid’s Minds 

The Mythical Horse Series

The Non-Evolution of the Horse

References:

¹Eddleman, Scott. CPO Focus on Life Science. Nashua, NH: CPO Science, 2007. 212. Print.

²Ham, Ken, C. Britt. Beemer, and Todd A. Hillard. Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit Church and What You Can Do to Stop It. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2009. Print.

³Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications, 2008. Print.

⁴Creation v. Evolution: What They Won’t Tell You in Biology Class. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 2014. 110-15. Print.

⁵Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995. 189-198. Print.

⁶Sarfati, Jonathan. “The Non-evolution of the Horse.” Creation.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2015. <http://creation.com/the-non-evolution-of-the-horse>.

⁷D. Cavanaugh, T. Wood, K. Wise, “Fossil Equidae: A Monobaraminic, Stratomorphic Series”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, 2003, pp. 143-153.

As we have seen in the last two posts in this series, dinosaur-to-bird evolution is not supported by the fossil record. We will conclude this series by examining some of the other major problems with the idea of birds evolving by chance mistakes.

Birds and reptiles differ in many important ways, including skeletal, respiratory, developmental, and integumentary anatomy.

Birds and reptiles are very different. In order for dinosaurs to change into birds, many necessary changes would need to be made to the body of the supposed bird-ancestor; changes which are not supported by biology or the fossil record, including:

• The reptilian lung system to a one-way airflow, air-sac-based respiratory system.¹
• The dense skeleton of most dinosaurs to the lightweight, hollow skeleton of most birds.
• A shift in center of gravity from the legs to the wings.²
• Leg movement at the hips in dinosaurs to movement at the knees in birds.²
• Scales (folds in the skin) to feathers (complex structures that develop like hair from a follicle in the skin).³
• Change in the development of the hand and ‘finger’ arrangement.⁴

These kinds of changes, which would be necessary for dino-bird evolution, are biologically impossible, requiring the addition of huge amounts of information to the DNA of the ‘birdosaur’, a process that has never been observed. While evolutionary scientists try to imagine why dinosaurs evolved flying ability by natural selection, there is no satisfactory explanation for how random mutations could produce such intricate design. Worse yet, how could a half-formed intermediate survive to pass on its genes? Wouldn’t natural selection eliminate this mutant?²

In recent years, another severe blow has been dealt to the theory of bird evolution: the discovery of birds in dinosaur rock-layers! Some scientists even believe that all (or nearly all) modern bird families lived alongside dinosaurs like T. rex and Velociraptor!⁵

Man’s theories that dinosaurs evolved into birds have changed countless times as new information has emerged. However, the Bible’s account of the origins of birds and dinosaurs has remained the same! Shouldn’t the Bible warrant our trust?

Free Resources for Further Reading:

Chapter 4: Do Fossils Show Evolution?

Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds?

Video – Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds? 

Refuting Evolution – Chapter 4: Bird Evolution?

References:

¹Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book 1: Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2006. 300-301. Print.

²Morris, Henry M., John D. Morris, Jason Lisle, James J.S. Johnson, Nathaniel Jeanson, Randy Guliuzza, Jeffrey Tomkins, Jake Hebert, Frank Sherwin, and Brian Thomas. Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-Depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2013. 281. Print.

³Wieland, Carl. “Bird Evolution Flies out the Window.” Creation 16(4):16–19 Sept. 1994: 16-19. Creation. Web.

⁴Menton, David. “Did Microraptor Gui Invent the Biplane before the Wright Brothers?” Answers in Genesis. N.p., 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 13 Dec. 2014. <https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/did-microraptor-gui-invent-the-biplane/>.

⁵Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. 276. Print.

One of the modern icons of evolution is the idea that modern birds are the direct descendants of small, theropod dinosaurs. In the 10th grade California biology textbook, Biology by Miller & Levine, it is included, along with whale and tetrapod (4-legged animal) evolution, as one of the best examples of evolutionary transition in the fossil record.¹

The three most-cited fossil evidences used to support this claim are (1) the fossilized bird Archaeopteryx, (2) theropod dinosaurs with ‘bird-like’ characteristics, and (3) many so-called ‘feathered dinosaur’ fossils. As we will see, this so-called ‘evidence’ is questionable at best.

Archaeopteryx was once (and still is by some) considered to be the ‘missing link’ between dinosaurs and birds. However, this fossil is now recognized by many scientists to be an extinct bird, possessing:

• Fully-formed wings and feathers for flying
• A bird-like skull and jaw
• Perching feet
• A robust wishbone
• An avian (bird) digit arrangement
• The size and overall appearance of a modern bird skeleton²

Despite these facts, evolutionists point to several so-called ‘reptile traits’ in Archaeopteryx that are claimed to be ‘primitive’, including clawed wings, a long, bony tail, and a toothed beak.It’s important to remember that when scientists analyze and form opinions regarding fossils, their personal worldview has a significant impact upon their interpretation of the evidence. The interpretation of these features as ‘primitive’ assume that its shared traits with reptiles are a result of evolutionary common ancestry.

Creation Museum model of the extinct bird, Archaeopteryx. Image credit: http://blog.creation.org/creation-museum-archaeopteryx-reconstruction-does-it-or-doesnt-it-have-teeth/.

An alternate interpretation is that the Creator equipped Archaeopteryx with a unique combination of traits to help it “fill the earth”.³ Archaeopteryx likely used its wing-claws to climb trees, like modern touraco and hoatzin chicks⁴, and its long, feathered tail may have been used as a lift generator, flight stabilizer, or landing mechanism.⁵ Archaeopteryx’s teeth also more closely resemble the grasping teeth of other fossil birds than the serrated teeth of dinosaurs.⁶

As evolutionist Dr. Alan Feduccia has said, “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”⁷

Free Resources for Further Reading:

Chapter 4: Do Fossils Show Evolution? 

Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds?

Video – Did Dinosaurs Turn Into Birds? 

Archaeopteryx Is a Bird…Again

Refuting Evolution – Chapter 4: Bird Evolution?

References:

¹Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 467. Print.

²Gish, Duane T. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995. 132-35. Print.

³Wise, Kurt. “Mystifying Mosaics.” Answers in Genesis. N.p., 15 May 2008. Web. 2 Dec. 2014. <https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/mystifying-mosaics/>.

⁴Gish, Duane T., Earl Snellenberger, and Bonita Snellenberger. Dinosaurs by Design. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1992. 66. Print.

⁵Paul, Gregory S. Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. 140-41. Print.

⁶Werner, Carl, and Debbie Werner. Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf, 2014. 156. Print.

⁷Alan Feduccia, quoted in V. Morell, “Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms,” Science 259:5096, February 5, 1993, pp. 764-765. Cited from Museum Guide: a Bible-based Handbook to Natural History Museums Answers in Genesis-USA, 2007. Print.

The 10th-grade California textbook, Biology by Miller & Levine, uses radioactive dating as confirmation of evolutionary time. “[Radioactive dating] could have shown that Earth is young. If that had happened, Darwin’s ideas would have been refuted and abandoned. Instead, radioactive dating indicates that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old—plenty of time for evolution by natural selection to take place.”¹ What does radioactive dating really show?

Radioactive dating uses radioactive elements in rocks, elements which transform into other elements (decay) over time, to estimate their ages. Here’s how it works: First, the parent-daughter element ratio is discovered. This is the number of parent elements (original radioactive element) to daughter elements (what the parent element turns into). The time it takes for this to occur is estimated using a half-life, the time it takes for half of the remaining parent elements to turn into daughter elements. The radioactive “clock” is then reversed to the time when the rock supposedly formed, and an age-date is obtained.²

However, this method makes 3 big assumptions in order to work:

1. The amount of daughter elements in the original rock is known.
2. No parent or daughter material was added or removed from the sample over time.
3. The rate of decay is constant; it never happened faster or slower in the past.³

Since these are all unknowns, we cannot use radioactive dating as an ‘absolute dating’ method. In addition, radioactive dating has been shown to yield incorrect dates for rocks of known age. For example, volcanic rocks formed at Mt. Saint Helens during the 1980s have registered radioactive ages at 0.5-2.8 million years old!⁴ If we can’t trust radioactive dates for rocks of known ages, why should we accept dates for rocks of unknown ages?

Image credit: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

Also, different dating methods often give conflicting results. For example, radioactive dating of rock samples taken from the Cardenas Basalt of Grand Canyon produced the following results:

METHOD                                           ISOCHRON “AGE”

Potassium-Argon                             516 million years

Rubidium-Strontium                        1,111 million years

Samarium-Neodymium                  1,588 million years⁴

Lastly, there is evidence that decay rates have not always been constant. Using the uranium-lead dating method, scientists dated zircon crystals in granite at 1.5 billion years old, however, these same rocks contain a large amounts of helium (a daughter element of uranium decay which escapes quickly over time) which indicates an age of only 6,000 years!^6,7  This means that 1.5 billion years of radioactive decay must have occurred in only 6,000 years!

Obviously, radioactive dating has not proven to be a reliable method for dating rocks. Instead of relying on man’s fallible ideas (such as millions of years of evolution), we ought to trust what God’s Word says about science and history.

Free resources for further research:

Chapter 3: The Age of the Earth, Dating Methods, and Evolution

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth is Old? 

ICR: Doesn’t Radioisotope Dating Prove Rocks Are Millions of Years Old?

Video: Radiometric Dating

References:

¹Miller, Kenneth R., and Joseph S. Levine. Miller & Levine Biology. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2006. 466. Print.

²Tarbuck, Edward J., and Frederick K. Lutgens. Earth, an Introduction to Physical Geology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2005. 284-90. Print.

³Snelling, Andrew A. Earth’s Catastrophic Past. Vol. 1. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 2009. 800. Print.

⁴Ibid, p. 841.

⁵Ham, Ken. The New Answers Book 1: Over 25 Questions on Creation/Evolution and the Bible. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2006. 118. Print.

⁶Morris, John D. The Young Earth. Green Forest, AR: Master, 2011. 53. Print.

⁷Snelling, 2009, p. 846.