16 WHY IS IT WRONG TO
THINK THAT EVOLUTION COULD BE CONFIRMED IN THE FUTURE?
WHEN forced into a corner, some people who support the theory of evolution
resort to the claim "Even if scientific discoveries do not confirm the
theory of evolution today, such developments will take place in the
There is no difference between the
absurdity of claiming that a jet could form by chance and that
a living cell could do so. The design in a living cell is many
times superior to that in a jet created by the best engineers
and most advanced robots, with the most developed technology,
in the most modern plants.
The basic starting point here is evolutionists' admission of defeat
in the scientific arena. Reading between the lines, we can translate
as follows: "Yes, we defenders of the theory of evolution admit that
the discoveries of modern science do not support us. For that reason,
we can see no alternative but to refer the matter to the future."
Yet science does not function by such logic. A scientist does not first
of all blindly devote himself to a theory, hoping that one day the evidence
to prove that theory will emerge. Science examines the available evidence
and draws conclusions from it. That is why scientists should accept
the "design," or the fact of creation in other words, which scientific
discoveries have proved.
Despite this, however, evolutionist incitement and propaganda can still
influence people, especially those who are not fully conversant with
the theory. For this reason, it will be useful to set out the reply
We can consider the validity of the theory of evolution with three
1. How did the first living cell emerge?
2. How can one living species turn into another?
3. Is there any evidence in the fossil record that living things underwent
such a process?
A great deal of serious research has been carried out during the twentieth
century into these three questions, which the theory simply has to answer.
What this research has revealed, however, is that the theory of evolution
cannot account for life. This will become apparent when we consider
these questions one by one.
1. The question of the "first cell" is the most deadly
dilemma for the proponents of evolution. Research on the subject has
revealed that it is impossible to explain the emergence of the first
cell by means of the concept of "chance." Fred Hoyle puts it this way:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is
comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard
might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.63
Let us use an example to see the contradiction evolutionists are involved
in. Remember the famous example of William Paley and imagine someone
who has never seen a clock in his life, someone on a desert island for
instance, who one day comes across one. This person who sees a wall-clock
from 100 metres away will not be able to make out exactly what it is,
and may be unable to distinguish it from any natural phenomenon thrown
up by the wind, sand, and Earth. Yet as that person draws closer, he
will understand just by looking at it that it is the product of design.
From even closer up, he will be left in absolutely no doubt. The next
stage may be to examine the features of this object, and the art apparent
in it. When he opens it up and has a detailed look, he will see that
there is a greater accumulation of knowledge inside it than was apparent
from the outside, and that is a product of intelligence. Every subsequent
examination will just make that analysis even more certain.
The truth about life that emerges as science advances is in a similar
situation. Scientific developments have revealed the perfection in life
on the system, organ, tissue, cellular, and even molecular levels. Every
new detail we grasp enables us to see the wondrous dimension of this
design a little more clearly. Nineteenth-century evolutionists, who
took the view that the cell was a little lump of carbon, were in the
same situation as that person looking at the clock from 100 metres away.
Today, however, it is impossible to find even one scientist who does
not admit that each individual part of the cell is a magnificent work
of art and design on its own. Even the membrane of a tiny cell, which
has been described as a "selective filter," contains enormous intelligence
and design. It recognizes the atoms, proteins, and molecules around
it as if it possessed a consciousness of its own, and only allows into
the cell those which are needed. (For further details, see Harun Yahya's
Consciousness in the Cell.) Unlike the limited intelligent design in
the clock, living organisms are stunning artifacts of intelligence and
design. Far from proving evolution, the ever wider-ranging and detailed
research that is carried out into living structures, only some of whose
make-up and functions have been uncovered so far, allows us to understand
the truth of creation even better.
2. Evolutionists maintain that one species can turn
into another by means of mutation and natural selection. All the research
carried out on the matter has shown that neither mechanism has any evolutionary
effect whatsoever. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the
Natural History Museum in London, stresses the fact in these words:
No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection.
No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism
is about this question. 64
Research into mutation shows that it has no evolutionary
properties. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan says:
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations
are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the
structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will
be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake
were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would
be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability,
would not be an improvement.65
As we have seen, the mechanisms that the theory of evolution suggests
for the formation of species are completely ineffective, and actually
harmful. It has been understood that these mechanisms, which were proposed
when science and technology had not yet advanced to the level necessary
to show that the claim was nothing but the product of fantasy, have
no developmental or evolutionary effects.
3. Fossils also show that life did not emerge as
the result of any evolutionary process, but that it came about suddenly,
the product of perfect "design." All the fossils that have ever been
found confirm this. Niles Eldredge, the well-known paleontologist from
Harvard University and curator of the American Museum of Natural History,
explains that there is no possibility that any fossils that might be
found in the future could change the situation:
The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real:
the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history-not the artifact
of a poor fossil record. 66
Another American scholar, Robert Wesson, states in
his 1991 book Beyond Natural Selection, that "the gaps in the fossil
record are real and phenomenal." He elaborates this claim in this way:
The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of
any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static,
or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show
evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another,
and change is more or less abrupt. 67
In conclusion, some 150 years have gone by since the theory of evolution
was first put forward, and all subsequent scientific developments have
worked against it. The more science has examined the details of life,
the more evidence for the perfection of creation has been found, and
the more it has been understood that the emergence of life and its subsequent
variation by chance is quite impossible. Every piece of research reveals
new evidence of the design in living things, and makes the fact of creation
ever clearer. Every decade that has passed since Darwin's time has just
revealed the invalidity of the theory of evolution even more.
In short, scientific advances do not favour the theory of evolution.
For that reason, further developments in the future will not do so either,
but will demonstrate its invalidity even further.
It remains to say that the claims of evolution are not something that
science has not yet solved or explained, but will be able to explain
in the future. On the contrary, modern science has disproved the theory
of evolution in all areas and demonstrated that it is impossible from
all points of view for such an imaginary process ever to have taken
place. To claim that such an untenable belief will be proven in the
future is nothing but the product of the imaginative and utopian mindsets
of those Marxist and materialist circles that see evolution as underpinning
their ideologies. They are merely trying to console themselves in their
For this reason, the idea that "science will prove evolution in the
future" is no different from believing that "science will one day show
that the Earth rests on the back of an elephant."
17 WHY IS METAMORPHOSIS
NOT EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION?
SOME creatures undergo physical changes to allow them to survive and
adapt to different natural conditions at different times. This process
is known as metamorphosis. People with insufficient knowledge of biology
and evolutionist claims also sometimes try to portray the process as
evidence for the theory of evolution. Those sources which cite metamorphosis
as "an example of evolution" are superficial, narrow-based works of
propaganda which seek to mislead those who do not possess sufficient
information on the subject, juvenile evolutionists, or a few ignorant
Darwinist biology teachers. Scientists who are considered experts on
evolution, and who thus know more about the dilemmas and contradictions
inherent in the theory, hesitate to even refer to this ridiculous claim.
That is because they know how senseless it is…
Some creatures that undergo metamorphosis:
the frog, the butterfly, the bee, the mosquito.
Butterflies, flies, and bees are some of the best-known creatures that
undergo metamorphosis. Frogs, which start life in water and then live
on land, are another example. This has nothing to do with evolution,
because the theory tries to account for the differentiation between
living things in terms of chance mutations. Metamorphosis, however,
bears no similarity at all to that claim, being a pre-planned process
which has nothing to do with mutation or chance. It is not chance that
brings metamorphosis about, but genetic data which are built-in in the
creature from the moment it is born. The frog, for example, possesses
the genetic information to allow it to live on land while it is still
living underwater. Even while still a larva, the mosquito possesses
the genetic information regarding its pupa and adult states. The same
thing applies to all creatures that undergo metamorphosis.
Metamorphosis is evidence for creation
People who try to portray metamorphosis
as "evidence of evolution" know nothing about biology and the
theory of evolution. Metamorphosis is a "planned change" encoded
inside genetic information, and bears no similarity to evolution,
which means "coincidental change." Metamorphosis is an example
of "irreducible complexity," and is evidence that disproves evolution.
Recent scientific research into metamorphosis has shown that it is
a complex process controlled by different genes. As regards the metamorphosis
of the frog, for instance, the relevant processes in the tail alone
are controlled by more than a dozen genes. This means that this process
comes about thanks to several components working together. This is a
biological process that bears the feature of "irreducible complexity,"
which shows that metamorphosis is proof of creation.
Prof. Michael Behe
"Irreducible complexity" is a concept that has been given its place
in the scientific literature by Professor Michael Behe, a biochemist
who is known for his research proving the invalidity of the theory of
evolution. What it means is that complex organs and systems function
by the working together of all the component parts that make them up,
and that if even the smallest part ceases to function, so will the whole
organ or system. It is impossible for such complex structures to have
emerged by chance, with tiny changes over time, as the theory of evolution
maintains. That is what happens in metamorphosis. The process of metamorphosis
happens through exceedingly sensitive balances and timings in hormones
which are in turn affected by different genes. The creature will pay
for even the tiniest error with its life. It is impossible to believe
that such a complex process could have come about by chance and by stages.
Since even a tiny error will cost the animal its life, it is impossible
to speak in terms of a "trial and error mechanism," or natural selection,
as evolutionists maintain. No creature can hang around for millions
of years waiting for its missing components to come about by chance.
Bearing this fact in mind, it is also apparent that the subject constitutes
no evidence at all for evolution, as some people who are ill-informed
about metamorphosis assume it to do. On the contrary, when the complexity
of the process and the systems that control it are taken into consideration,
animals which undergo metamorphosis can be seen to be clear evidence
18 WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE
TO ACCOUNT FOR DNA BY "CHANCE"?
level of scientific knowledge we have arrived at today shows that the
evident design and complex systems in living things make it impossible
for them to have emerged by chance. For instance, thanks to the recent
"Human Genome Project," the marvelous design and the enormous information
content in human genes have been revealed for all to see.
In the framework of that project, scientists from many countries, from
the United States to China, worked for 10 years to decipher one by one
the 3 billion chemical codes in DNA. As a result, nearly all the information
in human genes has been set out in its correct order.
Although this is a very exciting and important development, as Dr.
Francis Collins, who leads the Human Genome Project states, so far only
the first step has been taken in the decoding of the information in
In order to understand why it took 10 years and the work of hundreds
of scientists to uncover the codes that make up this information, we
have to understand the magnitude of the information contained within
DNA reveals the existence of an infinite
source of knowledge
There is enough information in the DNA of a single human cell to fill
an encyclopedia of one million pages. It would be impossible to read
it all in one lifetime. If one person set out to read one DNA code per
second, non-stop, all day every day, it would take him 100 years. That
is because the encyclopedia in question possesses nearly three billion
different codes. If we wrote down all the information in DNA on paper,
it would stretch from the North Pole to the Equator. That means some
1,000 large volumes-more than enough to fill a big library.
If the information in DNA were written
out on a piece of paper, it would stretch from the North Pole
to the Equator.
Even more important, all this information is contained in the nucleus
of each and every cell, which means that as each individual consists
of some 100 trillion cells, there are 100 trillion versions of the same
If we wish to compare this treasury of information with the level of
knowledge so far reached by man, it is impossible to provide any example
of the same magnitude. An unbelievable picture presents itself: 100
trillion x 1,000 books! That is more than the number of grains of sand
in the world. Furthermore, if we multiply that number by the six billion
people currently living on the Earth, and the billions more who have
ever lived, then the number is beyond our capacity to grasp, and the
amount of information stretches to infinity.
These examples are an indication of what imposing information we are
living cheek by jowl with. We possess advanced computers that can store
great amounts of information. However, when we compare DNA to these
computers, we are amazed to see that the most modern technology-the
product of the cumulative human labour and knowledge over the centuries-does
not even possess the storage capacity of a single cell.
Gene Myers is one of the most prominent experts of
Celera Genomics, the company that carried out the Human Genome project.
His words regarding the outcome of the project are a statement of the
great knowledge and design in DNA: "What really astounds me is the architecture
of life…The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed…
There's a huge intelligence there." 68
Another interesting aspect is that all life on the planet has been
produced according to the coded descriptions written in this same language.
No bacterium, plant, or animal is formed without its DNA. It is quite
evident that all of life emerges as the result of descriptions that
employ the same language and stemming from the same source of knowledge.
This leads us to an obvious conclusion. All living things in the world
live and multiply according to information created by one single intelligence.
makes the theory of evolution utterly meaningless. That is because the
foundation of evolution is "chance," but chance cannot create information.
If one day the formula of a medicine that can cure cancer were found on
a piece of paper, all of mankind would join forces to discover the scientist
concerned and even give him an award. Nobody would think, "I wonder if
the formula appeared when some ink was spilt onto the page." Everybody
who possesses reason and clear thinking will think that that the formula
was written by someone who had made a deep study of chemistry, human physiology,
cancer, and pharmacology.
The evolutionist claim that the information in DNA came about by chance
is completely irrational, and is equivalent to saying that the formula
on the paper also came about by chance. DNA contains the detailed molecular
formulae of 100,000 types of proteins and enzymes, together with the
delicate order governing how these will be used during production. Alongside
these, it contains the production plans for the message-carrier hormones
and the inter-cellular communications protocols they are used in, and
all kinds of other complex and specified information.
To claim that DNA and all the information within it came about by chance
events and natural causes reflects either total ignorance of the subject
or materialist dogmatism. The idea that a molecule such as DNA, with
all the magnificent information and complex structure it contains, could
be the product of chance is not even worth taking seriously. Unsurprisingly,
evolutionists try to gloss over the subject of the source of life, as
with so many other subjects, by describing it as an "unsolved secret."
19 WHY IS IT THAT BACTERIAL
RESISTANCE TO ANTIBIOTICS IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION?
ONE of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as
evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics.
Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as an example
of the development of living things by advantageous mutations. A similar
claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides
such as DDT.
However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.
Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms
to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin,
discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realised that mould
produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this
discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics
derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results
Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics
over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the
bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which
are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make
up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune
Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by
adapting to conditions."
The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation.
One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this
subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for
his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the
immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither
of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two
1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because
Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in
an article published in 2001:
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics
is not evidence for evolution as suggested by Darwinists.
Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to
these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the
antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms
having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant
as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular
antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating
several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the
kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account
for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory
must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add
new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only
spreads around genes that are already in some species. 70
So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information
is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred
The second type of immunity, which comes about as
a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner
... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic
through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin,
which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported
in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance
in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is
beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it
cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT
[Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance
to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular
match with the antibiotic molecule. 71
In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance
of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly
fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates
it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing
streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted
as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not
a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:
This change in the surface of the microorganism's
ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying
out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a
loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point
is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no
matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating
mutations that only degrade specificity. 72
To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that
bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition"
of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is
added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome
is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also,
it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is
less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability"
prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic
Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic
information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance
as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way
and are thus mistaken.
The same situation holds true for the immunity that
insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances,
immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist
Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required
for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently
present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."73
Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome
mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information
deficit" in insects.
In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity
mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory
of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the
assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner
explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena
indicate such an example of mutation:
The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No
random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian
Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any
information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have
been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns
out to be NO!74
20 WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP
IS THERE BETWEEN CREATION AND SCIENCE?
As we have shown in all the questions we have considered so far, the
theory of evolution is completely at odds with scientific discoveries.
This theory, born of the primitive level of science in the nineteenth
century, has been completely invalidated by successive scientific discoveries.
Those evolutionists who are blindly devoted to the theory look for
a solution in demagogy, since no scientific foundation is left to them.
The most frequently resorted to of these is the clichéd slogan that
"creation is a faith, so it cannot be considered part of science." The
claim goes that evolution is a scientific theory, whereas creation is
just a belief. However, this repetition of "evolution is science, creation
is a belief" stems from a totally erroneous perspective. Those who keep
repeating that are confusing science and materialist philosophy. They
believe that science must remain within the borders of materialism,
and that those who are not materialist have no right to make any statements
at all. However, science itself completely rejects materialism.
Studying matter is not the same as being
Like contemporary materialists, Democritus
was deceived into thinking that matter had existed forever, and
that nothing existed but matter.
Let us first briefly define materialism in order to examine the matter
in more detail. Materialism is a philosophy that has existed since Ancient
Greece and is based on the idea that matter is all that exists. According
to materialist philosophy, matter has always existed and will continue
to do so for all time. Nothing exists apart from matter. This is not
a scientific claim, however, because it cannot be subjected to experiment
and observation. It is simply a belief, a dogma.
However, this dogma became mixed up with science in the nineteenth
century, and even came to be the basic foundation of science. Yet science
is not compelled to accept materialism. Science studies nature and the
universe, and produces results without being limited by any philosophical
the face of this, some materialists frequently take refuge in a simple
word game. They say, "Matter is the only subject of study for science,
so it has to be materialist." Yes, science only studies matter, but "studying
matter" is very different from "being a materialist." That is because
when we study matter, we realise that matter contains knowledge and design
so great that they could never have been produced by matter itself. We
can understand that this knowledge and design are the result of an intelligence,
even if we cannot see it directly.
For instance, let us imagine a cave. We do not know if anyone has been
in it before us. If, when we enter this cave, there is nothing in it
but dust, earth, and stones, we can infer that there is nothing but
randomly distributed matter there. However, if there are expertly produced
pictures in stunning colours on the walls, we may assume that an intelligent
entity has been there before us. We may not be able to see that entity
directly, but we can infer its existence from what it produces.
Science has refuted materialism
Science studies nature in the same way as shown in that example. If
all the design in nature could only be explained by material factors,
then science could confirm materialism. However, modern science has
revealed that there is design in nature that cannot be explained by
material factors, and that all matter contains a design brought into
being by a Creator.
For example, all experiments and observation
prove that matter could not by itself have given rise to life, for which
reason life must stem from a metaphysical creation. All evolutionist
experiments in this direction have ended in failure. Life can never
have been created from inanimate matter. The evolutionist biologist
Andrew Scott makes the following admission on the subject in the well-known
journal New Scientist:
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern
version of Genesis. The "fundamental" forces of gravity, electromagnetism
and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the
rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how
much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost
every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable
cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.75
If matter were capable of giving
rise to life on its own, as materialists claim, then it should
be possible to synthesise life in laboratory conditions. However,
not even one organelle in a cell can be reproduced in the laboratory,
let alone a complete cell.
Prof. Fred Hoyle
The root of life is based on speculation and debate because materialist
dogma insists that life is the product of matter. Yet the scientific
facts show that matter has no such power. Professor Fred Hoyle, an astronomer
and mathematician who was knighted for his contributions to science,
makes the following comment on the subject:
The cover of the July 27, 1998, "Science
Finds God" edition of Newsweek.
If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow
drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable
in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to
represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological
nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please,
and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the
experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes
[proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will
give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually
doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly
for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic
Actually, materialism is in an even worse dilemma. Matter cannot even
form life when combined with human knowledge and time, let alone form
it by itself.
The truth that we have briefly glanced at is the truth that matter
cannot form design and knowledge by itself. Yet the universe and the
living things in it contain extraordinarily complex design and knowledge.
That shows us that this design and knowledge in the universe and living
things are the works of a Creator Who possesses infinite power and knowledge,
Who existed before matter and rules it.
If we look carefully, this is an entirely scientific conclusion. It
is not a "belief," but a truth acquired through observation of the universe
and living things in it. That is why the evolutionists' claim that "Evolution
is scientific, whereas creation is a belief that cannot enter the domain
of science" is a superficial deception. It is true that in the nineteenth
century materialism was confused with science, and that science was
led off course by materialist dogma. However, subsequent developments
in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries have completely overthrown
that hoary old belief, and the truth of creation, that had been concealed
by materialism, has finally emerged. As the banner headline "Science
Finds God," used by the famous magazine Newsweek in its historic July
27, 1998, edition makes clear, behind all the materialist deception,
science finds God, the Creator of the universe and all that is in it.