Biblical Creation Science Subjects

Compiled by Craig Ledbetter, Copyright, © 2005

The Biblical Framework of Creation Science  

The Bible provides an incredible framework for a scientist to study the universe by - it provides the basic set of index events for the scientist to build their hypothesis' around. The Bible is not a science textbook, but, it does make good science. It is able to clearly describe events that could not have been observed (such as creation), and then provide the broad generalizations for the scientist to use in understanding the universe.


The Battle Line

If evolution is a given fact, then it should be easily proven. Yet after over 100 years of ardent research since Charles Darwin, the proofs are still only in the dreams of talented artists and philosophers – not in provable science.
This booklet is put together to ask the reader to step back from all the hype associated with “science” these days, and to think about the fundamental questions raised by both the evolutionary theory, and the Biblical Creation theory. Only one is right, and better subjected to the scientific method of verification (for proof).
Evolution is the concept that everything in the universe started off from a massive explosion of a ‘dot’ of super-dense matter billions of years ago, and then over time, by an unknown process of improvement, all the order and design that we see in nature (from DNA to Galaxies) has come to be. This process over-rides all the known laws of physics, but is believed to be making everything better and better with time.
Creation, as clearly described in all of the Bible, is the concept that about 6,000 years ago, God instantaneously spoke everything into existence, and gave it order and complexity according to His design and intelligence, and that everything is currently falling apart – all of which matches the scientific Laws.
Many people try and merge the two concepts, but by doing so they destroy the rational approach to both science and the obvious use of words in the Bible.
The biggest weaknesses of the evolutionary theory are:

  • There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is so tremendously complex and different from the matter that it is formed from.

  • The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms at all, and all types of life always appear fully-formed in the record. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So-called pre-man fossils turn out to be either those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

  • All the laws of Physics say that what we see occurring in Nature now is slowing down and falling apart – not improving.

The biggest weakness of the Creation theory is that the Bible has been lumped in with palm readers, superstitions and religious mythologies that have nothing to do with facts. One of the most important proofs of the Bible being the words of God is its absolute accuracy when it makes statements concerning science. The Bible never said the earth was flat. It never said angels dance on the heads of pins. But people have the impression that THAT is contained in the Bible. Instead, the Bible says the earth is a sphere (see Isaiah 40:21,22), suspended in space upon nothing (see Job 26:7). It stated these things thousands of years before Columbus, and the invention of the telescope. And that is just the beginning!
It is hoped that you find some information here that would increase your appetite for the Gospel truth about where we came from, so that you can know for sure where you are headed!


We also have a booklet containing most of this information entitled, Evolution - Fact or Fraud. This booklet is free for the asking, while supplies last! Request it by clicking HERE and asking for the booklet entitled Evolution - Fact or Fraud!

We welcome your comments - send them to this Email



Evolution is not science: (No man quoted below is a creationist)

[In a letter written to Asa Gray, a Harvard professor of biology:] "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." (Charles Darwin, quoted in N.C. Gillespie, "Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation", 1978, p. 2)

"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic source. This theory can be called the `General Theory of Evolution' and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." (G.A. Kerkut, "Implication of Evolution", 1980, p. 157.)

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardy quality as explanations at all; they are
suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardy worthy of being called hypotheses." (Norman Macbeth, "Darwin Retried", 1971, p. 147.)

"Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus 'outside of empirical science, '" (L. Birch and P. Ehrlich, "Evolutionary History and Population Biology", Nature 218, 1987, p. 352.)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling. (Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B, [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

"The sciences dealing with the past, stand before the bar of common sense on a different footing. Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc [invented for a purpose] hypothesis on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a
fantasia which is neither history nor science." (James Conant, quoted in "Origins Research", Vol. 5, no. 2, 1982, p. 2. [Chemist and former president, Harvard University.]

... these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all." (R.H. Peters, `Tautology in Evolution and Ecology", American Naturalist, 1976, Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1.)

"I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law" (Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177.8 (1988) [An ichthyologist (expert on fish) in a 1988 address before a meeting of the Linnean Society in London.]

"This is a book with a disturbing message; it points to some unseemly cracks in the foundations. One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions. The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla We do not know what group arose from what other group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times ... We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice." (John T. Bonner, book review of "Implications of Evolution" by G.A. Kerkut, in "American Scientist", June 1961, p. 240. [John Bonner is with the California Institute of Technology.]