Replacing Darwin Made Simple

REPLACING
The creation/evolution debate
DARWIN
has changed. Are you prepared Made Simple
for the consequences?
Over the past 40 years, the creation/evolution debate has undergone a
dramatic shift. Thanks to several monumental discoveries in genetics,
creationists and evolutionists have watched their roles reverse. In ad-
dition, the factual basis for landmark court decisions in this debate has
dissolved. These cataclysmic swings were documented in the in-depth,
technical book Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species. The

Nathaniel T. Jeanson, PhD

book you hold communicates the same conclusions—but in a more
accessible, lay-friendly way to help you understand and prepare for the
modern origins debate.

About the Author

Nathaniel T. Jeanson received his BS in molecular biology and bioinformatics from the
University of Wisconsin-Parkside and his PhD in cell and developmental biology from
Harvard University. Over the last 10 years, he has led the biological research programs
first at the Institute for Creation Research and then at Answers in Genesis, resulting
in the publication of numerous papers on the origin of species. He is also the author of
Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species.

ISBN 978-1-9844-0265-3
Nathaniel T. Jeanson, PhD
9 781984 402653
REPLACING
DARWIN
Made Simple
Unless noted, all Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copy-
right © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Copyright ©2019 Answers in Genesis–US. All rights reserved. No part of

this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
written permission from the publisher. For more information write: An-
swers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048

ISBN: 978-1-9844-0265-3
 Table of Contents
Chapter 1:
Forty Years of Progress.....................................................................................................6
Chapter 2:
The Origin of Species After the Flood......................................................................11
Chapter 3:
Which Animals Were on the Ark with Noah?........................................................... 13
Chapter 4:
When Did the Animals Exit the Ark?......................................................................... 19
Chapter 5:
What Happened to the Animals After Noah’s Ark?.................................................22
Chapter 6:
Tracing the Fate of the Animals That Survived the Post-flood Extinction.........25
Chapter 7:
Did Darwin Argue That Species Originated Recently?...........................................30
Chapter 8:
A Spectacular Confirmation of Darwin’s Argument—for Genesis.......................34
Chapter 9:
Getting Enough Bodies..................................................................................................39
Chapter 10:
Getting Enough Genetic Diversity............................................................................... 41
Chapter 11:
Did Natural Selection Play a Role in Speciation?.................................................47
Chapter 12:
Evolutionists Make the Case for Evolution..............................................................54
Chapter 13:
Impossible..........................................................................................................................63
Chapter 14:
Ambiguous.........................................................................................................................66
Chapter 15:
Unqualified.........................................................................................................................76
Chapter 16:
The Gold Standard.....................................................................................................82
Introduction
 Chapter 1:
Forty Years of Progress

The creation/evolution debate has changed. I’ve watched it change from various
distances throughout my life. Growing up in the 1980s, I felt it hover at a close—
but comfortable—distance. My parents saw to this. Dad was a dentist, and Mom
was a nurse, and they both were concerned that their children be well educated in
the debate.

I grew up in the early days of the homeschool movement when young-earth

creationism was in some of its headiest days. Our family attended creationist lec-
tures, watched creation/evolution debates on VHS tapes, and generally purchased
whatever creationist literature we could find. Nevertheless, my education was
far from one-sided. Each of these instructional tools taught me both sides of the
origins debate.

Yet I rarely, if ever, had to personally defend my views in the face of opposition.

This changed when I attended the University of Wisconsin-Parkside. The fall

semester opened with a freshman orientation course in which students were
required to give a presentation on the topic of their choice. Given my upbringing,
I chose to present the evolutionary problems with the origin of life—a thesis that
aroused the creationist leanings of some of my fellow classmates. Surprisingly,
the professor also intimated sympathy for my conclusions.

However, the rest of my time at UW-Parkside followed the typical didactic for-
mula, with evolution being taught or assumed as the foundation for each biology
subject we engaged. Where appropriate, I raised objections in class or on assign-
ments. Both pursuits led to long conversations with the professors.

At UW-Parkside, guest lectures were a regular feature, and evolution was a regu-
lar topic. I remember one especially contentious presentation. The speaker was a
professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and his focus was the prob-
lems with creationism. He began by reviewing two of the most popular arguments
against creationism—that it had been scientifically tested and rejected, and that
creationism wasn’t science at all. Over the course of the next hour, he developed
the obvious problem with these approaches: they contradicted each other. For
example, if creationism has been scientifically tested and rejected, then it must be
scientific. In contrast, if creationism isn’t science, then it cannot be tested (and re-
jected). He concluded that creationism wasn’t scientific—and was instantaneously
greeted with vocal comments from a local professor.

6
In graduate school at Harvard, my chosen field of study (cell and developmental
biology) also assumed the usual evolutionary basis. But evolution itself rarely made
an appearance in day-to-day operations of me and my labmates. We were focused
on how adult blood stem cells (the cells that sustain our bloodstream) worked, and
if they could be therapeutically manipulated to cure cancer and solve other medical
problems. Evolution and other historical topics had little to do with this contem-
porary subject. Occasionally, someone might mention in passing that a part of the
immune system was “conserved through evolution.” But this was simply evolution-
ary shorthand for the fact that some parts of our physiology have similarities to the
physiology of animals. Evolution took a back seat to our research.

Evolution did not, however, escape our friendly banter. My labmates knew I was
a creationist, and we would probe one another on our respective views. In my
experience, my evolutionary colleagues knew little about creationism. Therefore,
they lacked well-informed, in-depth objections to it. Conversely, they also tended
to be unacquainted with the creationist objections to evolution. As a result, I felt
I had the upper hand in our discussions. Yet, to my knowledge, no one changed
their mind about evolution.

Shortly after receiving my PhD and immediately before joining the Institute for
Creation Research, I gave a public lecture at my church on creation/evolution.
About 100 excitable atheists came out, along with a labmate or two. One was
a lapsed Catholic who reconsidered her non-participation in religious activities
as a result of the lecture. But it was not because I presented an outstanding
case. Rather, it was the aggressive, unflattering responses from the atheists who
pushed her away from apathy and back toward embracing church.

For the past 10 years, I have been professionally engaged in the creation/evolu-
tion debate. I have continued to devour the origins literature—on both sides—at
the popular and technical levels. I’ve also discovered that the traditional scientific
fields in this debate—the fossil record, comparative anatomy, comparative embry-
ology, etc.—take a back seat to genetics. This fact is one of the best-kept secrets of
the 150-year-old debate.

The proof for this conclusion is easy to derive. Consider: species are defined by
their heritable characteristics (traits). This means that the field of science dedi-
cated to the study of inheritance—the field of genetics—is the most important field
of science on Darwin’s central question. However, when Darwin wrote his book
in 1859, “genetics” wasn’t even a term—let alone a field of science. In fact, it took
nearly a century for the field of genetics to gain its footing. It wasn’t until 1953
that the scientific community realized that DNA was the substance of heredity.
Then it took another half century before the scientific community would possess
an initial genetic sample of species around the globe. In other words, Darwin
tried to answer a fundamentally genetic question long before its time.

Darwin took a massive scientific risk when writing On the Origin of Species.

7
 Over the past 10 years, I have performed my own original genetic research and
made several groundbreaking discoveries on the origin of species. One discovery
relates to the existence of genetic “clocks.” These clocks are biological timekeep-
ers that mark the lapse of time since a species first originated. With these watch-
es in hand, it’s now nearly impossible to genetically describe the origin of species
without some commitment to a specific timescale. Conversely, these clocks have
caused creationists and evolutionists to trade places.

In 2017, I described the impact of these advances in a monumental book, Re-

placing Darwin: The New Origin of Species. However, Replacing Darwin ended
up being rather technical in nature. The heavy science content and the intense
genetic detail made the conclusions inaccessible to many readers. The book that
you hold aims to make the progress of the last 150 years—and especially of the
last 40—much more digestible.

In addition, some of the scientific predictions that I made in Replacing Darwin

have already come to pass—a remarkable advance that further strengthens the
conclusion of the book. In the present work, I seek to give voice to these critical
discoveries in a manner that will hopefully reach as wide an audience as possible.

In the midst of these discoveries, I have also engaged in several formal and informal
debates. In defending my views, especially in hostile settings, I’ve found general
patterns in the strategies of my opponents. This book details how evolutionists
respond to creationism—and how creationism readily counters these arguments.

To make our discussion easier to follow, I’ve divided this book into two parts. In
Part 1, we’ll wrestle with the question of the origin of species. We’ll walk through
the biology in an understandable way so that all can follow. We’ll hit the highlights
and make genetics accessible. Once we’ve grappled with how species formed,
from whom they formed, where they formed, and when they formed, we’ll explore
what to do with the information in Part 2.

Whether you’re a skeptic of creationism or a die-hard creationist yourself, I hope

this small book brings you up to speed on where the origins debate now sees the
most action. And I hope it whets your appetite for more.

8
9
 Part 1:
The New Origin of Species

10
 Chapter 2:
The Origin of Species After the Flood

One of the keys to unlocking the origin of species revolves around a subject that
provokes excitement or consternation, depending on the audience. To many
people today, Noah’s ark remains a mystery. Perhaps on some mountain in the
Middle East, explorers might still find the remnants of the gigantic ship of Gene-
sis 6–8. But the absence of this vessel, combined with the unfamiliarity that many
have with the biblical narrative, leaves many gazing through a dim lens at a dark
horizon in the past.

Shrouded in even more mystery are the biological traces left by the animals on
Noah’s ark. A cursory survey of the depictions of Noah’s ark and the animals it
contained are as varied as the moods of a toddler. Some images show a tiny ark
with modern species poking out the sides and roof. Other representations show a
large boat—but still containing modern species. Evolutionists depict no boat at all;
they think the ark is an ancient myth with no relevance to the modern world.

For those who are willing to consider the

ark’s existence, a flood of questions imme-
diately enters their minds. What did Noah
see? What animals did he bring on board?
How many came?

After the flood, where did the animals

go? What happened to the animal pas-
sengers? Did they go extinct? Did they
change? Are they with us today? Have
they left any echo of their existence in
our modern world?

In response to the last question, many non-Christians would answer no. Some
professing Christians who believe the earth is billions of years old are only
slightly less skeptical. Fitting animals on the ark, growing their population sizes
after the flood, and producing the modern diversity of life are, to them, impos-
sible scientific problems to solve for the literal-Noah, literal-ark, literal-animals
view. Compared to non-Christians, these Christians view the ark account only
slightly less fancifully.

11
 Scripture allows us to step back in time and view the ark from a distance. Genesis
1–11 contains clear, unambiguous descriptions of the historical events surround-
ing the flood account. Though these chapters do not contain a list of creatures
with which Noah and his family made their year-long voyage, these passages in
Scripture set a framework in which we can hunt for additional clues.

Modern science is giving us even more windows into this enigma of antiquity. The
more we learn about the origin of species, the more hints we gain into Noah’s
vistas. The stamp of the flood reverberates all the way down to the present day—
in the form of genetics.

Over the next several chapters, we’ll be following these discoveries to chart a path
into the ancient past—a path that leads right back to the animals on Noah’s ark.

12
 Chapter 3:
Which Animals Were on the Ark with Noah?

For many readers of Genesis 6–9, the account of Noah’s ark contains deep mys-
tery. Which animals boarded the ark with Noah? Did any of them fail to make it?
Could millions of animals really have squished themselves in Noah’s ship for a
yearlong voyage in the rough and open seas?

Though Genesis 6–7 does not enumerate the creatures on the ark with Noah,
these chapters give us clues to their silhouettes.

The images that emerge are striking.

What does min mean?

The most important scriptural clue stems from the Hebrew word min, which
English Bibles typically translate as kind. Though the word min occurs only
31 times in the Old Testament, these uses are enough to reveal a clear mean-
ing. Just like the English language, the contexts in which min is found illumi-
nate its interpretation.

The use of min in Genesis 6–7 is the most relevant for our purposes. In verses
19–20 of chapter 6, when God commands Noah to bring animals on board, God
says, “And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the
ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after
their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth
after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.”

Why would God stipulate that both “male and female” of the kinds be brought on
board the ark? In the long term, an important function would need to be ful-
filled—“to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 7:3, KJV). The
Hebrew word translated seed¹ is elsewhere used to obviously denote offspring
(e.g., see the promises of God made in Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 13:16). Hence,
Noah brought males and females on board the ark for the purpose of reproducing
after the flood in order to preserve the lineage of each kind.

¹ Unfortunately, in Genesis 7:3, the NKJV translates zera (seed) as species, a modern term
loaded with meaning not stipulated by the Hebrew text.

13
 This conclusion has profound ramifications for identifying what the kinds may have
looked like. Back then, individuals within kinds would have been reproductively
compatible with each other. Today, if two individuals can produce offspring, this
would suggest that they’re part of the same kind. Furthermore, even if two
individuals are classified as separate species,² the production of offspring by the
hybridization of these two species would argue that they belong to the same kind.

This hybridization test for identifying kind membership has its limits. Failure to
produce offspring does not constitute sufficient evidence to put two individuals in
separate kinds. Since many biological reasons exist for the inability to hybridize,
these reasons would all have to be eliminated before inability to hybridize could
be used as a criterion for distinguishing kind membership. Thus, hybridization is
useful primarily as an inclusive criterion, rather than an exclusive criterion, for
determining kinds.

As an illustration in the human realm, living humans of all ethnicities are repro-
ductively compatible and are, therefore, classified as a single species that arose
from a common ancestor. No ethnic group is biologically unable to reproduce
with another ethnic group. However, regardless of ethnicity, a brother and sister
who married today would likely bear children with birth defects—if they could
bear children at all. Parents who are siblings share too many of the same genetic
mistakes to consistently produce healthy offspring. Yet no one would claim that
these siblings did not have a common ancestor—after all, by definition, they have
the same parents! Similar phenomena can occur in the animal realm. Hence,
genetic incompatibility can prevent hybridization from happening independent of
any discussion of common ancestry and kind membership.

Nevertheless, based on the positive evidence of successful hybridization,³ the

kind level is currently best approximated by the level of family.⁴ Though many
species have yet to be tested for ability to interbreed, the results obtained thus

² Carl Linnaeus’ system of classification puts creatures in various categories based on their simi-
larities and differences. For example, the tiger is a species. Because of the characteristics it shares
with lions, both the tiger species and the lion species belong to the same genus. All cats constitute
the same family. The large and small cats, together with wolves, sea lions, meerkats, and other
carnivores, constitute an order. Mammals belong to the same class. Species with a backbone (i.e.,
vertebrates) are the most numerous members of the phylum Chordata. Vertebrates and all other
animals together constitute the same kingdom. Also, the definition for species depends on who
you ask. Reproductive incompatibility is just one of many definitions for species. Hence, some
species are, in fact, reproductively compatible
³ Wood, T.C. 2006. “The current status of baraminology.” Creation Research Society Quarterly
43:149–158. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm
⁴ See previous footnote for the explanation of this biological classification rank. Also, humans
are an exception to the kind-family equivalence. Though humans are biologically classified in the
same family (e.g., Hominidae) as the great apes, this does not mean that humans and great apes
have a common ancestor, for two reasons. First, Genesis 1 describes the creation of humans apart
from any primate ancestry. Second, Scripture never uses the Hebrew min with respect to humans.
Though animals are described as being created according to min, humans were created in the
image of God.

14
far indicate that family is a good approximation of where the kind boundary
might lie in most cases. Hence, when Noah took two of every kind on board the
ark, he likely took just two members of each group of creatures that we would
today label as part of the same family.

Practically, this fact begins to outline the appearance of the kinds onboard the
ark. Today, the diversity of features within a family is stunning. For example, all
cats large and small—from housecats to lions and tigers—belong to the same
family.⁵ Stripes, manes, large bodies, small bodies, spots, rosettes, short tails,
long tails, and stumpy tails (e.g., the bobcat) are just a small sample of the variety
that exists within this family.

The cat kind represented onboard the ark probably didn’t look like a mix of every
one of these features. Some features can exist in a hidden state; others domi-
nate all the time. Still, other features are the product of a combination of genetic
instructions and can, therefore, appear in a variety of forms. Nevertheless, living
cat species help us form an initial image of what the cat kind ancestor may have
looked like.

⁵ Pendragon, B. and N. Winkler. 2011. The family of cats—delineation of the feline basic
type. Journal of Creation 25(2):118–124. https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j25_2/
j25_2_118-124.pdf

15
 Limits to the kinds
Does the kind to which cats belong include non-cat-like creatures, as well? Could
we look to non-felid species for clues on what the ancestor to cats resembled? For
example, would features specific to horses inform the silhouette of this ancestor?
A second aspect of the contextual use of the word min in Genesis 6–7 answers
these questions.

In addition to the command to bring “male and female,” God also commanded
that representatives of “every” kind be brought on board the ark.

To be sure, the passage in Genesis 6 limits the “every” to “of the birds after their
kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after
its kind.” Noah didn’t take fish or whales or barnacles on board the ark. After all,
God’s judgment was a flood, not a fire or drought. For purposes of keeping their
“seed” alive, aquatic kinds could survive in the water.

Furthermore, Genesis 7:15 says that “they went into the ark to Noah, two by two,
of all flesh in which is the breath of life.” The phrase “breath of life” is debated
among Hebrew scholars. Whether it includes or excludes creatures like insects,
spiders, snails, and other small invertebrates (e.g., creatures lacking a backbone)
remains to be seen.

If we limit our discussion to the vertebrates (e.g., creatures possessing a back-

bone), Noah would have taken on board mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and
birds. Again, only the terrestrial or aerial creatures would have made the boat.
The aquatic members of these groups of creatures could have survived the flood
outside the ark.

But why bring two of every kind of the terrestrial and aerial vertebrates? Why not
bring two of just some of these kinds?

If kinds could be transformed into other kinds, this command would not be neces-
sary. If members of the elephant family could change into one of the frog families,
why bring members of each family on board the ark? Thus, this second aspect of
the commands to Noah reveals that a definite limit to kinds exists.

Applying this fact within the context of the biological classification system further
illuminates where this boundary might exist. For example, among mammals,
terrestrial (e.g., cats), aerial (e.g., bats), and aquatic (e.g., whales and dolphins)
species exist. Based on the general rule of thumb identified from the hybridization
test, the species in the families in each of these categories belong to the same
kind. But could all of these families also constitute a single kind?

The next level of classification above family is the rank of order, and above the rank
of order is the classification rank of “class.” Cats, bats, whales, and dolphins all
belong to the same class, Mammalia. Since whales and dolphins are aquatic, they
would have survived the flood outside the ark. If the classification level of class rep-
16
resented the kind boundary, then mammals would constitute a single kind. Since
this kind already has aquatic members, and since the ark’s purpose was the survival
of nonaquatic creatures, the mammal kind would not need the ark to survive. In
other words, if whales and dolphins belong to the same kind as cats and bats, Noah
would not have needed to bring any mammals on board the ark.

If we step just one rank higher, the next level of classification is phylum. Mam-
mals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and fish all belong to the same phylum, Chor-
data. Since fish are aquatic, they would have survived the flood outside the ark. If
fish belong to the same kind as mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, Noah
would not have needed to bring any vertebrates on board the ark.

So what? If the kind boundary is indeed at the level of class or phylum, this would
throw the entire Genesis 6–8 narrative into confusion. For example, among the
creatures that are alive today, the only terrestrial and aerial ones that we haven’t
yet considered in our discussion are invertebrates like insects, spiders, and scor-
pions. Since these creatures are all generally small, bringing two of each inver-
tebrate class or phylum would hardly necessitate a fishing boat. Hence, if kinds
were best approximated by the rank of class or phylum, Noah’s ark would have
been entirely superfluous.

Together, these facts demonstrate that kind is probably best approximated by the
classification rank of family or maybe order—but definitely not class or phylum.
Going the other direction on the classification scale, it also implies that Noah did
not bring two of every species on board the ark. For example, tigers, lions, leop-
ards, and ocelots were probably not specifically present. Instead, Noah likely took
two representatives of the cat kind.

Tallying the passengers

Using the family criterion in combination with the “breath of life” criterion, the total
number of kinds onboard the ark was low. Today, the number of living mammal,
amphibian, reptile, and bird families (including the aquatic ones) is just over 500.

If we include fossils, the number increases. In relative terms, the increase is sig-
nificant, but in terms of absolute numbers, the new total represents a small frac-
tion of the diversity of life on the planet. Among mammals, amphibians, reptiles,
and birds, the mammals have the most diverse fossil record. Only about 30% of
all mammal families that ever existed are alive today. Assuming a similar percent-
age for amphibians, reptiles, and birds, we can estimate how many total families
in these groups of creatures ever existed. If 510 families exist in these groups
today, and if this represents just 30% of all that ever lived, then a total of 1,700
mammalian, amphibian, reptilian, and avian families⁶ once existed on earth. This

⁶ Calculation as follows: 510 / 30% = 510 / 0.3 = 1,700

17
 number—1,700—represents an upper estimate of the total number of kinds that
Noah took on board the ark.⁷

Even if Noah also took terrestrial invertebrates, like flies, ticks, and fleas, these
creatures are so small that they would have added little to the total cargo space.

This small gaggle of creatures survived on the ark for around one year and then
exited—at a very specific point in the ancient past.

⁷ Some of the odd creatures that are now extinct (e.g., those apparently land-dwelling creatures
not always explicitly included in mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds) appear to add little to
this total. Overall, the estimate is overly generous for a number of reasons. First, I did not subtract
the exclusively aquatic kinds that would have survived in the flood itself (e.g., whales, dolphins,
etc.). Second, the documented number of extinct amphibian, reptilian, and avian kinds is currently
far less than the number I estimated. When these two considerations are carefully accounted for,
the total number of kinds onboard the ark is more realistically estimated to be around 1,400.
Translating this number into total individuals onboard the ark also requires a decision on whether
criteria should be generous or stringent. For example, of the flying creatures who were brought on
board in sevens, are bats included? Does the reference to sevens mean seven pairs (e.g., 14 indi-
viduals) or seven individuals? When we use very generous estimates (e.g., 14 individuals; lumping
bats with the rest of the flying creatures; etc.), the total number of individuals onboard the ark is
less than 7,000—a number dramatically smaller than the millions of species estimated to exist on
earth today.

18
 Chapter 4:
When Did the Animals Exit the Ark?

In the previous chapter, we discovered that Noah took just a few thousand crea-
tures on board the ark. They survived a year at sea and then bid farewell to Noah
and his family.

When did this occur?

If you search the first 11 chapters of Genesis, you won’t find an explicit time
stamp for the disembarking event. The Bible doesn’t report events as BC or AD.
So when did the ark land? When did animals restart their lives?

Once again, the context for these passages traces an outline by which we can
approximate the details. In the very first chapter of the Bible, God creates the
universe and everything in it in six days.⁸ Because of four verses in Exodus 20
(and because of many other reasons⁹), we know these days were normal-length
days like the ones we experience. Specifically, when God gave the Ten Command-
ments to Moses, God justified the fourth commandment with an explicit reference
to Genesis 1.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do
all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In
it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male
servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is
within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth,
the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the
Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:8–11)

In Hebrew, the word translated as day in the Exodus passage above is the same
as in Genesis 1—in other words, the linguistic link in English also exists in the
Hebrew text. In addition, the Hebrew phrase translated the heavens and the earth
is the same as Genesis 1:1. In Exodus, the obvious meaning of day and days is the
normal meaning we assign to these words today—24-hour periods of time. No one
interprets these verses to mean that Israel was to work six million years or eons

⁸ https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/six-literal-days/
⁹ https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/

19
 and then rest one million years or eons. Since Israel’s days directly parallel the
days of Genesis 1, the passage from Exodus 20 implies that the events of Genesis
1 happened in six normal days. No textual basis exists for treating the Hebrew
word for day any differently in Exodus 20 versus Genesis 1; thus, God created
everything in six normal days.

The creation of Adam and Eve on day six provides a link to the present. Moving
forward in the narrative from day six in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 fills in more details
on day six, and Genesis 3 records the tragic events that followed. At the beginning
of Genesis 4, two of Adam and Eve’s sons are born, and by Genesis 5, we have an
explicit time span recorded. “And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and
begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (Gene-
sis 5:3). Thus, since Seth was the third named son, the events of chapters 2–4,
including Adam and Eve’s initial time spent in the garden of Eden, could not have
taken more than 130 years.

The rest of Genesis 5 and much of Genesis 11 trace Adam’s line through Noah
to Abraham. Similar to Genesis 5:3, the age of each father in these genealogies
is explicitly recorded when his son is born. Adding these ages together, almost
2,000 years elapsed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Abraham. ¹⁰

The first chapter of the New Testament provides an estimate of how much time
passed between the birth of Abraham and the birth of Christ. Though not as de-
tailed as Genesis 5 and Genesis 11, Matthew 1 reports the number of generations
(e.g., 42 generations total) between Abraham and Christ. Using an estimate of the
average generation time, about 2,000 years separate the births of these two men.

From the birth of Christ until the present, another 2,000 years have elapsed. Add-
ing these three sets of 2,000 years together, we find that God created Adam from
the dust of the ground about 6,000 years ago.

Noah, his family, and the animals survived the yearlong flood in the early part
of this history. In Genesis 5, about 1,660 years pass from the creation of Adam

¹⁰ Chris Hardy and Robert Carter, “The Biblical Minimum and Maximum Age of the Earth,” Journal
of Creation 28, no. 2 (2014): 89–96, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j28_2/j28_2_89-96.pdf.
¹¹Assuming that the father in each generation was around 50 years old when his descendant was
born, about 2,000 years pass in 42 generations (e.g., 2,000 / 50 = 40 generations = ~42 generations).
Actually, Matthew lists only 40 names—so 40 generations is a fair estimate. See https://answersin-
genesis.org/bible-timeline/genealogy/problems-with-basic-math/ for an explanation of the 40- versus
42-generation count.
Conversely, while 50 years per generation is high by today’s standards, Abraham was very old
when Isaac was born, and some of the men listed in Matthew 1 were not direct father-son links.

20
until the flood. As the above calculations show, dating this from the present re-
quires a little bit of rounding and estimation. Hence, the flood happened roughly
4,500 years ago. ¹²

Returning to the animals onboard the ark, we can now say that they disembarked
a very long time ago—around 4,500 years ago.

After that, Scripture is largely silent on their fate.

¹² 6,000 − 1,660 = 4,340. Rounding this number to the nearest 500 (to compensate for some of
the uncertainty in calculating the time span from Abraham to Christ) yields an answer of 4,500.
See Chris Hardy and Robert Carter, “The Biblical Minimum and Maximum Age of the Earth.”

21
 Chapter 5:
What Happened to the Animals
After Noah’s Ark?

In previous chapters, we observed that Noah took just a few thousand animals
on board the ark. They survived the yearlong flood and then stepped off the ship
around 4,500 years ago.

And then? Where did they go? What was their fate?

As we discovered in chapter 3, the kinds that Noah brought aboard the ark are ap-
proximated by a classification rank somewhere around family and order. In other
words, Noah would have brought two representatives from the cat family, not two
tigers, two lions, and two ocelots.

The fact of mammalian extinction

In calculating the total number of these kinds that went on board the ark, we
included fossil families as well as living families. Among mammal families, we
found that the families alive today represent only approximately 30% of the
mammal families that ever existed. Which means that around 70% of mammal
families are now extinct.

In other words, 70% of the kinds of mammals that Noah brought on board the ark
died. This is not extinction by virtue of burial in the flood. Rather, it’s extinction
after the flood.

This fact may seem counterintuitive. If the purpose of the ark was survival, why
let over two-thirds of the kinds die off after the voyage was complete? To a skeptic,
this fact might intimate failure on the part of God.

The theology of mammalian extinction

However, following this logic through to its conclusion, the skeptic would then
also need to conclude that not only the ark but also the flood was a failure, as
well. After all, salvation via the ark wasn’t the only purpose God achieved in the
flood narrative; he was equally determined to judge sinful humanity who refused
to repent and exercise faith.

22
Yet in just a few generations following the deluge, the descendants of faithful,
righteous Noah descended into gross wickedness again. Mankind rebelled in
trying to build a tower to the heavens (Genesis 11:1–9). In response, God judged
mankind again, not by sending a global flood (since he promised to never do so
again), but by confusing the languages of mankind.

Since mankind fell so quickly into sin again, did God fail to judge sin adequately
in the flood? Was his initial judgment inadequate or poorly designed? No. The
tower of Babel incident was not a compensation for—or correction of—prior fail-
ures. Rather, in the flood, all of rebellious mankind died. In other words, the flood
was a very successful event.

What purpose then did the post-flood return to depravity serve? If nothing
else, the speed with which mankind turned his back on his Creator revealed
in bold colors the fundamental depravity of the human heart—and hence his
need for a Savior.

Furthermore, it appears that God intended to give humanity an unforgettable

reminder of this fact in the long history that followed Babel. God didn’t send the
Savior immediately following the tower of Babel incident. Instead, he waited
approximately 2,000 years before sending his Son. In other words, God has giv-
en mankind two ways in which to discover his sinfulness. First, by telling man
explicitly in the Scriptures of his fallen state (e.g., Romans 3:23), God teaches
man his precarious eternal condition and pending doom. Second, by letting hu-
manity flounder for thousands of years, God showed mankind just how wicked
his heart really was.

Hence, the timing of post-flood events in the human realm fulfilled a gospel pur-
pose—revealing man’s profound inability to save himself and his desperate need
of a Savior, which foreshadowed Christ’s condescension and salvific atonement—
hardly a failure on God’s part. In fact, the skeptic should be thankful for this
reminder of mercy in the cross rather than be upset that somehow God had failed
to achieve his purposes.

Could a similar explanation (e.g., man’s depravity) also be true in the realm of ani-
mal extinctions? At the completion of the flood, God decreed, “Every moving thing
that lives shall be food for you” (Genesis 9:3). In light of Genesis 1:30, this divine
directive appears to have been a significant change in practice for humans. Specif-
ically, it appears that humans were strictly vegetarian before the flood (Genesis
1:30) and then switched to a carnivorous diet after the deluge.

Obviously, human carnivory would necessitate the death of animals. Today, hu-
mans obviously take advantage of the Genesis 9 permission to eat meat, but some
do so to sinful excess. For example, one of the major causes of extinction today

23
 is human activity. Thus excessive—if not sinfully motivated—hunting post-flood
may have played a part in the extinction of 70% of mammal kinds.¹³ If so, this
fact would not expose failure on the part of God; instead, it would highlight man’s
depravity and need of a Savior.

Theological objections aside, from a scientific perspective, the extinction of

mammal kinds was not comprehensive in its scope. While 70% died, roughly
30% of mammal kinds survived. Thus, once the skeptic discovers the shallowness
of his theological objections to mammalian extinction, he is faced with another
challenge to his view: the passengers onboard the ark were not cute inventions
designed to round out a dramatic—but mythical—story. Instead, they were real
creatures who boarded the ark, survived the flood, disembarked the ark, avoided
extinction, and left an echo of their existence that reverberates to this day.

¹³ Other processes surely played a part, as well. For example, creationists postulate an ice
age (see https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/) in the few centuries
following the flood; this dramatic change in climate may have also influenced the survival
and extinction of various kinds.

24
 Chapter 6:
Tracing the Fate of the Animals That Survived the
Post-flood Extinction
In previous chapters, we observed that Noah took a few thousand individuals on
board the ark about 4,500 years ago. Of the kinds that stepped off the ark, most
went extinct. For example, in mammals, around 70% of the kinds are now extinct.
But approximately 30% survived.

What happened to them?

In short, the mammals and other kinds migrated away from where the ark landed
in the mountains of Ararat. Surprisingly, in 1859, when Darwin wrote On the
Origin of Species, the phenomenon of migration would have been controversial.
In fact, Darwin had to corral several lines of evidence to demonstrate to his oppo-
nents that animals did indeed migrate to their current locations. Unlike Darwin’s
opponents of 1859, creationists today would agree with Darwin’s conclusion that
migration explains the distribution of modern species.

Furthermore, as we referenced in one of our previous chapters, creationists of

the present era would freely invoke an ice age¹⁴ following the flood. An ice age
would effectively move large amounts of water from the oceans (liquid form) onto
the land (in the form of ice). As a consequence of this directional movement, the
ocean levels would drop, exposing land bridges that are currently submerged.

For example, during an ice age, the Bering Strait would have been crossable on
foot. In Southeast Asia, you could nearly walk from Thailand to Australia. These
types of land bridges would have made migration away from Ararat to distant
locations all the easier.

However, Darwin’s evidence in favor of animal migration was at the level of spe-
cies, not families. As we derived in chapter 3, the kinds onboard the ark were not
individual species but, rather, representatives of various biological families. How
could Darwin’s point be relevant to our purposes?

¹⁴ https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/

25
 New species from ark kinds
Today, many biological families contain numerous species, implying that new spe-
cies have arisen since the flood. Since Scripture never forbids speciation, nothing
in the Bible suggests that the formation of new species within a kind is impossi-
ble. Thus, speciation within kinds is perfectly compatible with Genesis and with
the rest of Scripture.

Conversely, as we observed in chapter 3, the fact that Noah was commanded to

take at least two of every kind of land-dependent, air-breathing animal on board
the ark implies that kinds have limits. For our purposes here, this implies that
kinds cannot be changed into other kinds. If they could, there would have been no
need to bring every kind on board the ark. A handful of kinds would have sufficed
if kinds could be effortlessly changed into other kinds following the flood.

Our previous chapters anchored this model of limited speciation on a definite

timescale. Since the flood occurred approximately 4,500 years ago, many new
species have formed within kinds in just a few thousand years—while one kind
has never transformed into another kind. Specifically, assuming (as we did be-
fore) that representatives of mammal, amphibian, reptile, and bird families were
all taken on board the ark, the several hundred living families in these four groups
contain over 33,000 species.¹⁵ Thus, tens of thousands of species have formed in
just a few thousand years.

Speciation patterns
Theoretically, these species could
have originated in a variety of tempo-
ral patterns. For example, they could
have formed in an explosive tem-
poral burst immediately following
the flood. If so, this might suggest
post-flood conditions as a catalyst
of speciation. Alternatively, specia-
tion might have occurred in fits and
spurts, perhaps in a manner correlated with human migrations and conquests.
If so, speciation might have a relationship to human activity.

¹⁵ Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “Mitochondrial DNA Clocks Imply Linear Speciation Rates Within
‘Kinds,’” Answers Research Journal 8 (2015): 273–304, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se-
lection/speciation/clocks-imply-linear-speciation-rates-within-kinds/.

26
The actual pattern in which species arose is surprising. Based on genetic compari-
sons between species, the pattern that emerges is fairly linear.¹⁶ In other words, spe-
cies have been forming in families at approximately constant rates since the flood.¹⁷

For example, 55 species in the deer family are living today. Among the species
with readily available genetic information, genetic comparisons show a linear
pattern of speciation. On the basis of this result, a new deer species appears to
have formed approximately every 80 years.

¹⁶ Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “Mitochondrial DNA Clocks Imply Linear Speciation Rates Within
‘Kinds,’” Answers Research Journal 8 (2015): 273–304, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-se-
lection/speciation/clocks-imply-linear-speciation-rates-within-kinds/.
¹⁷ To reiterate, this is based strictly on genetic comparisons, and on a particular set of genetic as-
sumptions that undergird these studies. Full synthesis of these data with paleontological findings
might alter some of these conclusions.

27
 As another example, in the cat family, 37 species exist today. Based on genetics,
they have been forming at a constant rate over the last 4,500 years. In other
words, on average, one new cat species has arisen roughly every 120 years.

As a third example, the horse and donkey family (Equidae) contains seven species
today. Again, based on genetics, these species have been forming at a constant
rate over the last 4,500 years. In other words, on average, one new equid species
has arisen approximately every 640 years.

The biblical record of species appearance agrees with this finding. For example,
Genesis records the existence of donkeys at the time of Abraham.¹⁸ The book of
Job, which tells us about a man who is thought to have lived somewhat close to
the time of Abraham, also records the existence of several species that we would
identify as modern, such as horses¹⁹ and lions.²⁰ The rapid origin of these species
might, at first pass, seem to suggest that speciation happened in a quick burst
following the flood, rather than at a constant rate.

A closer look at the data shows agreement between genetics and the Scriptures.
In families with many species, the rapid appearance of one species following
the flood does not, in and of itself, refute a constant rate of species formation. In
species-rich families, like some rodent families, new species form once every de-
cade—or faster. Hence, in the few hundred years between the flood and Abraham,
an abundance of species could form and still be consistent with the constant rate
finding of genetics.

The more important question for our purposes is the timing of the split of specific
species pairs. For example, since donkeys and horses appear early in Scripture,
we should ask whether genetics records a late or early split for these species. In
fact, from a genetic perspective, the horse and ass lineages (the ass lineage includes
the donkey) split immediately following the flood.²¹ In felids (the cat family),
genetics depicts a split between the big cat and small cat lineages that also
happens very quickly following the flood.²² Hence, the fact that modern-sounding
species are mentioned in early post-flood sections of Scripture is fully consistent
with the genetic discoveries about the pattern in which species arose.

¹⁸ See Genesis 12:16.

¹⁹ See Job 39:18–19.
²⁰ See Job 38:39.
²¹ Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “Mitochondrial DNA Clocks Imply Linear Speciation Rates Within
‘Kinds,’” 273–304, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/clocks-imply-linear-
speciation-rates-within-kinds/
²² Ibid., 273–304.

28
Implications
The constant rate at which species form has profound implications for the pres-
ent. First, it implies that species are still forming. For example, in felids, since one
new cat species has arisen every ~120 years, we can expect to see another felid
species form in the next 120 years.²³ In fact, in the most speciose kinds, we might
expect new species to form in our lifetimes. For those who are accustomed to
thinking in evolutionary terms, this fact will come as a shock.

Second, today’s species have a direct line of descent back to the ark. This should
be obvious from what we already said, but it’s a point worth repeating. Today’s
species are the link between the past and the present. The genetics of the species
around us today contains the echo of the ark.

Third, speciation rates are declining on a per species level. Since the rate of spe-
ciation is constant within a family, but since the number of species within a family
is increasing, speciation rates per species are declining.

As an analogy, consider the chances of winning the lottery. If only two people are
playing, and if one winner is selected per year, in the span of a decade each person
will likely win several times. Of course, once word got around that two people were
winning money hand over fist, a large number of additional people would also likely
sign up for the lottery. Effectively, this would decrease the chance of winning for all
participants. The more people who play, the more they dilute the chance of winning
for each individual person. If 5,000 people sign up for the lottery, the original 1 in 2
chance of winning in year 10 drops in year 11 to 1 in 5,002.

In the realm of speciation, a similar situation holds true. Over time, the rate of
speciation appears to be constant. For example, in felids, one new species seems
to form every ~120 years. However, the number of species in the family is increas-
ing with time. Hence, in the first few hundred years following the flood, the few
species that were alive then all likely formed additional species. Today, among the
37 living species, only one of them will likely form a new species in the next 120
years. The remaining 36 will not. It’s as if the presence of more species dilutes
the chance that the remaining species will form a new one.

Unlike the lottery, speciation doesn’t happen because a human individual picks
and chooses “winners” (e.g., a population of animals that will lead to the next
new species). Instead, something else is happening in the wild. A different sort of
process is responsible for speciation, and it appears that increasing numbers of
species dampens the effect that this process has on each existing species.

Together, these facts lead to an urgent question. In light of what we discussed

in this chapter and previous chapters, tens of thousands of species have formed
at a seemingly constant rate over the last few thousand years. And they’re still
forming today. How?

²³ More recent data suggest that the rate of speciation may have varied with time. See Jeanson,
N.T. 2017. Replacing Darwin. Green Forest, AR: Master Books for more detail, especially chapters
7 and 10.

29
 Chapter 7:
Did Darwin Argue That Species
Originated Recently?

In previous chapters, we observed that Noah took just a few thousand animals on
board the gigantic barge known as the ark. The animals stepped off the ark, mi-
grated all around the globe, and gave rise to new species within the last few thou-
sand years. Furthermore, genetics seems to indicate that speciation is ongoing.

These revolutionary conclusions are at odds with the typical evolutionary narrative.
According to Darwin, species take millions of years to form, and the concept of rap-
id speciation contradicts the evolutionists’ established claims of the last 150 years.

Or have we missed something?

Darwin’s opening argument for common ancestry

Careful reexamination of the first two chapters of Darwin’s seminal work, On the
Origin of Species, leads to a surprising conclusion. To see where Darwin’s logic
leads, the historical context for his arguments is critical.

In Darwin’s day, his opponents were advocates of a concept termed species fixity.
The proponents of species fixity believed that the Hebrew min were species, not
biological families. Furthermore, they thought that these species were unchanging,
fixed, and unable to form new species. In other words, the creationists of 1859 did
not carefully exegete the Scriptures in the manner that we did in chapter 3.

Darwin’s first argument against the view of species fixity was clever. He didn’t
appeal to the fossil record or to millions of years of earth history. Darwin didn’t
invoke embryonic recapitulation or the geographic distribution of species around
the globe. Instead, Darwin used his opponents’ own logic against them.

Even though species fixity advocates rejected the formation of new species, they
would have accepted the formation of new breeds within a species. For example,
today the horse species has a tremendous variety in breeds. These domesticated
groups of individuals display a magnificent diversity in body size, muscle tone,
coat length, coat color, and other features. Proponents of species fixity would have
agreed that all of this variety arose from a common ancestor—the horse species.

30
Variety in Equid Species

Variety in Horse Breeds

Comparison of variety in horse-like species within the classification rank of

family (e.g., the seven living species in the family Equidae) to variety in horse
breeds within the classification rank of species (e.g., breeds within the horse
species). More variety exists in the domesticated forms of a single species
than in the wild forms of several species.

Darwin began to pose a challenge to his opponents: compare the variety in breeds
to the variety in species. For example, compare the diversity in horse breeds to the
diversity in horse-like species. If breeds have a common ancestor, yet vary so widely,
why deny the common ancestry of species, which vary less widely? If so much
change can arise from a common horse breed ancestor, then surely a lesser amount
of change can arise from the common ancestor to a few horse-like species!

31
 In Darwin’s day, the comparison
would have been even easier. Today,
a significant gap exists between the
striped species (e.g., the zebras) and
the unstriped species (e.g., asses and
horses). Back then, a creature called
the quagga existed, which was par-
tially striped, implying that formation
The now extinct, partially striped quagga, demon-
of non-striped species from striped strating that progression from striped to unstriped
species was plausible. creatures is feasible.

Today, creationists would find no fault in Darwin’s argument. It is entirely consis-

tent with the biblical view of speciation that we derived in previous chapters. In
fact, if you take Darwin’s argument one step further, you can argue both for the
formation of new species within a kind and against the change of one kind into
another kind. For example, according to evolution, the next closest living relatives
to horse-like creatures are rhinos and tapirs. It should be immediately obvious that
all the variety in horse breeds could never bridge the gap between horse-like crea-
tures and their supposed evolutionary cousins. Kinds don’t change into other kinds.

A visible gap in variety between equids and other species within the order Perissodactyla (the classification
category to which equids, rhinos, and tapirs belong). According to evolution, the rhino and tapir families
represent the closest living relatives of equids. However, all the variety in horse breeds and species falls far
short of the very obvious and many differences between equids and their closest evolutionary relatives.

Applying Darwin’s logic to the timescale question

Darwin’s argument also contains an implicit piece of evidence against his
overall timescale. Based on the fossil record and the geology of his day, Dar-
win claimed that species took a long time to form. Modern evolutionists agree
with him and put the timescale in the millions-of-years realm. Yet taken one
step further, Darwin’s breed-species comparison demonstrates that species
must have arisen recently.

32
This fact becomes obvious when we employ the same strategy that Darwin
did against his opponents in 1859. Using the evolutionists’ own claims, we
can show that they are inconsistent with themselves. For example, evolution-
ists would concede that animal breeds arose recently—recent by the standard
of their timescale.²⁴ Why? Because breeds, by definition, were the result of
intentional activity by intelligent humans. According to the evolutionary times-
cale, intelligent humans did not exist until recently—within the last 200,000 to
300,000 years. Thus, 300,000 years represents the upper time boundary for the
origin of domestic breeds.

In fact, when we explore the evolutionary literature further, some evolutionists put
the timescale of breed origins within the last 12,000 years.²⁵

Comparing the variety in breeds and species, evolutionists are forced to concede
the recent origin of the latter. As we observed, breeds have more variety than spe-
cies (e.g., see images above). Yet evolutionists would say that all this breed variety
appeared within thousands of years—perhaps within the last 12,000 years. At the
same time, they would insist that the small amount of variety among species in
the wild took millions of years to form. This logic is not consistent.

Thus, by the evolutionists’ own standard—by a type of Darwin’s own reasoning!—

species must have arisen recently.²⁶

Even though this timescale it not the biblical one, the argument we just followed
is a strong chain of reasoning against the evolutionary view. For evolutionists to
reject it, they would have to throw out the first two chapters of Darwin’s founda-
tional work. To lose the first two chapters would, in effect, require the evolution-
ists to engage the species fixity proponents anew.

In response to this claim, evolutionists would likely invoke data from other scien-
tific fields to argue for millions of years. But this would do them no good. Instead
of helping their contentions, it would expose a secret that evolutionists have kept
hidden since 1859. 

²⁴ Note that I’m not endorsing evolutionists’ timescale; I’m using their timescale to make an
argument against it.
²⁵ Greger Larson et al., “Current Perspectives and the Future of Domestication Studies,” Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 111, no. 17: 6139–6146.
²⁶ For further elaboration of the material in this chapter, see chapter 6 of Jeanson, N.T. 2017.
Replacing Darwin. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

33
 Chapter 8:
A Spectacular Confirmation of
Darwin’s Argument—for Genesis

In previous chapters, we observed that just a few thousand animals likely accom-
panied Noah onboard the ark. From these creatures, a myriad of species arose.

In response to the question of how this might be possible, we took a cue from
Darwin’s own work. We observed that the comparison of breeds to species
indicated that species must have arisen recently—within thousands of years, not
millions of years.

What Darwin didn’t know is that his indirect evidence would be spectacularly
confirmed over 150 years later.

The century-and-a-half wait was a consequence of a long-standing secret in the

evolutionary community—the massive risk that Darwin took when he wrote On
the Origin of Species. In arguing for a particular view of the origin of species, Dar-
win put his entire explanatory edifice in great danger. Since species are defined
by traits and characteristics that are heritable, the origin of species is a funda-
mentally genetic question. In other words, we recognize zebra species because
the information that specifies stripes is inherited consistently generation after
generation. Elephants are an iconic species because their iconic feature—their
long trunk—is present in each generation. In short, the concept of species exists
because genetics exists.

When Darwin wrote his book in 1859, genetics wasn’t even a scientific field. The
father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, hadn’t even published his foundational
observations of pea plants. Mendel’s findings wouldn’t be announced until 1865,
and then Mendel’s work would be lost for several decades. Only at the turn of the
century, after genetics was connected to
cellular structures termed chromosomes,
was the term genetics coined.

While the chromosome link moved the

field of genetics forward, it also sparked a
new debate. Since chromosomes are com-
posed of two major molecules (DNA and
protein), geneticists would debate which
molecule was the substance of heredity

34
for another several decades. Finally, in 1953, when Watson, Crick, and colleagues
discovered the structure of DNA, scientists finally settled on DNA as the molecule
possessing the heritable genetic information.

Like so many scientific discoveries, the elucidation of the structure of DNA

concluded one scientific story and started another. With this newfound knowl-
edge, the scientific community could now go about the business of finding out the
sequence of the DNA code in each species. Again, this information was slow in
coming. Only in the last few years has enough DNA sequence existed in the public
databases whereby Darwin’s origin claims can be directly evaluated.

To clarify, no other scientific field

directly records a species’ ancestry.
Fossils, geography, anatomy, and
physiology are not inherited. DNA is
the actual chemical that is passed on
in sperm and egg. Hence, only the field
of genetics acts as a direct record of
species’ ancestry. Long lag followed by rapid growth in DNA
sequence information. The first three blue dots
respectively represent (1) the year (1859) Darwin
Conversely, by virtue of the manner in published On the Origin of Species; (2) the year
(1953) the structure of DNA was solved; and (3) the
which DNA changes each generation, year (1968) the first DNA sequence was published.
DNA also records the passage of time. Adapted with permission from Dr. Nathaniel T.
Jeanson and Dr. Jason Lisle, “On the Origin of
Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic
To understand how the DNA clock Diversity,” Answers Research Journal 9 (2016):
ticks, it’s helpful to understand the 82–83, figure 1 and supplemental table 1, https://
answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/specia-
structure of the DNA molecule. DNA tion/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotyp-
exists in the form of a twisted ladder. ic-and-phenotypic-diversity/.
Each rung of the ladder represents a
chemical letter, and the different colors
of the rungs represent the different
DNA letters.

Though only four different DNA letters

exist in the DNA code, this small
chemical alphabet of sorts can carry
tremendous amounts of information.
For example, in humans, a total of
six billion DNA letters—rungs of the
ladder—exist in each person.²⁷ The ar-
rangement of these letters—their order,
The twisted, ladder-like structure of DNA. The
rungs of this ladder represent the fundamental
units, or base-pairs of DNA, which come in four
varieties and are abbreviated by the letters A, T, G,
and C. The specific ordering of these letters and
the total number of rungs specifies each creature’s
unique identity. Image by Askold Romanov, via
Getty Images.

²⁷ DNA actually comes in duplicate. Each parent supplies one copy—or three billion DNA letters
(rungs of the ladder). Thus, each person has two copies of three billion DNA letters, or six billion
total DNA letters.

35
 their spatial relationship to other letters, and so on—carries the information for a
species’ traits and characteristics.

When sperm and egg copy their DNA in preparation for fertilization at the mo-
ment of conception, the copying process is imperfect. In terms of the diagram we
just examined, copying errors change the color of one of the rungs to a different
rung color. Over time, the number of color-changed rungs increases, acting like a
clock that measures time since the DNA sequence first came to be.

By comparing the rungs of the DNA ladder in various individuals, we can assess
how long ago this event was. For example, by comparing the rungs between any
two humans, we can estimate how many generations ago two people shared a
common relative, like a great-great-great-great-grandfather. It so happens that
the vast majority of our DNA rungs are the same, making these comparative
analyses straightforward.

For technical reasons that will be ex-

plained in chapter 10, only a small sub-
set of the DNA letters in an individual
lend themselves as simple timekeep-
ers.²⁸ In particular, a subset of DNA
termed the mitochondrial DNA acts
as a very straightforward timekeeper.
Mitochondrial DNA encodes some of
the most important and basic informa-
tion for our bodies to function. Without mitochondrial DNA, we would be unable
to convert the food we eat into energy usable to our cells. In other words, without
mitochondrial DNA, human and animal life largely stops.

Comparing the rungs of the mitochondrial DNA ladder among various species
reveals a stunning result. If species have been in existence for millions of years,
a large number of the mitochondrial DNA rungs should have a different color. In
contrast, the vast majority of these rungs are the same.²⁹ It’s as if species origi-

²⁸ Technically, all DNA sequence has the potential to act as a timekeeper. But the molecular details
of the various sections of the DNA code make the manner in which time is kept a more complicat-
ed process for some parts of DNA, and a simple process for other parts.
²⁹ Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “Recent, Functionally Diverse Origin for Mitochondrial Genes from
~2700 Metazoan Species,” Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 467–501, https://answers-
ingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/recent-functionally-diverse-origin-for-mitochondri-
al-genes-from-~2700-metazoan-species/; Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “Mitochondrial DNA Clocks Imply
Linear Speciation Rates Within ‘Kinds,’” Answers Research Journal 8 (2015): 273–304, https://
answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/clocks-imply-linear-speciation-rates-within-
kinds/; Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA ‘Clock’: Whole
Mitochondrial Genome Mutation Rate Confirms D-Loop Results,” Answers Research Journal 8
(2015): 375–378, https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-genome-mutation-rate-/;
Nathaniel T. Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and
Phenotypic Diversity: Genetic Clocks, Population Growth Curves, and Comparative Nuclear
Genome Analyses Suggest Created Heterozygosity in Combination with Natural Processes as a
Major Mechanism,” Answers Research Journal 9 (2016): 81–122, https://answersingenesis.org/
natural-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/

36
nated in the last few thousand years. In other words, if species originated within
the last 6,000 years, very few ticks of the mitochondrial DNA clock would have
occurred, and this is exactly what we observe.

See https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/spectacular-confirmation-of-darwins-argument-for-genesis/

Thus, by two independent lines of evidence, species look as if they originated

recently. First, by Darwin’s own breed-species comparison and criteria, species
must have originated contemporary with intelligent human populations. Second,
when we examine the direct genetic record of their origin, we see very few genetic
differences—far too few for species to have arisen over millions of years—but just
the right amount if they originated within the last few thousand years.

Not surprisingly, evolutionists have tried to rebut this contradictory evidence. But
their claims are vacuous.³⁰

For example, in geology, a variety of techniques are used to argue against a 6,000-
year age for the earth. From carbon-14 dating, to other forms of radioisotope
dating, to ice core formation, to the rates of erosion, geologists see many lines of
evidence inconsistent with the biblical view.

However, in order to make their millions-of-years math work, evolutionists have to

assume constant rates of change. In carbon-14 dating, they have to assume that
the rate of carbon-14 decay has been largely constant.³¹ When dating ice cores,
they have to assume a roughly constant rate of ice layer formation. Erosion rates

³⁰ Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years,” Acts & Facts
43, no. 4 (2014), http://www.icr.org/article/new-genetic-clock-research-challenges.
³¹ In other words, they refuse to rigorously consider how a global flood—the kind specified in
Genesis 6–9—could have altered this rate or the interpretation of their results.

37
 must be assumed to be constant with time for the argument against the Scrip-
tures to hold any water.

Yet in the field of genetics, constant rates of change produce the opposite re-
sult—a tremendously strong argument for the recent origin of species, which, by
implication, argues for a recent origin of the earth. How will the evolutionists deal
with this conundrum?

For several reasons, invoking changing rates in genetics will not work. First,
in light of the evolutionists historical rebuttals to young-earth creation geology,
changing rates in genetics would be hypocritical. For years, young-earth creation-
ists have argued for variable rates in geology, especially in light of the global flood
that was recorded in Genesis 6–8.³² In response, evolutionists have simply assert-
ed that a global flood—that changing rates—must simply not be invoked. It would
be inconsistent to now suddenly permit changing rates to be arbitrarily invoked in
a different field of science.

Second, under the evolutionary timescale, the required rates of genetic change are
so low that they amount to a biological miracle.³³ Since evolutionists forbid miracles
from biological explanations, variable rates of genetic change are a nonstarter.³⁴

Despite the rigorous challenge that these data present to the evolutionary
model, these two arguments for the recent origin of species leave an element
of the young-earth model dangling—they still do not answer the question of
how species originated.

But they do hold a tantalizing clue.

³² Obviously, a global flood would produce enormous geologic effects. See “The Flood,” Answers
in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/.
³³ Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “Recent, Functionally Diverse Origin for Mitochondrial Genes from
~2700 Metazoan Species,” Answers Research Journal 6 (2013): 467–501, https://answers-
ingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-dna/recent-functionally-diverse-origin-for-mitochondri-
al-genes-from-~2700-metazoan-species/
³⁴ For further elaboration of the material in this chapter, see chapter 7 of Jeanson, N.T. 2017.
Replacing Darwin. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

38
 Chapter 9:
Getting Enough Bodies

In discussion thus far, we’ve made a number of revolutionary observations. From

Scripture, we derived the fact that Noah likely took just a few thousand animals
on board the ark. Modern land, air-breathing species arose from these ark ances-
tors in a linear manner after the flood, a fact which is buttressed both by modern
genetics and Darwin’s own work.

To understand how this is possible in just a few thousand years, population growth
curves are very helpful. In other words, before we can even consider the question
of how to generate different traits, we need to know how these ark ancestors can
multiply fast enough to generate enough bodies to possess these new traits.

The rate at which species can multiply is remarkable. While rabbits are well
known in their ability to multiply, characteristically slow breeders still get the job
done much faster than you might expect.

For example, two of the slowest breeding species on record are the African and
Asian elephant species. Unlike humans, these elephant species don’t keep their
babies in the womb nine months. Their gestation time is nearly two years.

Nevertheless, given the other known population growth parameters,³⁵ the ele-
phant population size can grow quickly. Under these parameters, after 50 years,
the population size would be 35 individuals—a modest amount. After 100 years,

³⁵ Like the age at which adults achieve sexual maturity, the length of time mothers spend nursing
their offspring before weaning, the average number of babies per pregnancy, the average lifespan
of individuals in the species, and so on.

39
 it would be approximately 750 individuals—again, nothing spectacular. But after
200 years, over 300,000 elephants would exist, and after 300 years, over 163
million individuals would exist. By year 500 after the flood, 35 trillion elephants
would roam the earth. In 1,000 years, two elephants could produce a population
size of nearly 8 x 10²⁶ individuals—that’s 10 with 26 zeros after it!³⁶

Of course, this assumes no predation and sufficient plant resources to support this
massive population. Despite this caveat, these calculations clearly demonstrate that
elephants could recover enormous population sizes very quickly after the flood. In
light of these facts, we would almost be wiser to ask not whether producing many
species in thousands of years is possible, but why more species don’t exist!

These numbers also refute a common objection to the young-earth speciation

timescale. Woolly mammoths are a common ice age find, and young-earth
creationists would put the ice age in the few hundred years after the flood.³⁷
Young-earth creationists would also likely place the woolly mammoth in the
same kind as the modern elephant species. Presumably, the mammoth and the
elephants would have similar population growth parameters. If so, producing
large enough woolly mammoth population sizes—large enough to explain how
Siberia is littered with the remains of woolly mammoths—is no problem for the
young-earth creation timescale.

If this is how quickly a slowly reproducing species recovers after the flood, imag-
ine how quickly the rabbits and rodents could revive!

With bodies accounted for, the only other major question to ask is genetic: with
millions of species with unique and stunning genetically encoded features cur-
rently roaming earth, where on earth did this genetic diversity come from?

³⁶ For equations used to predict these numbers, see the following paper: Nathaniel T. Jeanson
and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity:
Genetic Clocks, Population Growth Curves, and Comparative Nuclear Genome Analyses Suggest
Created Heterozygosity in Combination with Natural Processes as a Major Mechanism,” Answers
Research Journal 9 (2016): 81–122, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/
on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/.
³⁷ https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/

40
 Chapter 10:
Getting Enough Genetic Diversity

In previous chapters, we have derived the fact of speciation within the young-
earth creation view, and we have observed several lines of evidence supporting, or
consistent with, the recent origin of species.

The major remaining question is how tens of thousands of species could arise in
a few thousand years.

Recasting a common objection

To skeptics of the Scriptures, producing so many species in such a short time
span—short as compared to the evolutionary time span—seems implausible.
Laying aside both Darwin’s breed-species analogy and the mitochondrial DNA
clock data, critics of young-earth creation don’t see how biological change can
happen so quickly. To them, we haven’t witnessed 10 species form in the last few
thousand years, let alone tens of thousands.

These skeptics forget the evidence right under their noses. While the origin of
over 30 living cat species might appear to require significant morphological
changes, visible variety of a much greater magnitude can arise in an even shorter
frame of time. For example, a frog begins its life as a fertilized egg—as a single
cell. No limbs, head, eyes, tongue, long toes, and so on are visible at the single-cell
stage. Yet, in the process of development and maturity that spans less than three
years, these anatomical features are formed. This progression from a single cell
to an adult frog represents far more visible change than the process of forming
new species from the kinds onboard the ark. Thus, when the skeptic claims
that we’ve never witnessed the amount of morphological change required by the
young-earth speciation model, the skeptic does so by ignoring the familiar process
of development.

Image adapted from figure 2 of Nathaniel Jeanson

and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Spe-
cies’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity: Genetic
Clocks, Population Growth Curves, and Compara-
tive Nuclear Genome Analyses Suggest Created Het-
erozygosity in Combination with Natural Processes
as a Major Mechanism,” Answers Research Journal
9 (2016): 81–122, https://answersingenesis.org/
natural-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukary-
otic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/.

41
 Nevertheless, the skeptic might insist that the process of development is primarily
controlled by a different set of instructions than the process of speciation. This
claim is indeed true. Development proceeds according to the epigenetic informa-
tion in the cell,³⁸ but speciation is a primarily genetic phenomenon. Therefore,
when discussing speciation post-flood, our primary concern should not be the
formation of new visible features; it should be the origin of genetic differences
among species.

The genetics of species’ origins

Can enough genetic diversity arise in a few thousand years to make the young-
earth speciation model work? Today, millions of DNA differences separate species
from one another.³⁹ How can millions of DNA differences arise in a few thousand
years? To the skeptic, the answer is simple—millions of DNA differences can’t.

However, this claim is ill-informed. One of the genetic observations that we made
previously is all the more relevant here. In chapter 8, we observed that mitochon-
drial DNA acts like a clock. As the rungs of the DNA ladder change with time, the
length of time that a species has been on the planet is recorded.

When we perform a similar clock

analysis on the rest of the DNA se-
quence (e.g., the sequence in a cellular
compartment termed the nucleus), we
don’t reach the same conclusion. For
example, using the rate at which copy-
ing errors are made in the billions of
DNA letters in the human nuclear DNA
sequence, it is not possible to produce
millions of DNA differences in a few
thousand years.⁴⁰ Similar results hold
true in other species.⁴¹

³⁸ Epigenetics is a scientific field concerned with heritable information that exists in addition to
the information encoded by the linear sequence of DNA letters.
³⁹ Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phe-
notypic Diversity: Genetic Clocks, Population Growth Curves, and Comparative Nuclear Genome
Analyses Suggest Created Heterozygosity in Combination with Natural Processes as a Major
Mechanism,” Answers Research Journal 9 (2016): 81–122, https://answersingenesis.org/natu-
ral-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/.
⁴⁰ This assumes that the rate at which copying errors are made has been constant.
⁴¹ Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin.”

42
At first pass, this may suggest that one of the clocks must be wrong. Upon further
reflection, we reach a different conclusion.

Consider a simple kitchen example as an analogy. Let’s say that, one afternoon,
you happen to glance at the oven clock, and the time shows 2:57. Let’s also say
that, in the same moment, you happen to glance at the display on the microwave
oven, and it shows 1:22. At first pass, these might appear to contradict.

With a little more information and contemplation, it’s not hard to see how both of
these timing devices display accurate information. The oven clock measures how
much time has passed since noon; 2 hours and 57 minutes have elapsed. In con-
trast, the time display on the microwave represents the remaining minutes and
seconds on the timer—1 more minute and 22 seconds will expire before the timer
sounds. Both display a correct measure of time, but each begins from a different
starting point and has a different goal.

In a similar way, the mitochondrial DNA and the nuclear DNA sequences both
measure time, but they do so from different starting points. Unlike most of the
DNA in our cells, mitochondrial DNA is inherited primarily—if not exclusively—
through the maternal line. Though males and females both possess and require
mitochondrial DNA, only moms
pass on mitochondrial DNA to their
offspring. In contrast, the DNA in the
nucleus comes from both parents.

This latter biological fact illuminates

another potential source of DNA vari-
ety. When God created Adam and Eve,
he would have created them both with
mitochondrial DNA. However, only Eve
would have passed on her mitochondrial DNA to her offspring. All the differences
we see today are the results of errors in copying Eve’s original sequence.⁴²

When God created the nuclear DNA in Adam and Eve, he created it in two copies
as 23 paired chromosomes. Even though Adam and Eve did not have human
parents from which to inherit two copies, it is likely that God created their two
nuclear DNA sequences different from one another. In other words, Adam’s
first set of three billion DNA letters would have contained a certain sequence,
and his second set of three billion DNA letters would have contained a different

⁴² Copying errors would compound with time. One of Eve’s descendants would have made a
copying error, and her offspring would have used this erroneous template from which to copy
again—and likely introduce even more copying errors. See Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “On the Origin
of Human Mitochondrial DNA Differences, New Generation Time Data Both Suggest a Unified
Young-Earth Creation Model and Challenge the Evolutionary Out-of-Africa Model,” Answers
Research Journal 9 (2016): 123–130.

43
 sequence—with perhaps 5–10 million differences between the two sets.⁴³ This
would allow them to be fruitful, multiply, and produce diverse offspring—instead
of producing clones.

What I’ve just described also makes testable scientific predictions, which just
happen to fit what we observe today when we compare modern human nuclear
DNA sequences.⁴⁴

Thus, the two DNA clocks don’t contra-

dict. Mitochondrial DNA comparisons
don’t contradict nuclear DNA compar-
isons. Both clocks tell the same time
once we carefully account for their
differing starting points.

Conversely, the nuclear DNA starting

point I just described easily accounts
for the millions of DNA differences that exist among humans today. Copying
errors are unable to explain the vast amount of DNA differences we see today
because the vast majority of these differences are not the product of error, but of
deliberate design.⁴⁵

Similarly, it appears that God created nuclear DNA differences in the animal
kinds, as well. Genetic calculations suggest that God created tens of millions of
DNA differences from the start. In other words, the cat kind ancestor was likely
created with one DNA copy different from the other DNA copy—with, perhaps, 50
million DNA differences between the two copies.

⁴³ Since Eve was made from Adam’s side, she might have had DNA identical to Adam, except for
the Y (male) chromosome. Eve’s sex chromosome pair would have been XX, while Adam’s sex
chromosome pair would have been XY. In the remaining 22 pairs of chromosomes, DNA differenc-
es would have existed within Adam and Eve, but hardly any DNA differences (except for the male-
and female-specific DNA differences) would have existed between Adam and Eve. In other words,
her two copies of DNA would have been different from one another—but nearly identical (except
for the Y chromosome) to Adam’s two copies of DNA. This perspective is slightly different from
one that was suggested previously (https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/
shouldnt-eve-have-been-a-clone-of-adam/), but it seems to be the best fit to our current understand-
ing of global human DNA diversity (http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos).
⁴⁴ Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin.”
⁴⁵ Copying errors since the creation of Adam and Eve’s DNA sequences would also contribute to
the DNA differences that exist today, but it would represent a small fraction of the total amount of
DNA differences. See Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’
Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity: Genetic Clocks, Population Growth Curves, and Compar-
ative Nuclear Genome Analyses Suggest Created Heterozygosity in Combination with Natural
Processes as a Major Mechanism,” Answers Research Journal 9 (2016): 81–122, https://answers-
ingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phe-
notypic-diversity/.

44
Since only about 1,660 years passed between the creation event and the flood,
most of this variety would have been carried on board the ark. Being so shortly
removed from the perfect creation, it’s not hard to believe that significant popula-
tion growth in these animal kinds occurred. As we observed in chapter 9, massive
amounts of population growth can happen in a very short amount of time, even
in slowly reproducing species. Under this scenario, straightforward population
modeling indicates that very little of the created genetic differences would have
been lost prior to the flood.⁴⁶

Implications of created DNA differences

Once the animals stepped off the ark, their reservoir of DNA differences could
have easily translated into a massive amount of morphological change. This fact
is best illustrated by a consideration of a recent objection to the young-earth
creation view of speciation. Over a decade ago, one of the main complaints that
could be levied was based on the function of the DNA letters. Actually, it was the
apparent lack of function of DNA differences. When the sequence of the billions
of human DNA letters was first elucidated in 2001, many in the scientific com-
munity concluded that the vast majority was “junk”—useless leftovers from the
human evolutionary process. Presumably, similar amounts of “junk” DNA existed
in other species, as well.

However, this claim was not based on rigorous laboratory testing of the billions
of DNA letters in the human DNA code. Instead, it was based on appearance—to
evolutionary scientists, the DNA “looked” as if it were nonfunctional. Since 2001,
a large body of laboratory (e.g., experimental) evidence has accumulated. While
preliminary and largely biochemical, this evidence has a trajectory suggesting
that that vast majority of human DNA is, in fact, functional. With a few more years
of experiments, the evidence for function will likely increase.

In addition, this trajectory seems to be true of other species. As more functional

testing has been performed in nonhuman species, more evidence for DNA func-
tion has accumulated. Hence, the long-held ideas of how DNA works and how
much of it is functional have undergone a massive shift within the last decade.⁴⁷

These results have profound ramifications for the speciation question. Since DNA
now appears to be extremely functional, it would seem that the production of a
new species would simply require a few DNA differences to arise.

In fact, as we observed earlier, millions of DNA differences separate species with-

in a kind.⁴⁸ A massive potential for speciation exists all over this planet.

⁴⁶ http://creation.com/historical-adam-biologos; see also Robert W. Carter and Matthew Powell,

“The genetic effects of the population bottleneck associated with the Genesis Flood,” Journal of
Creation 30 (2016): 102–111.
⁴⁷ Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin.”
⁴⁸ Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin.”

45
 A comprehensive model
Let’s put all the pieces of this genetic puzzle together. Mitochondrial DNA is
inherited uniparentally—from only one of the two parents, the mother. Conse-
quently, it is a very effective yet simple timekeeper for elucidating the time when
species originated. As copying errors have occurred over multiple generations,
the mitochondrial DNA “clock” has ticked off the time since species first arose.
This clock indicates that species originated within the last few thousand years.

The rest of the DNA sequence within a creature (e.g., the nuclear DNA) is inherit-
ed from both parents. Because of the biparental manner (e.g., from both parents)
in which this DNA is inherited, God could have created the kinds with DNA
differences from the start, and at least two independent lines of evidence argue
that this is true.⁴⁹ Thus, nuclear DNA also records a timeline pointing to a recent
origin for species, a timeline that makes testable predictions.

Conversely, the fact that so many nuclear DNA differences were present from the
start has tremendous implications for the plausibility of speciation on the young-
earth timescale. With millions of DNA differences—massive amounts of DNA
variety—encoded into each kind from the start of their existence, the potential
for speciation is mind-boggling. Combined with the fact that species can recover
enormous population sizes in very short amounts of time, in addition to the fact
that the vast majority of DNA sequences within a creature appear to be function-
al, these results demonstrate that millions of species in a few thousand years is
not only plausible, it is also probable.⁵⁰

⁴⁹ Due to the genetic complexity of the second line of evidence, I omitted it from the present
lay-level summary. It can be found in the following paper: Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On
the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity: Genetic Clocks, Population
Growth Curves, and Comparative Nuclear Genome Analyses Suggest Created Heterozygosity
in Combination with Natural Processes as a Major Mechanism,” Answers Research Journal 9
(2016): 81–122, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukary-
otic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/.
⁵⁰ For further elaboration of the material in this chapter, see chapters 8 and 9 of Jeanson, N.T.
2017. Replacing Darwin. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

46
 Chapter 11:
Did Natural Selection
Play a Role in Speciation?

In previous chapters, we’ve concluded that many new species have formed from
the kinds that Noah took on board the ark. We also observed that, when God cre-
ated the kinds, he front-loaded them with genetic differences—with the potential
to form all sorts of new species and varieties.

This fact alone completely transforms Charles Darwin’s “mystery of mysteries”—

the origin of species.⁵¹ Darwin had no concept of our understanding of modern
genetics, and the conclusions we reached were entirely inaccessible to him. Spe-
cifically, with respect to how species change and the ultimate source of the visible
varieties we observe, Darwin had no genetic insights. Conversely, since species
are defined by their heritable traits, our modern genetic discoveries represent the
first real, comprehensive answer to the central question Darwin pursued.

Our previous chapter left one significant detail unaddressed. While we carefully
elucidated the origin of the vast majority of genetic varieties observable today, we
didn’t quite connect the dots to how these varieties in individuals become distinct
populations of new species.

From genetic differences to visible differences

In prior chapters, we argued that, in individual members of the various kinds, God
created the two copies of DNA different from one another. In technical terms,
this is referred to as being heterozygous. For new visible traits to arise from this
created heterozygosity, all that appears to be required is a shift from heterozygos-
ity to homozygosity. The prefix homo- denotes “same,” and a movement toward
homozygosity is a change from a DNA state in which the two copies differ toward
a DNA state in which the two copies are more and more similar to each other.

⁵¹ Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, (London: John Murray, 1859), p.1. http://
darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1.

47
 To clarify, a shift from heterozygosity to homozygosity does not necessarily involve
every chromosome. Though the image below depicts the most extreme examples
(e.g., completely heterozygous and completely homozygous), a partially homozy-
gous/partially heterozygous state can also exist. For example, if some of the chro-
mosome pairs end up identical while other pairs remain different, this would rep-
resent a partially homozygous/partially heterozygous state. In fact, homozygosity
need not even be at the whole chromosome level. Tiny chunks of a chromosome
pair can be homozygous while other sections are heterozygous. Thus, a shift from
heterozygosity to homozygosity can happen over a broad range of chromosome
pairs and at multiple levels of chromosome organization.

Human DNA is inherited from both parents. Hence, the condensed forms of DNA (visible in the top part of
this image as noodle-like structures called chromosomes) come in pairs—one of each pair is inherited from
each parent. Because our parents are different, each member of a chromosome pair is different from the
other, as under scenario #1 on the left part of this image. Since Adam and Eve were created directly by God
without human parents, it’s possible that both members of each chromosome pair were created identical,
as in scenario #2 on the right. Nonetheless, available evidence suggests that each member of a chromo-
some pair was created different from the other. Under this scenario, it’s very easy to explain the millions of
DNA differences that exist among humans today.

Producing a more homozygous state is not hard. Gregor Mendel’s experiments

with pea plants are instructive in this respect. At the visible level, Mendel ob-
served that some traits can be hidden in one generation and appear in the next.
For example, two pea plants that produce green, smooth-shaped pea pods can be
crossed, and their offspring are a mix of 1) green and smooth-shaped pea pods,
2) green and rough-shaped pea pods, 3) yellow and smooth-shaped pea pods, and
4) yellow and rough-shaped pea pods. The information for yellow pea pods and
rough-shaped pea pods was present in the parents, but it was masked. Green and
smooth were dominant over yellow and rough.

Though Mendel was unaware, we now understand this phenomenon in more spe-
cific DNA terms. Since DNA is present in two copies (e.g., in chromosome pairs),
even in pea plants, we can infer the DNA makeup of the green, smooth-shaped pa-
rental pea plants that gave rise to the same, as well as to yellow or rough-shaped

48
pea pods. In short, for yellow or rough-shaped pea pods to appear consistently in
the offspring of green and smooth-shaped pea pod parents, both parents must be
heterozygous for the information for pea pod color and shape. In other words, in
one pair of chromosomes, one copy of DNA in the parent must specify “yellow”
and the other must specify “green.” Similarly, in another pair of chromosomes,
one copy of DNA in the parent must specify “rough” and the other must specify
“smooth.” When this heterozygous state exists, only green and smooth-shaped
appear—they are dominant over yellow and rough-shaped.

In the process of crossing the pea plants, only one copy of each DNA pair is
passed on from parents to offspring.⁵² If one or both of the copies carries the
information for green pea pods, then offspring will have green pea pods. However,
if the copy from one parent contains the instructions for yellow pea pods, and if

Gregor Mendel, the Austrian monk whose meticulous experiments in pea plants laid the foundation for our
modern understanding of genetics, demonstrated that genetic potential can be hidden. Because DNA in
the cell compartment (termed the nucleus) is inherited from both parents, it comes in two copies, which is
illustrated by the two pairs of bars (representing chromosomes) that come in either a red or purple version.
Information for pea pod color (R for green or r for yellow) and pea pod shape (Y for smooth and y for rough)
is encoded by these bars, and each individual member of a bar pair need not encode the same information
for shape and color—e.g., the top cells have all four versions (R, r, Y, and y). Nevertheless, despite having ge-
netic information for yellow and rough pods, the appearance of the parents is green and smooth. During the
process of cell division (termed meiosis), individual members of these chromosome pairs are distributed
into sperm and egg cells, which permits a variety of combinations to arise in the offspring (e.g., green and
rough-shaped pea pods, green and smooth-shaped pea pods, yellow and rough-shaped pea pods, and yellow
and smooth-shaped pea pods). Image of Gregor Mendel by Materialscientist, via Wikimedia Commons;
image of pea plant diagram adapted from LadyofHats, via Wikimedia Commons.

the copy from the other parent also contains the instruction for yellow pea pods,
the DNA information in the offspring will only be yellow. Since no information for
green is present, the information for yellow is no longer hidden or masked by the
dominance of the information for green pea pods. Hence, when two heterozygous
parents are crossed, visible changes in traits can appear in a single generation.

⁵² Recombination of the DNA happens before the DNA copy is passed on, but this technical detail
is not critical to our discussion at this point.

49
 For this process to lead to the formation of a new species, a new population must
be formed. If a new population does not form, the yellow offspring might cross
with green offspring, and the next generation will have the yellow trait hidden
again. Under this scenario, no permanent change will have taken place. For a new
species to form, in technical terms, homozygosity must be maintained.

How could a homozygous state be isolated and kept from being mixed with
heterozygous individuals? How could yellow pea pod offspring be prevented from
crossing with green pea pod individuals?

In Gregor Mendel’s case, he personally oversaw the breeding process. Similarly,

in animals, human breeders keep desired offspring from mating with other indi-
viduals that lack the desired traits.

But in the wild, no human breeders exist. How could homozygosity be maintained?

Unlike plants, animals can move or migrate. Homozygous individuals can easily
be isolated from heterozygous individuals by migration. Not surprisingly, many
species today are geographically isolated from one another.

For example, as their names imply, the African and Asian elephants exist on
different continents. As another example, the seven wild species of horse-like
creatures that exist today—including three different species of zebras—are spread
out over Africa and Asia.⁵³ In the cat family, tigers are Asian, lions are primarily
African, and jaguars and pumas are American. In short, on a globe as big as ours,
geographic isolation is easy.

Notice that we haven’t discussed survival of the fittest. For homozygous individ-
uals to be isolated away from heterozygous individuals, the death of the original
heterozygous individuals is not required. Migration of homozygous groups away
from heterozygous groups would do the job just fine.

Naturally and by chance, some individuals will die, and others will survive to
reproduce.⁵⁴ As we observed in chapter 5, the vast majority of mammal kinds
died permanently—they’re extinct. But repeated cycles of massive population
death, followed by survival of a few individuals to found a new population, are not
necessary for speciation. Once God created kinds with enormous genetic variety
from the start, reproduction and migration were virtually all that was needed to
produce a huge number of species.

⁵³ Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin of Eukaryotic Species’ Genotypic and Phe-
notypic Diversity: Genetic Clocks, Population Growth Curves, and Comparative Nuclear Genome
Analyses Suggest Created Heterozygosity in Combination with Natural Processes as a Major
Mechanism,” Answers Research Journal 9 (2016): 81–122, https://answersingenesis.org/natu-
ral-selection/speciation/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotic-species-genotypic-and-phenotypic-diversity/.
⁵⁴ Nathaniel Jeanson and Georgia Purdom, “Understanding Natural Selection: Clarifying the Con-
fusion,” Answers in Genesis, February 16, 2016, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/
understanding-natural-selection/

50
Speciation from start to finish
Let’s put the pieces together one more time to understand how easily species
formed post-flood. When God created the kinds heterozygous, he virtually guaran-
teed the formation of new species. The statistics of reproduction⁵⁵ ensure the ap-
pearance of new traits in one or a few generations, and simple population growth
curves indicate that these offspring can found new populations in short order (see
chapter 9). As these populations moved away from one another geographically,
new species could form.

Is this process still occurring today? Take the African Cape buffalo as an example.
Its curved horns have become a symbol of African wildlife. Yet several subspecies
of the Cape buffalo exist. These subspecies also happen to be geographically
distributed across the African continent. In perhaps a few decades, it wouldn’t be
surprising if scientists labeled these subspecies as separate species.

Subspecies of the African Cape buffalo

If this occurs, most people in the professional scientific community would proba-
bly view this as simply a bookkeeping change. Yet the process of speciation that I
outlined above suggests that, in fact, what we’re observing right now is a bona fide
formation of a new species.

Subspecies exist in many other species.⁵⁶ Hence, speciation could be happening

right now all over the planet. If we’re willing to consider the biblically consistent,
scientifically justified model that I outlined above, I think we’d see a complete
replacement for Darwin’s answer.

To underscore this fact, it should be clear from all that we’ve discussed that
young-earth creationists are not evolutionists. We’re not a spin-off or an
odd extension of Darwin’s principles. Instead, we postulate a very different
source for the genetic variety we see today, and we explain speciation on a
very different timescale.

⁵⁵ E.g., as illustrated in Gregor Mendel’s crosses with pea plants.

⁵⁶ E.g., the common chimpanzee, the takin, the wildebeest, and so forth.

51
 Furthermore, this front-loading of genetic information at the creation event also
naturally sets limits on the speciation process.⁵⁷ Since most of the genetic variety
we see today goes back to the creation week, formation of new kinds (i.e., higher
categorizations, such as at the Family level, not species) would require a mas-
sive—miraculous—input of new genetic information. Under the parameters we
just laid out, evolution as Darwin described is not possible. In contrast, formation
of new species from the kinds onboard Noah’s ark is not only possible, it rep-
resents a scientifically superior explanation to any that Darwin or his scientific
descendants have proposed to date.⁵⁸

⁵⁷ Nathaniel Jeanson and Jason Lisle, “On the Origin.”

⁵⁸ For further elaboration of the material in this chapter, see chapters 8–10 of Jeanson, N.T. 2017.
Replacing Darwin. Green Forest, AR: Master Books

52
 Part 2:
Answering Skeptics
on Evolution

53
 Chapter 12:
Evolutionists Make the Case for Evolution

I hope the previous chapters have been helpful to you. If you’re a Christian, per-
haps these chapters made you excited! But all that excitement would disappear
in a moment if you encountered someone who could dismantle the arguments
and knock down your newly acquired understanding of the origin of species. The
excitement might turn to despair if the skeptic turned out to be a family mem-
ber—perhaps your child or grandchild. In this case, what would you do? Do you
know how he would defend evolution? Do you know the reasons he would give
for rejecting creationism? Do you know what students encounter in their biology
classes? Are you prepared to defend creationism against the arguments they’ll
bring home from school and college? What would you do if you encountered a
skeptic of creationism on the street? Could you still stand by the views of the
previous chapters?

In this chapter, we’ll cover in detail the main arguments that evolutionists and
skeptics use to support evolution and reject creationism. Then we’ll spend the
remainder of this book looking at creationist answers.

By the way, if you’re a skeptic reading this book, I hope you’ll critically examine
what follows. Over the next few pages, I will be doing my best to make the case
for evolution, from what evolutionists themselves have said. As you read, I’d like
you to evaluate the case I make for evolution. Do you think I missed any points?
Have I covered the main arguments? What do you think of the fact that a creation-
ist has articulated this case—and is familiar with the arguments?

Overwhelming evidence
In terms of scientific evidences for evolution, many of Darwin’s original argu-
ments persist in almost unchanged form to the present day. For example, evolu-
tionists today continue to cite the groups-within-groups (“nested hierarchical”)
classification pattern for species as evidence for evolution. In 1859, Darwin relied
on anatomical and physiological comparisons to make this case. Today, evolution-
ists add genetics into the mix. The same holds true for the evolutionary argument
from homology—the study of shared patterns among species. Then, Darwin
invoked anatomical and embryological similarity. Today, evolutionists also invoke
genetic similarity.

54
In the realm of paleontology, evolutionary arguments have undergone modest
updates. In 1859, Darwin lamented the absence of transitional forms, and he pre-
dicted many to be discovered in due course. Today, evolutionists cite transitional
forms, especially those recently discovered, as evidence for evolution.

In some fields of science, evolutionary arguments break new ground. For example,
the finches in the Galapagos Islands that bear Darwin’s name have become a favor-
ite evidence for evolution. Thanks to the pioneering work of Peter and Rosemary
Grant’s team, we now have documented examples of natural selection in action—
and even of a new species forming.⁵⁹ In Darwin’s day, these sorts of examples of
“evolution in action” were unknown. Today, they often occupy the limelight.

Together, these evidences constitute the major reason that evolutionists cite to
justify their acceptance of evolution—and their rejection of creation science. For
example, in a popular college textbook used for biology majors, the authors spend
an entire chapter dealing with the evidence for evolution and with the criticisms
of it. To them, the evidence is abundantly clear:

In summary, the major causes of evolution have been extensively docu-

mented. The two major processes of long-term evolution . . . are abundantly
supported by evidence from every possible source, ranging from molecular
biology to paleontology. Over the past century we have certainly learned
of evolutionary processes that were formerly unknown: we now know, for
example, that some DNA sequences are mobile and can cause mutations
in other genes. But no scientific observations have ever cast serious doubt
on the reality of the basic mechanisms of evolution, such as natural selec-
tion, or on the reality of the basic historical patterns of evolution, such as
transformation of characters and the origin of all known forms of life from
common ancestors. Contrast this mountain of evidence with the evidence
for supernatural creation or intelligent design: there is no such evidence.⁶⁰
[emphasis theirs]

Leading popular advocates of evolution use similar language. For example,

Richard Dawkins in his book The Greatest Show on Earth: The evidence for
evolution, which he published on the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the
Origin of Species, writes:

In the rest of this book, I shall demonstrate that evolution is an inescapable

fact, and celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution
is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the
rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to

⁵⁹ Sangeet Lamichhaney et al., “Rapid Hybrid Speciation in Darwin’s Finches,” Science, 359, no.
6372 (2018): 224–228.
⁶⁰ pp.583–584, Futuyma, D. and Kirkpatrick, M. 2017. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer
Associates, Inc.

55
 watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of
the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making
inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution
are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any
eye-witness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any
century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt?
Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.⁶¹ [emphasis his]

Jerry Coyne, in his book Why Evolution Is True, whose publication also coincided
with the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s most famous work, states:

The mantra of evolution’s opponents, whether in America or elsewhere, is

always the same: “The theory of evolution is in crisis.” The implication is
that there are some profound observations about nature that conflict with
Darwinism. But evolution is far more than a “theory,” let alone a theory in
crisis. Evolution is a fact. And far from casting doubt on Darwinism, the
evidence gathered by scientists over the past century and a half supports it
completely, showing that evolution happened, and that it happened largely
as Darwin proposed, through the workings of natural selection.⁶²

What about the unconvinced?

Despite these bold pronouncements, surveys show that this evidence still leaves
many people unconvinced. For example, Gallup and the Pew Forum have been poll-
ing the general US populace for years. In 2015, the Pew Forum announced that over
30% of US adults still believe that “humans and other living things have existed in
their present form since the beginning of time.”⁶³ Evolutionists know that decreasing
this percentage will require more creative and more persuasive approaches.

Consequently, many evolutionists point to the surveys of the professional scien-

tific community as evidence that evolution should be accepted. For example, the
same 2015⁶⁴ Pew Forum poll asked members of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) about origins. As “the world’s largest multidisci-
plinary scientific professional society,”⁶⁵ the responses of AAAS members reveal
profound insights to the consensus among the professional scientific community.
Over 90% of working PhD scientists agreed that “humans and other living things

⁶¹ p.18, Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth. New York: Free Press.
⁶² pp.xiii–xiv, Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why evolution is true. New York, New York: Viking.
⁶³ https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elab-
oration_FINAL.pdf
⁶⁴ https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elab-
oration_FINAL.pdf
⁶⁵ https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/23/an-elaboration-of-aaas-scientists-views/

56
have evolved over time due to natural processes such as natural selection.” Only
7% agreed that this was “guided by a supreme being.” Just 1% agreed with the
statement that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form
since the beginning of time”—in sharp contrast to the 31% of US adults who
agreed with this statement. How could so many professionals be wrong?

Richard Dawkins thinks the answer is obvious:

Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist
disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.⁶⁶ [em-
phasis added]

Adding to the weight of this argument, a diversity of new faces has publicly en-
dorsed evolution. Organizations such as BioLogos,⁶⁷ founded by the former head
of the Human Genome Project and the current director of the National Institutes
of Health, Francis Collins, explicitly profess Christianity while exhorting Chris-
tians to embrace evolution. In addition, the current and former staff and fellows
of BioLogos include PhDs in astronomy, philosophy, and biology—all of whom
prominently feature the Christian side of their lives while advocating for evolu-
tion. Thus, evolutionists do not present themselves as a monolith of anti-religious
zealots. Instead, they emphasize that the 91% of PhD scientists that endorse
evolution includes people of many religious stripes.

Religious liars?
Nevertheless, for decades, a small group of professional scientists—myself
included—have stubbornly resisted acceptance of evolution. Proponents of evo-
lution realize that the existence of people like me stands as a constant source of
doubt for the people that they are trying to persuade of the reality of evolution.
Many evolutionists dismiss skeptics of evolution with a quick examination of our
religious beliefs:

Most disbelievers in evolution reject the idea because they think it conflicts
with their religious beliefs. For Christian and Jewish fundamentalists, evolu-
tion conflicts with their literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the first
chapters of Genesis, which portray God’s creation of the heavens, Earth,
plants, animals, and humans in six days.⁶⁸

It’s clear that this resistance [to evolution] stems largely from religion. You can find
religions without creationism, but you never find creationism without religion.⁶⁹

⁶⁶ p.9, Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth. New York: Free Press.
⁶⁷ https://biologos.org/
⁶⁸ p.577, Futuyma, D. and Kirkpatrick, M. 2017. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
⁶⁹ p.xvii, Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why evolution is true. New York, New York: Viking.

57
 It is no exaggeration to say that (the very, very few) trained biologists who
reject common ancestry do so because of prior religious commitments, not
for scientific reasons.⁷⁰

I have personally felt the dismissal on various occasions. “You fit facts to religious
conclusions” is a refrain I hear far too frequently, especially from mainstream
newspaper reporters. This stereotype is so firmly entrenched in Western culture
that it sometimes prevents any sort of dialogue from taking place between the
two camps. For example, when I first wrote Replacing Darwin, I sent the book
out to leading evolutionists, asking specifically for critical feedback. Of the two
more famous evolutionists, one never replied. The other dismissed my request
as pointless—since evolution was so well supported, he said, there was no point
trying to overturn it.

Within the last 10 years, some evolutionists have taken a sharper approach
to dealing with skeptics of evolution. In particular, professing Christians who
endorse evolution are aware that people like myself cite science as the reason
for their rejection of Darwinian evolution. If taken at face value, my claims would
seem to contradict the evolutionary thesis that creationism is motivated by reli-
gious literalism, not scientific evidence. How do evolutionists deal with this fact?

One of the more surprising reactions to people like me has come from an unlikely
source. The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is “an international network of
Christians in the sciences.”⁷² In other words, both the ASA and the young-earth
creation science community profess Christianity. Yet the ASA still maintains very
strong views on the fact that some young-earth creationists cite science as justifi-
cation for their position:

Claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of
integrity in science. . . . The ASA can and does oppose such deception.⁷³

Their justification for this position is plain. Randy Isaac, the ASA Executive Direc-
tor for 10 years (2005–2016), laid out the logic clearly:

The oft-stated [ASA] policy not to take a position in areas of honest dis-
agreement among Christians is an extremely important aspect that char-
acterizes ASA. It is also a most difficult one to maintain. For one thing, it
is not easy to differentiate an honest disagreement from a dishonest one.

⁷⁰ p.40, Venema, D.R., and McKnight, S. 2017. Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after
Genetic Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
⁷¹ https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/03/23/noah-ark-dinosaurs-and-theme-park/hvFX-
qmZIOffw7lC9R66yWL/story.html; https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/
when-hostility-helps/
⁷² https://network.asa3.org/page/ASAAbout
⁷³ p.184, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Vol. 68, Number 3, September 2016.

58
 My personal preference, though not an official ASA position, was that the
reference for honest disagreements was the accepted consensus view of the
scientific community.⁷⁴

Thus, by disagreeing with the scientific consensus, young-earth creationists are,

by definition according to evolutionists, lying about science. Again, this critique
comes from professing Christians, not militant atheists.

The ASA is not the only organization to attribute dishonesty to the practice of
citing science as justification for a young-earth creationist position. A former
BioLogos fellow and PhD biologist, Dennis Venema, extensively discussed young-
earth creationist responses to evolution. After quoting a professed young-earther
who (counterintuitively) claimed that the scientific evidence supported evolution,
Venema described the professor as follows:

He’s just being honest about the state of the evidence for evolution.⁷⁵

In describing this individual’s published scientific work on origins-related topics,

Venema said that the professed young-earther’s approach

is unique among the young-earth literature in that it is thoroughly accurate

and does not misrepresent the data.⁷⁶

Thus, according to Venema, young-earthers who claim that science supports cre-
ation are being dishonest about the state of the evidence for evolution. People like
me are also taking an inaccurate approach that misrepresents that data.

For a time, Venema was a fellow at BioLogos, and, perhaps not surprisingly, BioLo-
gos has also functioned as a platform for all manner of accusations against young-
earth creation scientists. For instance, I personally have been a favorite target:

Jeanson may appear to be quite articulate, he is still dishonest in saying

he is doing real scientific investigation. He reads the same genetic papers
that I read. Granted he is more knowledgeable in genetics than I am as
he has recent degrees in the subject and has published papers in the field.
However, he takes the results of researchers who painstakingly worked
years squeezing out new scientific knowledge from new genetic sequenc-
ing technology and dishonestly manipulates the data to correspond to
Ham’s view of what the Bible says. That is not ethical scientific research

⁷⁴ p.193, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Vol. 68, Number 3, September 2016.
⁷⁵ p.41, Venema, D.R., and McKnight, S. 2017. Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after
Genetic Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
⁷⁶ p.203, Venema, D.R., and McKnight, S. 2017. Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after
Genetic Science. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.

59
 and it is not science. He gets paid to do this dishonesty. He purposefully
manipulates other scientists research results to fit his . . . views. It is dis-
honest and borders on fraud. And can be harmful to society and individu-
als if anyone takes him seriously.⁷⁷

The most important argument

Evidence, surveys, and personal attacks aside, the most important evolutionary
argument to be advanced within the last forty years has remained quietly below
the surface. Its relative obscurity may stem from the fact that it’s often the last
resort used by evolutionists when engaging creationists. For example, in light of
what we’ve already observed, consider a typical exchange between a creationist
and evolutionist. To begin, the evolutionist might cite an abundance of scientific
evidence for evolution. A well-read creationist will likely have a scientific rejoinder
to these arguments. This back-and-forth about the science may continue for some
time.

However, rather than endlessly debate the scientific evidences, the evolutionist
might eventually switch to the survey results of professional scientists. After all,
regardless of how plausible the creationist’s rejoinders appear, why don’t more
professional scientists agree? Why do surveys show overwhelming support for
evolution among PhDs? Again, a seasoned creationist debater might point to the
significant number of PhDs who question evolution. Though small, this popula-
tion of skeptics must be explained by evolutionists.

At this point, the evolutionist might highlight the religious affiliations of the evo-
lution skeptics. However, enough a-religious skeptics of evolution exist that the
evolutionist might have to shift his focus slightly—and eventually question the
honesty of these skeptics. An experienced creationist debater will rightly point
out the difficulty of adjudicating a scientific debate via impugning the motives of
one side or the other.

As a last resort, the evolutionist might reply as follows:

Creation-science isn’t science at all, nor have creation scientists managed to

come up with even a single intellectually compelling, scientifically testable
statement about the natural world. At least ninety-five percent of all of their
reams of privately published books and pamphlets are devoted to an attack
on conventional science....[Creationists] pose no testable hypotheses and
make no predictions or observations worthy of the name.⁷⁸

⁷⁷ https://discourse.biologos.org/t/5-common-objections-to-evolutionary-creationism/3498/28
⁷⁸ p.80, 138, Eldredge, N. 1982. The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. New
York: Washington Square Press.

60
“In other words,” the evolutionist might say, “science works by proposing hypothe-
ses that we can test—hypotheses that future experiments could reveal to be false.”
“For example,” he might say, “gravity is a hypothesis that we can test.”

At this point, let’s pause our hypothetical debate and give it some more context.
Let’s say that the evolutionist and creationist are two biology majors at a local
university. Let’s also say that they’ve been having this intense debate in the univer-
sity dining hall. Perhaps they both are carrying backpacks with textbooks. At this
point in the conversation, the evolutionist picks up one of his textbooks.

Holding the textbook in his hand, the evolutionist explains that gravity predicts
what will happen if he releases his grip on the book. Naturally, gravity predicts
that it will fall to the floor. Should the book begin to levitate instead of falling to
the floor, the evolutionist explains that they would immediately have reason to
question gravity.

(He then releases the book, and it falls to the floor.)

The evolutionist then insists that all scientific claims must meet this standard.
“Until creationism makes testable predictions,” he says, “creationist claims can-
not be admitted to the origins discussion.”

Though my description of this argument is fictional, it bears strong resemblance

to reality—and even to actual court cases. This evolutionary argument is so im-
portant to evolutionists that it has been ensconced in federal law. In 1981–1982,
a federal court tried a case⁷⁹ involving an Arkansas law that dealt with the teach-
ing of creation science in public schools. The law specified that “public schools
within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolu-
tion-science.”⁸⁰ The federal judge overturned this law, partially on the grounds
that creation science was not science. Why not?

The essential characteristics of science are:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable.⁸¹

The court found that

creation science . . . fails to meet these essential characteristics.⁸²

⁷⁹ McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

⁸⁰ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/529/1255/2354824/
⁸¹ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/529/1255/2354824/
⁸² https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/529/1255/2354824/

61
 Though this court case is 40 years old, the insistence that creation science is not
science continues to the present. For example, consider again the popular college
textbook used for biology majors, in which the authors spend an entire chapter
dealing with the evidence for evolution and with the criticisms of it:

The most important feature of scientific hypotheses is that they are testable.
. . . Scientists cannot test the hypothesis that an omnipotent God exists, or
that He created anything, because we do not know what consistent patterns
these hypotheses might predict. [emphasis theirs; p.578, Futuyma and
Kirkpatrick, 2017]

Thus, for evolutionists, their last resort in their battle against creationists is their
insistence that creation science is pseudoscience—a claim about the natural
world that masquerades as true science.

This critique is clever. Consider the implications. When evolutionists label

creation science as pseudoscience, evolutionists are effectively pushing creation
science into the realm of speculation or fantasy. For example, alien abductions,
extrasensory perception, and a whole host of quack medicines also fall into the
category that evolutionists label pseudoscience. In other words, when evolution-
ists dismiss creation science as pseudoscience, they effectively marginalize it as
wacky and uninformed—even stupid. But they accomplish this maneuver with
sophisticated and technical language.

This last resort has been remarkably effective—which is why this remains the
most important argument for evolutionists all over the Western world.

62
 Chapter 13:
Impossible

If you’re a creationist parent or grandparent reading this, what would you do if

the previous chapter came, not from me, but from your child or grandchild? How
would you answer the evolutionary claims? Would you have any answers? Would
you feel overwhelmed? If you’re a veteran to the debate, are you up to speed on
the changes of the last 40 years?

In the next several chapters, we’ll embark on a brief survey of the creation science
changes of the last 100 years, and especially in the last 40 years. I intend to show
you that creation science has matured to such an extent that all the major argu-
ments for evolution have been turned on their head.

1. Evolution is impossible
To Darwin’s credit, when he wrote On the Origin of Species, he proposed a
testable hypothesis. He met the gold standard of science by giving us predictions
which future observations could reveal to be true or false:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
my theory would absolutely break down.⁸³

At the time, Darwin was confident that such tests would fail to disprove evolution:

But I can find out no such case. ⁸⁴

Yet, as we observed earlier, Darwin took a gigantic risk. He proposed a fundamen-

tally genetic hypothesis long before genetics was even a field of science. Indirectly,
Darwin admitted as much:

Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound. Not in one case out of a
hundred can we pretend to assign any reason why this or that part differs,
more or less, from the same part in the parents. But whenever we have the
means of instituting a comparison, the same laws appear to have acted in

⁸³ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
⁸⁴ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

63
 producing the lesser differences between varieties of the same species, and
the greater differences between species of the same genus.⁸⁵

Since genetics wasn’t even a field of science in 1859, this quote is about as close
as we’ll be able to get to Darwin’s views on it. Appropriate for the Victorian era,
Darwin conceded that ignorance, not hard and fast laws, was the rule of the day.

In the 150 years since Darwin’s work, we have made profound advances in our
knowledge of the mechanics of inheritance. Rather than help Darwin’s case, they
have effectively falsified it. For example, how could “numerous, successive, slight
modifications” lead to the origin of male and female? By definition, sexual repro-
duction requires the existence of both genders. For sake of argument, let’s say
that, millions of years ago, a female evolved. How would she have passed on her
“female-ness” to her offspring, if offspring are impossible without a male partner?
How will she maintain this evolutionary advance if males are millions of years
away in the evolutionary future?

This description of sexual reproduction represents a gross oversimplification. Once

modern genetics are brought to bear on the question, the origin of male and female
presents even more challenges to evolution. For example, we now know some of
the precise molecular mechanisms by which sperm and egg meet, and by which
sperm penetrates egg. The critical, well-matched molecular pieces of this reproduc-
tive puzzle must all be in place, or the system fails—and evolution along with it.

The process of sexual reproduction is just one of many “complex organs” that
render the evolutionary explanation for their origin impossible. The biochemist
Michael Behe has extensively documented the evidence for this conclusion in
his book Darwin’s Black Box, published first in 1996. Though Behe accepts an
ancient universe, as well as human-primate common ancestry, he rejects the
mainstream evolutionary mechanism as the creative force behind life. For this po-
sition, Behe has been mercilessly critiqued by evolutionists. Nevertheless, in the
intervening decades since 1996, and despite having ample time in which to find
fault with his conclusions, evolutionists have yet to mount a convincing scientific
answer to his criticisms.⁸⁶

In fact, it’s the outlandish tactics of the critics that sometimes do more to
bolster Behe’s case. For instance, his most recent book—an extension of the
arguments he began in Darwin’s Black Box—was greeted with a prepublication,

⁸⁵ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
⁸⁶ E.g., see the following for an example: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/human-genome/
finding-adam-in-genome-response-to-chapter-2-and-4-adam-and-the-genome-part-1/

64
critical review in the leading peer-reviewed science journal in the US, Science.
Yet it appears that the authors of the critical review—mainstream PhD biolo-
gists—barely read the book before lambasting it.⁸⁷ No wonder that one of Behe’s
colleagues confessed the following:

When I became involved in the intelligent design (ID) movement [i.e., the
movement to which Behe belongs] more than two decades ago, a key reason
was because I was intrigued by the scientists who thought they were finding
discernible evidence throughout nature of intelligent design. I didn’t know
whether these scientists were correct. But I definitely wanted them to have
the freedom to articulate their views in the public square without retribu-
tion. And I wanted to see how the debate played out. . . . In the ensuing
years, I learned a lot more about the scientific arguments for and against in-
telligent design, leading me to conclude that the arguments for ID are pretty
strong. I came to this conclusion partly because of my interactions with
the leading proponents of intelligent design. But there was another reason:
What I discovered reading and interacting with ID’s critics. I’m grateful to
scientists like Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, Francis Collins,
Karl Giberson, and a host of others who have critiqued and denounced ID
over the years. I’m grateful to them for showing me just how convincing the
case for ID really is. Reading their writings, I came across nearly endless
examples of question begging, ad hominem attacks, and hand-waving. What
I didn’t find were serious refutations. In my experience, the critiques offered
of ID were so uniformly bad that it began to dawn on me that the scientists
who supported ID must be right. If even ID’s harshest critics couldn’t come
up with serious criticisms, I concluded that the case made by Behe . . . must
be sound after all.⁸⁸ 

⁸⁷ https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/woo-hoo-in-science-review-of-darwin-devolves-lenski-has-no-
response-to-my-main-argument/; see also https://darwindevolves.com/criticism/
⁸⁸ https://evolutionnews.science/2019/02/darwinists-devolve-review-by-swamidass-lenski-and-
lents-borders-on-fraud/

65
 Chapter 14:
Ambiguous

If you found the preceding chapter persuasive, you might wonder what else we
could possibly have to discuss. After all, if evolution has been effectively falsified,
why discuss it any further? Let’s answer these questions by returning to our hypo-
thetical exchange between the evolutionist and creationist biology majors. Let’s
say that the creationist student asked the evolutionary student to explain, step-
by-step, the origin of male and female. If the evolutionist is well read, he might
respond by conceding that the answer is still the subject of intense research. He
might also respond that he is confident that a satisfactory answer will eventually
be found. Then, he might return to the abundance of evidence for evolution. After
all, even if some tricky challenges still exist for evolution, why should that impact
the abundance of evidence still in support of the concept?

The answer to this question stems from a series of creationist developments

over the last 100 years. Surprisingly, they follow in the scientific footsteps of
Darwin himself.

2. The best evidences for evolution are ambiguous

Darwin’s methods
When he wrote On the Origin of Species, he followed the scientific method. Many
creationists might be surprised at reading that sentence. Why would a creationist
like me endorse Darwin’s methods as scientific? Let’s dig deeper.

Powerful in its own right, the scientific method is, unfortunately, counterintuitive
and poorly understood by most people. For example, despite the frequent use of
“proof,” “proven,” or “unproven” in discussions of science and medicine, these
terms have little use in the process of acquiring scientific knowledge. Instead, to
gain confidence in a scientific idea, you must engage in disproof. In designing and
implementing experiments, researchers seek to disprove the competing hypothe-
ses—and their own. If their hypothesis stands the test of time—if their hypothesis
fails to be disproved—then they gain confidence that they’ve discovered something
real. Conversely, when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, he explicitly set
out to disprove the creationist ideas of his day.

In 1859, creationists attributed the origin of species to special creation by God.

Specifically, they believed that God created each species in its current location. In

66
On the Origin of Species, Darwin explicitly tested—and rejected—this view over
and over again. For example, when discussing the amount of variety in species
and in groups of species, Darwin concluded the following:

From looking at species as only strongly-marked and well-defined variet-

ies, I was led to anticipate that the species of the larger genera [genera is
the plural of genus; a genus is a group of similar species] in each country
would oftener present varieties, than the species of the smaller genera; for
wherever many closely related species (i.e. species of the same genus) have
been formed, many varieties or incipient species ought, as a general rule, to
be now forming. Where many large trees grow, we expect to find saplings.
Where many species of a genus have been formed through variation, cir-
cumstances have been favourable for variation; and hence we might expect
that the circumstances would generally be still favourable to variation. On
the other hand, if we look at each species as a special act of creation,
there is no apparent reason why more varieties should occur in a group
having many species, than in one having few.⁸⁹ [emphasis added]

Regarding the overall pattern in which species can be classified, including the
higher-level categories of classification, Darwin again was explicit in the implica-
tions for special creation:

It is a truly wonderful fact—the wonder of which we are apt to overlook from

familiarity—that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space
should be related to each other in group subordinate to group, in the manner
which we everywhere behold—namely, varieties of the same species most
closely related together, species of the same genus less closely and unequally
related together, forming sections and sub-genera, species of distinct genera
much less closely related, and genera related in different degrees, forming
sub-families, families, orders, sub-classes, and classes. The several subordi-
nate groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem rather to
be clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost
endless cycles. On the view that each species has been independently
created, I can see no explanation of this great fact in the classification of
all organic beings; but, to the best of my judgment, it is explained through
inheritance and the complex action of natural selection, entailing extinc-
tion and divergence of character.⁹⁰ [emphasis added]

Thus, on the theory of descent with modification, the main facts with re-
spect to the mutual affinities of the extinct forms of life to each other and to
living forms, seem to me explained in a satisfactory manner. And they are
wholly inexplicable on any other view.⁹¹ [emphasis added]

⁸⁹ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
⁹⁰ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
⁹¹ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

67
 With respect to the geography of species, Darwin saw clear trouble for the hy-
pothesis that species were created in their present locations:

This general absence of frogs, toads, and newts on so many oceanic islands
cannot be accounted for by their physical conditions; indeed it seems that
islands are peculiarly well fitted for these animals; for frogs have been intro-
duced into Madeira, the Azores, and Mauritius, and have multiplied so as to
become a nuisance. But as these animals and their spawn are known to be
immediately killed by sea-water, on my view we can see that there would be
great difficulty in their transportal across the sea, and therefore why they do
not exist on any oceanic island. But why, on the theory of creation, they
should not have been created there, it would be very difficult to explain.
⁹² [emphasis added]

Darwin also saw the field of homology (i.e., the study of biological similarity) as
especially problematic for special creation:

What can be more curious than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping,
that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise,
and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and
should include the same bones, in the same relative positions? . . . Noth-
ing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of
pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of
final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admit-
ted by Owen in his most interesting work on the ‘Nature of Limbs.’ On the
ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say
that so it is;—that it has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal
and plant.⁹³ [emphasis added]

Most physiologists believe that the bones of the skull are homologous with—
that is correspond in number and in relative connexion with—the elemental
parts of a certain number of vertebræ. The anterior and posterior limbs in
each member of the vertebrate and articulate classes are plainly homolo-
gous. We see the same law in comparing the wonderfully complex jaws and
legs in crustaceans. . . . How inexplicable are these facts on the ordinary
view of creation! Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of
such numerous and such extraordinarily shaped pieces of bone? As Owen
has remarked, the benefit derived from the yielding of the separate pieces
in the act of parturition of mammals, will by no means explain the same
construction in the skulls of birds. Why should similar bones have been cre-
ated in the formation of the wing and leg of a bat, used as they are for such
totally different purposes?⁹⁴ [emphasis added]
92
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
⁹³ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
⁹⁴ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

68
Darwin also understood the logic of those who argued for special creation by
analogy to design. He knew that species looked well designed—and he used this
style of reasoning against special creation:

Rudimentary, atrophied, or aborted organs.—Organs or parts in this strange

condition, bearing the stamp of inutility, are extremely common throughout
nature. . . . I have now given the leading facts with respect to rudimentary
organs. In reflecting on them, every one must be struck with astonishment:
for the same reasoning power which tells us plainly that most parts and
organs are exquisitely adapted for certain purposes, tells us with equal
plainness that these rudimentary or atrophied organs, are imperfect and
useless. In works on natural history rudimentary organs are generally
said to have been created “for the sake of symmetry,” or in order “to
complete the scheme of nature;” but this seems to me no explanation,
merely a restatement of the fact. . . . On the view of descent with modifi-
cation, we may conclude that the existence of organs in a rudimentary,
imperfect, and useless condition, or quite aborted, far from presenting
a strange difficulty, as they assuredly do on the ordinary doctrine of
creation, might even have been anticipated, and can be accounted for by the
laws of inheritance.⁹⁵ [emphasis added]

Darwin even used the quirks of various species in an attempt to disprove

special creation:

In both varieties and species reversions to long-lost characters occur. How

inexplicable on the theory of creation is the occasional appearance of
stripes on the shoulder and legs of the several species of the horse-ge-
nus and in their hybrids! How simply is this fact explained if we believe
that these species have descended from a striped progenitor, in the same
manner as the several domestic breeds of pigeon have descended from the
blue and barred rock-pigeon!⁹⁶ [emphasis added]

Creationists follow Darwin

How are modern creationists following in Darwin’s footsteps? To the surprise of
many modern evolutionists, contemporary creationists agree with many of Darwin’s
disproofs. Along with Darwin, creationists like me also reject the creationism of
1859. The main reason for this shift stems from the plain reading of the Bible.

But let’s start with what the Bible doesn’t say. Since the Bible was written
thousands of years before Linnaeus gave us the term species, it should be no
surprise to learn that the Bible doesn’t explicitly discuss species. Conversely,
the hypothesis that all species were created in their present location doesn’t

⁹⁵ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
⁹⁶ http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

69
 arise from any biblical text. Rather, it arises from the fact that species fit their
environments well—as if they had been specially designed for the environments
in which they currently exist. Simple observation, not biblical literalism, was the
basis for 1859 creationism.

If the Bible doesn’t use the term species, then what relevance does Scripture have
for the origin of species? Any casual reader of the Bible knows that animals—and
life in general—are discussed extensively in the Scriptures. For instance, the Old
Testament law revolves around the slaughtering of animals to atone for sins.
These divine instructions stipulate specific animals for sacrifice—bulls, rams, etc.

Furthermore, Genesis 1 (i.e., the account of the 6-day creation week) and Genesis
6–8 (i.e., the account of Noah’s flood) make many explicit statements about the
origin and survival of animals. In these passages, these statements heavily invoke
the Hebrew term min—often translated into English as kind. Though Hebrew
scholars still debate its precise meaning, context is the key to its meaning.

From the contexts we discussed in chapter 3, we already have a sense for the an-
swer. Among vertebrate animals, a general rule of thumb has emerged: the bibli-
cal kind is best approximated, not by the classification level of species. In fact, the
next level above species—genus—also does not generally equate to a kind. Rather,
the level above genus—family—is generally equivalent to a biblical kind.⁹⁷ This
implies that new species can form within kinds. And, as we derived in chapter 3,
the contexts for min in Scripture imply that one kind cannot change into another.

In short, both Darwin and modern creationists reject the idea that God created
individual species in their current locations. Modern creationists see no biblical
basis for the old and outdated creationist ideas of 1859. Not surprisingly, then,
creationists and evolutionists agree on many of the scientific disproofs of these
concepts, as well.

Furthermore, modern creationists have no problem with the recent discoveries in

Darwin’s finches.⁹⁸ From documented examples of natural selection in the field
to the formation of new species of Darwin’s finches, modern creationists not only
have no problem with these findings, but they also enthusiastically endorse them!

Updating the creation/evolution debate

What, then, could be the basis for the current disagreement—between modern
evolutionists and modern creationists? Modern creationists would argue that
Darwin didn’t go far enough in his application of the scientific method. In other

⁹⁷ Wood, T.C. 2006. “The current status of baraminology.” Creation Research Society Quarterly
43:149–158.
⁹⁸ Sangeet Lamichhaney et al., “Rapid Hybrid Speciation in Darwin’s Finches,” Science, 359, no.
6372 (2018): 224–228.

70
words, Darwin successfully disproved an antiquated creationist idea in 1859.
But he failed to keep going, to keep looking for alternative origins hypotheses and
disproving these. More precisely, modern creationists would argue that modern
evolutionists have failed to continue what Darwin started—that modern evolution-
ists have not carefully applied the scientific method to modern creationist ideas.

Let’s revisit the current evidence for evolution, but with a keen eye to rigorously
apply the scientific method of testing and disproof. For example, take the evidence
from homology—the existence of biological similarity in nature. Darwin said that
“nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern
in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes.” But
does his argument still hold up in the modern era?

To modern evolutionists, the answer is an obvious affirmative. Like Darwin, many

modern evolutionists think the hypothesis of design is hopelessly ambiguous and
unscientific. They ask, “How could anyone know the mind of God?” In one sense,
the answer is that no one can. In another sense, the answer is found in the Bible—
God’s self-revelation of what he thinks and requires and has revealed to mankind.

What does the Bible say about the mind of God, specifically on the question of
the patterns in which he designed the kinds of animals? You won’t find a listing or
explanation in Genesis 1. But you will find the following statement:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27, ESV)

Ask ten theologians what the “image of God” is, and you’ll likely get 10 different
answers. However, as a general rule, these theolo-
gians would agree that the “image of God” connotates
the fact that there is something about humans that
reflects something about God.
Honda
(Asia)
Let’s apply this principle to the natural world. Since
humans reflect something about God, perhaps we can
look at the patterns in which humans design things to
gain insights into the patterns in which God designed
things. For example, human engineers have spent
Chevrolet
countless hours designing cars. Yet, despite being on (North America)
different continents, diverse designers have landed on
a common pattern for the sedan. This fact is not the
result of millions of years of evolution from a common
Mercedes
ancestor. It stems from the fact that the common pat- (Europe)
tern in these sedans fulfills a common purpose. Why
Similarity of sedans despite
wouldn’t God apply the same principle to biology? diverse geographic origins.
Though each of the three car
This logic extends even further to the major contem- manufacturers hails ultimately
from a different continent, the
porary arguments for evolution. Consider: human de- sedans from all three automak-
signers have also exerted countless hours designing ers share a number of features—
four wheels, four doors, sloping
vehicles of all types. Naturally, these vehicles fall into windshields, headlights in the
a groups-within-groups pattern of classification. This front, rearview mirrors, etc.

71
 Species
Genus
Family
Order
Class
Phylum
Kingdom

Biological life and the designed means of transportation share a similar pattern of classification. On the
left, biological populations can be classified in a nested hierarchy, as per Linnaeus’ classification system.
For example, dragonflies and birds are part of the same Kingdom (Animalia). But dragonflies are part of
one Phylum (Arthropoda), and birds, another (Chordata). Birds and elephants are part of the same Phylum,
but they exist in different Classes (birds in Aves; elephants in Mammalia).
On the right, the means of transportation also fall into a natural nested hierarchical system of classification.
For example, power and unpowered means of transportation would be classified in the same Kingdom (i.e.,
they are both means of transportation). But hang gliders would fall in one Phylum (i.e., unpowered means
of transportation), and jets, another (i.e., powered means of transportation). Jets and tanks are part of the
same Phylum, but they exist in different Classes (i.e., jets in the class of airplanes; tanks in the class of land-
based means of transportation).
72
is not because humans deliberately set out to accomplish this goal. “Let’s be sure
to design a slew of vehicles that all happen to fall into a groups-within-groups pat-
tern” is not the instructions that flow from CEO offices around the world. Instead,
this nested hierarchical pattern just happens to be the natural result of human
engineering. How much more so would we expect the results of God’s designs to
follow a similar organizing principle?

Even “transitional forms” intersect the logic that I’ve just laid out. Before we see
how, let’s take a brief historical detour. For decades, creationists and evolutionists
have vigorously debated the existence of transitional forms. Not being a paleontol-
ogist myself, I’ve chosen to circumvent this debate and, for the sake of argument,
act as if transitional forms exist. Yet we’ll soon see that even this generous conces-
sion fails to bolster the evolutionary case for common ancestry.

Aquatic military vehicle: Boat Land military vehicle: Tank

Military vehicle for transitional environments: Amphibious Assault Vehicle

Humans design transitional forms. Military engineers have designed diverse products for moving fire-
power through diverse environments. They have created boats for aquatic environments, tanks for land, and
amphibious assault vehicles for the transitional environment between water and land.

Returning to the analogy between transitional forms and human design, let’s ex-
plore what human military engineers have accomplished. For purposes of intense
all-terrain land combat, military designers have crafted tanks. For purposes of
intense sea battles, military engineers have produced boats and ships (Figure 3).
And for the battles that involve movement from sea to land and vice-versa? For
this “transitional” environment, the military has invented transitional forms—
amphibious assault vehicles (see above). These hybrids combine the features
of tanks and ships to accomplish a unique goal. Why wouldn’t God accomplish
similar purposes in his biological designs?

73
 Let’s consider what we’ve just observed and tally which evolutionary evidences
eliminate which hypotheses. We’ve already seen that evolutionary evidences used
to support common ancestry within a family eliminate the archaic creationist
hypotheses. But they fail to eliminate modern creationist hypotheses—those that
follow from what the Bible actually says. Thus, these evidences cannot be used to
argue for evolution because they are consistent with two very different explana-
tions for the origin of species.

What about the evidences used to argue for universal common ancestry—the
common family tree for all life, all kinds? The main evidences commonly cited
include homology, the nested hierarchical—groups-within-groups—classification
pattern of life, and transitional forms. Yet none of these hypotheses disprove the
modern creationist explanation. Instead, each of these evidences is perfectly con-
sistent with creationist expectations derived from Genesis 1:27. Again, this has
profound implications for the creation/evolution debate. Because these evidences
are consistent with two very different explanations for the origin of species, they
can no longer be used to argue for evolution.

Of the common invoked arguments for evolution, only one directly separates
evolution and creation. As we observed above, the argument against design goes
back to Darwin himself. Today, evolutionists continue to point to organs and
sections of DNA from various species that look poorly designed—or look like
they’ve lost their function. In theory, this would be an excellent way to disprove
the modern creationist hypotheses.

Nevertheless, the trajectory of this argument does not bode well for evolution.
Effectively, this anti-design argument is an argument from silence. “We don’t see
evidence for good design or for function” is an argument from the absence of evi-
dence for function. Perhaps not surprisingly, over the past 150 years, this silence
has been filled with experiments and discoveries—which are increasingly revealing
unanticipated functions that render the original evolutionary argument void.⁹⁹

Thus, on every count, none of the major arguments for evolution—or against cre-
ation science—disprove the modern creationist views.¹⁰⁰ This observation means
that the major evidences for evolution are ambiguous.

⁹⁹ See the following:

Bergman, J. 2019. Poor Design: An Invalid Argument Against Intelligent Design. Tulsa, OK: BP Books.
Bergman, J. 2019. Useless Organs: The Rise and Fall of a Central Claim of Evolution. Tulsa, OK:
BP Books.
¹⁰⁰ The content of this chapter is discussed in much more detail in chapters 4 and 5 of Jeanson,
N.T. 2017. Replacing Darwin. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

74
Ambiguous again
To see the significance of this, consider an analogy to a court of law. Let’s say that a
defendant is on trial for murder. The prosecution corrals a mountain of evidence im-
plicating the defendant in the crime. All signs point toward his guilt. Then the defense
attorney steps up and points out a glaring hole in the prosecution’s argument—the
mountain of evidence is equally compatible with the defendant’s innocence.

For example, let’s say the cited evidence includes a pistol found at the scene of
the crime. Let’s say that this pistol matches the type of pistol that the defendant
has been known to possess and prefer. The evidence also includes the fact that
the victim and defendant are next-door neighbors. In addition, the prosecution
points out that the crime happened at 1:00 a.m.—an hour at which the defendant
is known to be awake.

What could the defense attorney do? If the suspect happens to be a police
officer who works third shift; who happens to be an upstanding member of his
local church, a father of six, and a gentle personality with no history of anger or
violence issues; and who was documented to be on vacation in another state 500
miles away on the night that the murder was committed, then the case against
him falls apart.

Similarly, the popular evidences for evolution might all seem to implicate Dar-
win’s ideas as correct. But they fail to be convincing when held up against alterna-
tive explanations—which fit the same evidences equally well.

The modern advance of creation science has reset the origins debate.

75
 Chapter 15:
Unqualified

If you found the preceding chapters persuasive, you might again wonder what
else we could possibly have to discuss. If evolution has been effectively falsified,
and if the major evidences for evolution are ambiguous, what’s left of the debate?
Again, let’s answer this question by returning to our hypothetical exchange be-
tween the evolutionist and creationist biology majors. At this stage of the discus-
sion, the evolutionary student might return to the survey results. Again, these
statistics represent a powerful challenge to the creationist position—and to this
book. If what I’m saying is true, then why do so many smart—and professionally
trained—scientists reject it?

When discussing my views with reporters, I often receive this question in a slight-
ly different form. The conversation tends to go like this:

Reporter: So you’re a creationist?

Jeanson: Yes.

Reporter: So you disagree with the vast majority of scientists who accept the
evidence for evolution?

Jeanson: Yes.

Reporter: How do you explain that? Is there a grand conspiracy to hide the
incriminating evidence against evolution? Is there a coordinated campaign to
keep the truth away from prying eyes? Or do you throw out the discipline of
science entirely?

Obviously, all of these suggested options are rather poisonous to the creationist
position. To invoke a massive conspiracy is, essentially, to impugn the motives
of the vast majority of scientists. Just like the evolutionary accusation that
creationists are liars, this option is the converse of that—but on a much larger
scale, since so many people are involved. On the other hand, throwing out sci-
ence entirely is about as backwards an answer as it gets. Who would, in a sane
state of mind, insist that all the technological advances of the past few thousand
years should be tossed aside?

76
Perhaps not surprisingly, when being interviewed by reporters, I choose neither
of these options. Instead, I lay out a third explanation for why the consensus
rejects creationism. (When giving this explanation, I’ve seen at least one reporter
put down his pen and stop taking notes.)

3. The consensus is not qualified to adjudicate the debate

Living in a bubble
Let’s imagine a scenario where a group of PhD scientists has been born and
raised in a windowless underground laboratory. They eat there, sleep there, work
there, and never leave the building to encounter the outside world. One day, you
decide to pay them a visit. Curious, you ask them how our planet is illuminated by
day. “Oh, that’s easy,” they respond. “Fluorescent and LED lights!”

Puzzled, you press them further. “Don’t you know that the sun illuminates earth?”
“Oh, no; no one here agrees with that. In fact, the overwhelming majority of the
scientists in this room knows that the world is illuminated by light bulbs. The
evidence is overwhelming! Just look above you!”

“Have you ever stepped outside this room to test the hypothesis that, perhaps, the
sun illuminates the globe?” you ask.

This silly, little story has many parallels to the modern scientific enterprise. In
short, the vast majority of scientists, who also happen to accept evolution, has
been trained in a bubble. From kindergarten to graduate school, the legal system
in the United States forbids the teaching of creation science in public school
classrooms. Effectively, this means that the professional scientists—those who are
part of the AAAS—spend their entire careers never being required to read a single
technical creationist paper. They are never taught the modern creation view. They
are not instructed on the creationist hypotheses that compete with evolution.

Thus, no conspiracy needs to be invoked. What I’ve described is simply the empir-
ical reality of education in the Western world.

I’ve witnessed this reality firsthand. Within the last 10 years, I’ve been involved in
creation science professionally and full time. I’m a habitual reader of the pro-
fessional evolutionary literature, and I’ve also read popular books from leading
evolutionists. Yet modern evolutionists still seem to think that modern creation-
ists have done little since 1859 to update their creationist views. For example,
consider Jerry Coyne’s description of creation science:

It was Darwin who first took a hard look at [the patterns of animals on
oceanic islands]. . . . These distributions [of plants and animals across the
globe] raised a lot of questions. Why did oceanic islands have such odd and
unbalanced floras and faunas compared to continental assemblages? Why
were nearly all of Australia’s native mammals marsupials, while placental
77
 mammals dominated the rest of the world? And if species were created,
why did the creator stock distant areas having similar terrain and climate,
like the deserts of Africa and of the Americas, with species that were super-
ficially similar in form but showed other, more fundamental differences?

Pondering these questions, others before Darwin laid the groundwork

for his own intellectual synthesis—one he considered so important that it
occupies two whole chapters in The Origin. These chapters are often con-
sidered the founding document of the field of biogeography—the study of the
distribution of species on earth. . . . The biogeographic evidence for evolution
is now so powerful that I have never seen a creationist book, article, or lecture
that has tried to refute it. Creationists simply pretend that the evidence
doesn’t exist. ¹⁰¹

Pretend that the evidence doesn’t exist? Perhaps the creationists of 1859 thought
this. They would have had reason to avoid the evidence because it contradicted
the hypothesis that God created creatures in their current locations. Darwin
showed that the evidence indicated that species migrated to their current loca-
tions. And some evidence even suggested common ancestry (between species
within the same family). But modern creationists happily embrace the biogeo-
graphic evidence. In fact, I have a whole chapter (chapter 4) in Replacing Darwin
that basically restates Darwin’s case—and endorses it. Darwin’s evidences find
no conflict with modern creationist views. But Coyne thinks they do, apparently,
because he doesn’t know what modern creationists believe.

For example, Coyne’s ignorance is born out in the paragraph that follows the
quote that I just gave:

Ironically, the roots of biogeography lie deep in religion. The earliest “nat-
ural theologians” tried to show how the distribution of organisms could be
reconciled with the account of Noah’s Ark in the Bible. All living animals
were understood as the descendants of the pairs that Noah took aboard,
pairs that traveled to their present locations from the Ark’s postflood resting
place (traditionally near Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey). But this expla-
nation had obvious problems. . . . As naturalists continued to discover new
species of plants and animals, even the staunchest believer realized that no
boat could possibly hold them all.¹⁰²

Perhaps the ark was too small to hold millions of species. But kinds? No prob-
lem—they fit just fine. And it’s not just because of the kind-species distinction.
It’s also because the ark is only intended for the land-dependent, air-breathing

¹⁰¹ p.88, Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why evolution is true. New York, New York: Viking.
¹⁰² pp.88–89, Coyne, J. A. 2009. Why evolution is true. New York, New York: Viking.

78
(Genesis 7:15) animals. No need to take fish on an ark to survive a flood! In fact,
the number of kinds—living and extinct—that Noah was commanded to take on
board the ark is less than 2,000. ¹⁰³

Yes, Replacing Darwin explains this. But my book was written eight years after
Coyne’s. If mine was the only word on this topic, perhaps the temporal order of
our publications could explain Coyne’s view on the subject. However, the modern
creationist view of kinds goes back at least 70 years to the founder of the modern
young-earth creationist movement.¹⁰⁴ If Coyne had been taught what modern
creationists believe, perhaps he might have avoided this misstep.

Coyne isn’t the only example. The problem appears to be systemic. I’ve document-
ed several examples.¹⁰⁵

Some examples are so outlandish that they defy belief. For instance, in fall of
2018, I agreed to debate Dr. Herman Mays Jr., an evolutionary biologist at Mar-
shall University. We agreed to make Replacing Darwin the focus of our exchange.
(I was eager to have a public peer review of my book by hostile parties.) Yet, as
any viewer can verify for themselves,¹⁰⁶ Mays never bothered to familiarize him-
self with my arguments. After the debate, I learned why. Several years earlier, he
had publicly articulated his strategy for dealing with creation science:

Over the past 40 years I’ve adopted many different thoughts on the best way
to engage Creationists but lately I keep coming back to a quote from one of
these Enlightenment inspired founders. Thomas Jefferson said, “Ridicule is
the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.” As
purely articles of some particular sectarian religious conviction creationist
ideas deserve the respect afforded to any religious ideology and should be
debated alongside other theological positions, however when presented as if
they are scientific propositions creationist ideas have earned our ridicule.¹⁰⁷

If you watch our debate, you’ll see that he approached the subject with all the seri-
ousness of someone who thinks creation science doesn’t even deserve a hearing.

In other words, not only are professional scientists raised in a bubble and prac-
tice their careers in a bubble; they also deliberately choose to live in a bubble,
ridiculing any opposition as outrageous and unworthy of serious consideration.

103
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-all-animals-fit-ark/
104
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/follow-up-to-professor-keathleys-erroneous-claims/
105
https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/why-dont-more-people-accept-the-young-earth-
view-of-speciation/; see also the section titled “Why Don’t More Scientists Accept These Conclusions?” in
the following: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/genetics-confirms-recent-super-
natural-creation-adam-and-eve/#conclusion
106
https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/replacing-darwin-debate-stage-report/
107
http://www.monofilia.org/blog/2014/2/5/in-praise-of-ridicule-our-last-weapon-against-the-unintellig.html

79
 Peer review?
This observation goes even deeper than most people realize. To see this, let’s
consider another common objection to creation science. In addition to invoking
the fact that the vast majority of professional scientists reject creation science,
many critics of creationism object to the publication record of creation scientists.
For example, they deem Replacing Darwin as unscientific and unworthy of con-
sideration because the conclusions were not published in a mainstream scientific
journal. In other words, this argument is simply a version of, “Why don’t more
people agree with you?”

Yet this argument is also more sophisticated because it invokes the formal sci-
entific process by which most hypotheses are evaluated and vetted—peer review.
Peer review is the critical evaluation of ideas by fellow peers—in this case, other
science PhDs with training in the field in which the new hypotheses makes its
claims. It is true that creationist hypotheses are not found in the mainstream,
peer-reviewed literature. But does this mean that professional scientists have
examined these ideas and found them wanting?

In 1982, a federal court replied in the affirmative:

The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and

internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology,
paleontology, geology and astronomy. Their work is published and subject
to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both
numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific
journal which has published an article espousing the creation science
theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State’s witnesses suggested
that the scientific community was “close-minded” on the subject of creation-
ism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science argu-
ments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication
had been refused. Perhaps some members of the scientific community are
resistant to new ideas. It is, however, inconceivable that such a loose knit
group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or
would, so effectively censor new scientific thought.¹⁰⁸ [emphasis added]

I’ve been surprised to discover just how all-encompassing the evolutionary bubble
is—not just in the court system, but among professional scientists themselves.
Not only does the vast majority of professional scientists seem to be ignorant of
modern creationist views, but they also appear to be ignorant of the practices of
their own peer-reviewed journals. Consider: the peer-review objection to creation
science assumes that peer-reviewed journals would entertain and scientifically
evaluate creationist hypotheses. The objection assumes that scientists would be
open to reevaluating the evidence for evolution.

108
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/529/1255/2354824/

80
In practice, this assumption is incorrect. For example, in 2012, a group of
mainstream scientists published the results of a comprehensive biochemical
evaluation of DNA function in the human genome (i.e., the entirety of human
DNA). The authors claimed that they found support for function in 80% of our
DNA.¹⁰⁹ Conversely, a group of evolutionists insisted that this conclusion must
be wrong. Why? Because it disagreed with evolution.¹¹⁰ Furthermore, this entire
exchange happened in the mainstream, peer-reviewed literature. In other words,
the mainstream, peer-reviewed literature does not treat evolution as one of many
hypotheses to be tested. Instead, it uses evolution as the test of any other hypothe-
sis. Those that disagree must be wrong.

In short, the objection to creation science based on the publication record of its
adherents is, ultimately, circular in nature.

Thus, evolutionists are largely ignorant of what modern creationists actually

propose, and they are ignorant by training and by choice. Practically, this makes
them unqualified to adjudicate the modern creation/evolution debate. How can
evolutionists use the scientific method to disprove a hypothesis if they don’t even
know the hypothesis exists?

¹⁰⁹ ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. “An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the
human genome.” Nature 489:57–74.
¹¹⁰ Graur, D., Zheng, Y., Price, N., Azevedo, R. B., Zufall, R. A., and Elhaik, E. 2013. “On the
Immortality of Television Sets: ‘Function’ in the Human Genome According to the Evolution-Free
Gospel of ENCODE.” Genome Biology and Evolution 5(3):578–590.

81
 Chapter 16:
The Gold Standard

Evolutionists have a ready answer to the question that closed the preceding chap-
ter. They see no need to familiarize themselves with creation science hypotheses.
Why? Because, they say, creation science isn’t science. It’s religion masquerading
as science—pseudoscience. It doesn’t make testable predictions!

You might recall from previous chapters that this rejoinder has been a long-stand-
ing last resort for evolutionists. Perhaps the reason for this fact is now clearer—
it’s a very useful tool when all other arguments fail.

We’ll soon see that the march of creation science has outsize consequences for
this most important objection, as well.

4. Creation science has met and exceeded the gold standard of

science
If creationists were to simply put in print some statements about the natural
world that future observations could reveal to be true or false, this would be a
huge advance. On its face, it would seem to fulfill the long-standing requirement
that creationists make testable predictions. In fact, creationists have a de-
cades-long history of this.

But creationists have also done much more than this. For example, in Replacing
Darwin, I put several testable predictions in print, on topics ranging from field
studies to DNA mutation rates. For example, I spent a whole chapter (chapter 6
of Replacing Darwin) walking the reader through specific, testable young-earth
creationist expectations on the rate at which new species should form. Chap-
ter 6 of Replacing Darwin is effectively one long math argument, calculating
specific species-per-year rates from the first principles of creation science. In
the endnotes, I gave the reader the means to do similar calculations for reptiles,
amphibians, and birds.

Let’s dig deeper with birds. Today, the scientific community recognizes nearly
11,000 species of birds.¹¹¹ If all of these arose from the bird kinds onboard the

¹¹¹ http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/taxonomy

82
ark, then 11,000 species would have formed in just 4,500 years. On average, this
implies a rate of 2–3 new species per year: 11,000 species / 4,500 years = 2.4
new species per year. This average is compatible with many new species forming
after the flood, and then fewer forming near the present. It’s also compatible with
the reverse pattern. As an average, it represents the general rule.

In contrast, evolutionists expect birds to form much more slowly. They put the
origin of modern bird evolution around 35 million years ago. This implies an av-
erage rate of speciation of 0.0003, or one new species every 3,200 years: 11,000
species / 35 million years = 0.0003 (one new species every 3,182 years).

Four months after my book was published, Peter and Rosemary Grant’s team an-
nounced the discovery of a new species of Darwin’s finches.¹¹² The implications
for my predictions are easy to evaluate. For example, let’s start with the history of
these finches. Darwin was responsible for their initial discovery and announce-
ment to the scientific world. He and John Gould announced these species in
1837.¹¹³ By 2015, the scientific community recognized the existence of 18 total
species of Darwin’s finches.¹¹⁴

To keep the calculation conservative, let’s say that all of these 18 species had been
in existence long before Darwin ever arrived on the Galápagos Islands. Grant-
ed, the definition of a species sometimes involves genetic data, and DNA wasn’t
recognized as the substance of heredity until 1953. Therefore, it would have been
impossible to track genetic changes in species until long after Darwin died. Nev-
ertheless, we’ll take the conservative route and assume no new species formed
until the new one was announced in 2018.

Simple math reveals the rate at which these species form. The time span from
1837 to 2018 represents 181 years. One new species has formed in this elapsed
period. 1 new species / 181 years = 0.0055 new species per year. This is the im-
plied rate at which Darwin’s finches form new species.

To compare this rate to the predictions we observed above, we need to convert

this local rate to a global rate. Practically, our conversion factor is the number of
total bird species (11,000) divided by the number of Darwin’s finches (18). Thus,
the implied global rate of bird speciation is 3–4 new bird species per year: 1 new
species / 181 years × 11,000 global species / 18 local species = 3.4 new species
per year. This prediction is right in line with creationist expectations—and way off
the expectations of evolution.

¹¹² Sangeet Lamichhaney et al., “Rapid Hybrid Speciation in Darwin’s Finches,” Science, 359, no.
6372 (2018): 224–228.
¹¹³ Lack, D. 1968. Darwin’s Finches. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Weiner, J.
1994. The Beak of the Finch: A story of evolution in our time. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
¹¹⁴ Lamichhaney, S., et al. 2015. “Evolution of Darwin’s Finches and Their Beaks Revealed by
Genome Sequencing.” Nature 518(7539):371–375.

83
 To be sure, no one knows if this new species will survive. It’s also just one exam-
ple of tens of thousands of animal species around the globe. However, I have yet
to see evolutionists produce a study that documents years of observation of a
group of species but shows no formation of new species. I’ve invited evolutionists
to disprove my predictions.¹¹⁵ None have done so.

With respect to other predictions in my book, a tiny group of evolutionists have

attempted to refute my findings.¹¹⁶ Only one has rigorously attempted to engage¹¹⁷
chapter 7, which represents the fulcrum of my arguments. In chapter 7, I dis-
cussed the existence of DNA “clocks.” For example, with each of us, we have DNA
timers that have marked the passage of time since our species began. It just so
happens that these clocks have marked the lapse of only 6,000 years—exactly in
line with young-earth creationist expectations.

These findings were so strong that I made predictions for DNA timers in other
human ethnic groups in which the clock has yet to be measured. I also challenged
evolutionists to do the same—to meet their own standard of insisting on testable
predictions. I also found this specific example to be especially critical for evolu-
tion. Evolution is ultimately supposed to be driven by mistakes in DNA. These
DNA mistakes are the basis for the DNA “clock.” It would be a great irony if
creationists made successful predictions about the rate at which these clocks tick.
It would be even more ironic if evolutionists refused to do the same.

My evolutionary critic—a graduate student in evolutionary biology—had this to say

in response:

The ability to make predictions is important, but Jeanson isn’t the arbiter of
what specific data must be predicted for a model to be scientific. ¹¹⁸

If you read his entire critique, you won’t find a single prediction that future obser-
vations could reveal to be false.

Among the modern evolutionary and creationist positions, which one is meeting
the gold standard of science?

¹¹⁵ https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/bombshell-replacing-darwin/
¹¹⁶ As one illustration, see the following:
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/no-replacement-of-darwin/
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/no-replacement-of-darwin-response/
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/still-no-replacement-of-darwin/
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/still-no-replacement-darwin-response/
¹¹⁷ https://evograd.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/reviewing-replacing-darwin-part-6-jeansons-ful-
crum-fails/
¹¹⁸ https://evograd.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/reviewing-replacing-darwin-part-6-jeansons-ful-
crum-fails/

84
Summary and Conclusion
In this little book, we’ve explored the origin of species and the history of evolu-
tionary thought. We’ve also let the evolutionists make their strongest case for
evolution. Yet we’ve seen that these arguments rest on ignorance of the advances
in creation science. We’ve also seen that, at times, these arguments also rest on
ignorance of their own literature!

Throughout our discussion, I have endeavored to present this update in summary

form for sake of space. In Replacing Darwin, I go into the key arguments in much
more detail. I consider evolutionary rejoinders, and I defend my positions with
more technical explanations. Replacing Darwin also has an extensive bibliogra-
phy, which contains even more technical support for my conclusions. If you have
found this book intriguing, but desire a deeper conversation, I invite you to read
Replacing Darwin and to dialogue on the Facebook page by the same name.

Naturally, the scientific conclusions I’ve reached here have immediate implica-
tions for wider philosophical and religious questions. I’ve shown that modern
biology is abundantly consistent with the plain reading of the Bible, especially of
Genesis. Genesis opens with a majestic description of the ultimate Designer and
Creator, who spoke into existence the entire universe and created the first kinds
of creatures. Genesis shows him to be holy—separate, far above mankind, and
without flaw or fault. Nothing he does can be opposed. Of all that he commands
to happen, not one command fails. Genesis also describes him as good—a reas-
suring relief in light of his incomparable power.

When Genesis 1 describes the first people, it describes them, not as gods, but as
in the image of God. They and their descendants (i.e., all of us!) are the creations
of the Divine. As such, we naturally owe him our thanks and praise.

Sadly, all of us have neglected this. And many have expressed open rebellion
against him. For these cosmic crimes, God promises present and future judg-
ment—eternity in hell for those who reject him. However, because of his great love
and mercy, God has provided a way to escape his wrath. He sent his perfect Son,
Jesus, who was born of a virgin, lived a perfect and sinless life, yet was crucified
unjustly at the hands of sinful men. God poured out his wrath on Jesus and then
raised him from the dead after three days, demonstrating his satisfaction with
Jesus’ substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf. Those who receive Jesus’ sacrifice
and repent of their sins are promised a return to a perfect creation—a new heaven
and earth in which God will once again dwell with man.

I trust that as you consider your past, and the history of life on this planet, you will
consider your future and repent, trusting Jesus for salvation.
85
86
 Image Credits
Unless specified, images licensed from Getty Images.

Page 38
Bob Goldstein, UNC Chapel Hill, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cele-
gansGoldsteinLabUNC.jpg.
André Karwath aka Aka, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drosophi-
la_melanogaster_-side(aka).jpg.
Paul Hebert, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daphnia_pulex.png.

Page 42
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rana_sylvatica_eggs_SC.jpg.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Lithobates_sylvati-
cus_%28Woodfrog%29.jpg.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Herpailurus_yagouaroun-
di_Jaguarundi_ZOO_D%C4%9B%C4%8D%C3%ADn.jpg.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Sumatran_Tiger_Ber-
lin_Tierpark.jpg.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Cheetah_5.jpg.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Lion_waiting_in_Namib-
ia.jpg.

Page 72
All images public domain.

Page 73
All except bottom left and the right top three are from Shutterstock.com; the
remaining four are from Wikimedia Commons, with credits to Javier Casado
Tirado, M 93, order_242 from Chile, and Aude.

Page 74
Bottom images public domain; top images from Shutterstock.com and Wikimedia
Commons, with credit to Matt.

87
88
 Replacing Darwin Made Simple
REPLACING
The creation/evolution debate
DARWIN
has changed. Are you prepared Made Simple
for the consequences?
Over the past 40 years, the creation/evolution debate has undergone a
dramatic shift. Thanks to several monumental discoveries in genetics,
creationists and evolutionists have watched their roles reverse. In ad-
dition, the factual basis for landmark court decisions in this debate has
dissolved. These cataclysmic swings were documented in the in-depth,
technical book Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species. The

Nathaniel T. Jeanson, PhD

book you hold communicates the same conclusions—but in a more
accessible, lay-friendly way to help you understand and prepare for the
modern origins debate.

About the Author

Nathaniel T. Jeanson received his BS in molecular biology and bioinformatics from the
University of Wisconsin-Parkside and his PhD in cell and developmental biology from
Harvard University. Over the last 10 years, he has led the biological research programs
first at the Institute for Creation Research and then at Answers in Genesis, resulting
in the publication of numerous papers on the origin of species. He is also the author of
Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species.

ISBN 978-1-9844-0265-3
Nathaniel T. Jeanson, PhD
9 781984 402653