Welcome to the Home Page of the
Creekview Church of Christ

Contact Us
Work List
What's New
Scientific Fact

A discovery that has made the news recently is of the fossilized remains of a large, bird-like dinosaur found in China that scientists are calling a “Gigantoraptor.”  According to the scientists, this creature was about twenty-six feet long, had a beak (no teeth) and feathers, and stood at about twice the height of a man.  They also claim that it lived 85 million years ago.

This discovery has caused scientists to rethink their previous assertions that carnivorous dinosaurs became smaller and smaller as they evolved over thousands and millions of years.  Prior to this, scientists taught that predatory dinosaurs became smaller and more bird-like as they evolved.  Now they have to modify their theory to account for this new discovery.

This story has interest to those of us who believe in the creation account of Genesis because it demonstrates the unreliability of the theory of evolution.  The truth is that discoveries such as this one have been made many times, causing scientists to modify the theory of evolution again and again.  In fact, the theory has been in constant flux ever since Darwin published Origin of the Species.  This is why timelines for evolution have been extended from thousands of years to millions of years and even to billions of years.  As more and more evidence is collected, the theory becomes less and less plausible and requires massive revisions just to keep it in the realm of so-called science.

Yet we have been told for years that evolution is a fact of science.  In May of 1966, Hermann J. Muller published a manifesto which stated that evolution is a “firmly established” fact of science.  The manifesto was signed by 177 of the world’s most prominent scientists, such as Carl Sagan and John T. Bonner.  Others have made similar statements, such as Sir Julian Huxley, who said in 1960, “The first point to make about Darwin’s theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact.”  Many other similar statements have been made, most of which are intended to influence and intimidate non-scientists into accepting evolution as a fact and crush any remaining notions that God created the world in six days.

The obvious problem with calling evolution a fact is that it does not fit the definition of a fact.  A fact is defined in Webster’s dictionary as “a thing known to be true.”  How can evolution be called a fact when what was thought to be true about evolution a few years ago is known to be false today?  How can it be called a fact when the explanation of it is constantly changing and being modified?  How can it be called a fact when it is impossible to prove it as a fact by the scientific method that all scientists live by?  By scientific standards, evolution is not a fact, but a theory, and a poor theory at that.

Admittedly, belief in creation by God is a faith and not a fact in scientific terms.  Yet the believer in creation gladly admits this, for this is exactly what the Bible instructs him to do – “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible” (Heb. 11:3).  By this explanation, we understand that we will not be able to prove God’s creation through the scientific method, for that method measures only those things that can be seen, i.e., things that can be experienced and observed in a physical way.

Therefore, let us make a comparison.  The evolutionist looks at the available evidence, devises a theory of evolution, calls it a fact, and modifies it again and again as it is proven to be wrong.  On the other hand, the creationist looks at the available evidence, considers the Bible’s explanation for it, and accepts the credibility of the creation account by faith without wavering or modifying his belief.  Which of these approaches is more logical?  Which is more appealing to a reasonable mind?  Which is more satisfying?  The evidence appears to be stacked in favor of the creationist.  Evolutionists seem to be motivated by something more than science as they stubbornly refuse to give up their theory.  Personally, I think that they are afraid to admit the alternative of God’s creation, but that is just my theory. 

Stacey E. Durham



Direct Page Link
Powered By
Click here to host your
own church web site today!