Occasionally, news articles come to our attention which contain data that really throw a “monkey wrench” into the theory of evolution. Let me mention three such items I noted a few years ago.

Mount Saint Helens

Evolutionary scientists date the earth at approximately 4.5 to 5 billion years old. Most folks are not aware that there is really no incontrovertible scientific proof to establish these fantastic dates. They are grounded in a series of assumptions that are based upon evolutionary premises. In other words, the “clock” is rigged to provide the “long ages” of earth’s history.

Why is this the case? Because, as everyone concedes, time is an absolutely essential ingredient in the Darwinian scheme. Dr. George Wald of Harvard called it the “hero of the plot.” Evolutionists need vast amounts of time for the millions of evolutionary changes to occur which would produce the amoebae-to-man phenomenon.

It has been demonstrated many times, however, that the “evolutionary clocks” are terribly flawed (see Jackson 2003). Here is a somewhat recent example.

Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site.

Not long ago, the lava dome was dated by the radiometric method. Guess how old it turned out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

The fossil record of degeneration

Here is another interesting item. Tens of millions of fossils have been found beneath the surface of the earth that provide us with a veritable library of what life was like upon the ancient earth. And the record contains some surprising mysteries.

For instance, one of the foundation stones of the evolutionary theory is that of “natural selection.” This is the idea that in the struggle of life the stronger survive while the weaker are eliminated. This was Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.”

While there is some truth in the principle, it is taken much too far by the disciples of Darwin. If this has been the guiding factor in evolution, over vast periods of time, one would expect to find in the fossil record evidence of the increasing hardiness of the species as time passes.

Actually, just the opposite is true. The fossil record bears mute testimony to the fact of degeneration. Earth’s creatures were much more robust in the past than they now are.

For example, the January 2000 issue of National Geographic magazine reports the discovery of a huge depository of fossils in a large cave in Brazil. It contained, for instance, the skull of a spider monkey that was twice the size of modern spider monkeys. The fossil of a twenty-foot ground sloth was also discovered. These discoveries literally shout, “Digression!”—not progression.

Rapid fossil creation

It is commonly believed that fossils take vast ages to form; this, supposedly, is another of those “proofs” employed by novices to suggest an earth millions of years old.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense, of course, when you think about the fact that when animals die, they are usually consumed by other animals, or simply decay away.

But here is a bizarre news item: According to an article published on January 5, 2000, by the Reuters News Service, doctors in Taiwan recently performed surgery on a seventy-six-year-old woman. In her abdomen they discovered a fossilized fetus that had been conceived forty-six years ago.

The report asserted that only three such cases have been recorded in history. The tiny fetus (0.7 ounce) had solidified into a rock-like substance, hardened by calcium buildup.

The theory of evolution is so besieged with problems that it’s amazing it is so widely believed. But then, most people do not investigate. They simply believe what they are told—especially when it has the fumes of “science.”

Many scientists have a vested interest in pushing evolution. Why is that? Because the only other alternative is creation. And that, of course, points to God—and a responsibility to him.

So for them, that is simply out of the question.