Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

The People Who Deliberately Forget
2 Peter 3:3-6
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers...
Uniformitarianism is a big word to describe the prevailing scientific philosophy of the world. It is the idea that everything in nature has proceeded in a regular and smooth fashion since the start...

Many Scientists Do Not Accept Evolution

Have you ever heard evolutionists brashly claim that all legitimate scientists believe in evolution? Actually, this is one of their favorite things to say, thinking that this will instantly silence creationists. The fact is - some of the greatest scientists who ever lived believed in biblical creation.

For instance, James Clerk Maxwell was a Bible-believer who developed complex theoretical and mathematical explanations for all the forces in the universe except gravity and nuclear forces. Albert Einstein said that Maxwell made greater contributions to physics than anyone except Isaac Newton.

Sir Isaac Newton is best known for his discoveries of the law of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion. Newton also built the first reflecting telescope, and he developed calculus into the branch of mathematics it is today. Newton was a creationist who actually wrote more papers about theology than science.

Another great scientist - Robert Boyle - did pioneering work in both chemistry and physics. Boyle, too, was a Bible-believer who opposed those who questioned the truth of the Bible.

But what about scientists today? Are any of them skeptical of Darwinism? Many friends of Creation Moments are scientists who believe that Darwinism is unsupported by the evidence. And take a look at the credentials of hundreds of scientists who signed the Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list. This list represents only a fraction of those who dissent from Darwinism; many of them remain silent out of concern they would lose their jobs.

So the next time you hear someone say that no true scientists are creationists, copy and paste this entire blog entry into an e-mail and send it to them.


There is some circularity in the Darwinian mind. It goes like this:

1. Evolutionist says: "All scientists accept evolution."
2. Skeptic responds: "But scientist X doesn't believe in evolution."
3. Evolutionist responds: "Well, he is not a

I don't know any evolutionist who says that.
I would say that people who blindly believe the world is 6000 to 10 000 years old are not willing to use scientific methods to prove their claims. They just don't. That is not very scientific, it's just faith.
You can't talk about "creation-science" because it's not scientific. They don't have any evidence to support their claims apart from the bible, which is historically very inaccurate.

First, Newton was born in the mid 1600s, Boyle was born about 20 years prior, and Maxwell was born in the 1830s and lived until the 1870s. The Origin of Species was not published until late 1859. Newton and Boyle were not alive at the time of publication so they did not agree nor reject evolutionary theory.
Second, They were all men of physical science not life science. ( Yes they were all "real scientist" but in a different field.)
Third, This article is misleading in that it distorts the truth by putting words in the mouths of dead scientists. The only real truth here is that Maxwell was very religious yet I am not sure on his stance regarding evolution.

Kyle, you need to remember that the hypothesis of evolution existed long before Darwin - the idea was not his own. The point we were making is that many scientists - of the past and present - do not accept a materialistic explanation of origins. Regarding your other point, if you'll look at the list of scientists in the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list, you will find a number of present-day scientists in the life sciences. So the assertion that all scientists accept evolution is simply untrue.

One final point. We did not put any words into the mouths of dead scientists. We merely quoted their own words. Incidentally, evolutionists constantly quote Darwin, Gould, Sagan and many others who are dead. Their words - just like the words of people like Newton, Boyle and Maxwell - are important to the discussion over origins.

Seeing that Boyle and Newton were long dead before the publication of the Origin of Species they would have had no chance to to review the idea ( I doubt they would have seeing that they were physical scientist). I don't see the "quotes in their own words" that you have indicated within the article but I do hope that you include them if they exist.

Darwin founded the idea of natural selection and supported it with evidence. The idea of transmutation was around before Darwin yet was not highly thought of due to the lack of evidence at the time. Darwin showed that species changed over time based upon selection of adventitious traits with in a genetic population. Are you suggesting that differing species have no relation to one another and appeared in their current forms without the ability to change genetically and phenotypically? ( I am trying to understand your point). I think that you are possibly thinking of Lamarck's hypothesis or even abiogenesis as a whole.

I have made no claim that all biologist accepted evolution. I have however yet to meet one that has rejected it (Many of them religious). What would you say the percentage of biologist who accept evolution is? Would you say that it is the majority or the minority? Many of the scientist on the discovery institute's list lack a degree in life sciences. Even if you include all of the names posted on the list, assuming they are all valid, it is still a small fraction of the total number of scientist. While I really have no problem with the idea of intelligent design it appears as philosophy rather than a science because it does not test anything.

Finally, I do not like the term "evolutionist" because it makes a scientific theory appear as a social concept (such as Capitalist or Communist among others). I don't know who has been quoting Darwin, Gould or Sagan (Not a life scientist) to you but I would suggest hard data that is peer reviewed. Could you please cite your sources in the future? Does intelligent design have anything that is peer reviewed and testable? If not it does not fall into the realm of science. I furthermore fail to see how evolution is not compatible with christianity because they focus on differing questions (How vs. Why) yet I would love to hear your opinion on this. Good luck to you, Kyle

Kyle, Darwin did not "found" the idea of natural selection. That was done 25 years BEFORE Darwin by the creationist Edward Blyth.

Secondly, no creationist disagrees with natural selection. Darwinists mislead people by saying that evidence for natural selection is evidence for evolutionism. Natural selection SELECTS from life forms that ALREADY EXIST. Darwin was not addressing life forms that ALREADY existed, but addressing how new life forms could come about simply by the outcome of natural, unguided, unplanned, random forces of nature.

Don't equate evolution with natural selection.

Evolution works through natural selection. What are you talking about that evolution should not be equated with natural selection? One thing that I don't get with some creationist claims is that the genetic similarity between chimpanzees and humans are due to common creator but not a common descendant. They further "support" this argument by saying that model of cars are similar because they have a common creator. But that is not very scientific and I find it a VERY WEAK argument. This relation lacks substance. What makes genetic similarities an indication of common creator and not a common descendant? Where is the proof of this so-called common creator?

Where is the proof for this so called common Ancestor? And All the Millions and millions of transitional forms? Just admit it, evolution is your religion.

It is not. DNA research shows that mankind and chimpanzees have almost indisputably a common ancestor. We share 96% of out DNA with chimps.

This IS evidence. There is NO evidence for the existence of god.

Our DNA is also 96% the same as other, simpler life forms.... so maybe we are closely related to sea urchins too?

Evolution proceeds due to natural selection causing speciation. Darwin did not have to mislead anyone because all he had to do was publish his findings and allow the evidence to speak for itself as any valid scientist would. You seem to equate the theory of evolution with the term abiogenesis, and the spontaneous generation of life rather than the change in life over time. For evolution as described by evolutionary theory to have occurred life had to exist prior. It seems that your real objection is to abiogenesis and spontaneous generation not evolutionary theory. Natural selection is a major process seen in evolution as is genetic drift. Darwin was indeed addressing life forms that were already present as well as past life forms in his theory. Edward Blyth only wrote papers regarding artificial selection and a possible route to restore domesticated species back to their wild ancestors. He focused on the elimination of traits rather than the selection. He never used the term "Natural selection" nor even spoke of new species. His work did however aid Darwin in the development of evolutionary theory.Blyth and Darwin were known to corresponded regarding speciation as described by Wallace (Darwin came up with the idea before Wallace yet had not published).

We object to "chemical evolution" (abiogenesis) totally and unconditionally. We also object to natural selection in terms of what is commonly called macro-evolution - the kind of evolution that is said to result in the formation of new species. We do not object to natural selection in terms of micro-evolution - the kind that causes variations within species.

We also wanted to make a comment on something you said in an earlier post. Though we will agree with you that far more scientists accept evolution than those that don't, we feel this is irrelevant. The last time we looked, the scientific method in the search for truth does not depend on which view gets the most votes. However, what IS truly unscientific is for scientists to intimidate other scientists and shut them up for holding an opposing view. Darwin himself invited scientists to scrutinize his theory. Today, however, a scientist could lose his job for daring to question evolution.

Regarding your question about Intelligent Design, we know that they have put their theories to the test. We suggest you go to the Discovery Institute's website for more information about that.

And finally, your assertion that Christianity and evolution can be compatible is true to a point. Liberal Christianity does not mind reinterpreting the Bible to make it consistent with evolution. Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, is totally incompatible with evolution. The Bible makes many statements about creation that are the opposite of what evolution teaches. The Bible speaks authoritatively on both the "why" AND the "how." We suggest you look at some of the articles on that subject in our Articles Library.

Thursday, February 12, is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday. At the time he wrote On the Origin of Species, very little was known about the cell. Well, the so-called "simple cell" has turned out to be unimaginably complex, and it bears the unmistakable mark of design. We wonder if Darwin (if he were alive today) would still have put forth his theory if he had known what we now know about the complexity of life. Or if he knew that centuries of searching have still not turned up the transitional fossils he expected would be found.

We already know why the majority of scientists accept evolution. The question to ask these 'minority' scientists is, "Why do you reject evolution?"

Just providing a list of

My Wife, Cleo and I have an apartment in the home of my son. He wanted to help me care for her through several surgeries for lung cancer. We are very limited in our income, but Creation Moments is my high 5 days per week. I forward the messages to 40 + people daily. I receive positive comments often. I know you will continue to bless us.
Karold & Cleo Ruth 2:12

Having looked over the different comments, I read the same circular arguments that have been presented by others. People will believe what they desire to be true. Blind faith is not a Biblical concept. True faith is based on demonstrable facts. The millions of years needed to complete an evolutionary process do not have facts for support. No scientific proof exists for the Creation since no human eyewitnesses were there to give testimony. However. there are clues even in the fossil record that "million year old fossils" are little to no different from the 21st century animals.

Evolutionists often contradict themselves, covering their ignorance of physics and biology with complicated words that make other people back off. Evolutionists like to say evolution happened in the distant past, as if that exempts it from being discredited. I even heard Dawkins say once that it happened before, but wasn't happening today, even though in another interview he claimed it was going on all around us. This was a weird contradiction, to be sure.

I say, if evolution is natural law, then it's a constant. Therefore, in a laboratory, DNA could readily be used to change one species into another. But what do we find? It can't be done. That's because DNA is coded to replicate a species, not to create a vast number of life forms, or, in the terms of an evolutionist, generate "speciation."

It boils down to dogs will have puppies, not kittens, no matter how much you argue the point.

Disprove that, Darwin.