Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Neumann Valley
Genesis 2:7-8
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a...
Joachim Neumann was born in 1650 in Bremen, in what is today part of Germany. His father was a teacher of Latin. Joachim grew up in the Reformed Calvinist Church in Germany. At 16, he studied...

Evolution Depends On Mutations!


I know it sounds stupid, but evolutionists really believe that your body and your brain were developed by a series of random, unplanned accidents passed on by inheritance from parents to children.

They have faith that random accidents (called mutations) gradually changed the simple, little brains of one-celled animals into the wonderful brains inside their own skulls today!

The evolutionists’ theory is that a first cell from who-knows-where gradually evolved to become you and me by random mutations (accidental changes). Evolutionists believe that they now sit triumphantly enthroned at the top of a pile of increasingly complex forms of life created by unplanned, undirected random accidents.

Imagine with me that Ford had to depend on accidents to design its new models:

“They are paying us to design next year’s Ford, so let’s close our eyes and run the Ford we’re driving into that huge rock over there. That should be a big step in creating the design for next year’s Ford!”

If you’re thinking, “No fool could be that stupid!”, you’re almost right!

Evolutionists, however, really believe that their own bodies and brains got here by random accidental changes to earlier, less-evolved bodies and brains. They call those changes random mutations.

In our experience, random changes to things that do what they were intelligently designed to do don’t make them do it better!

Make a random change to a Ford or a bicycle, and it will make either one worse! Our bodies and brains function because they were made by the Master Designer. They are NOT the result of accidents. Accidental changes to things that were intelligently designed degrade them! Atheists get around this problem by believing that God never made anything so he couldn't have made living things. This leaves them stuck with the belief that living things must have been produced, or at least perfected, by random mutations.

Do you believe like the evolutionists that random changes make stuff better? Grab a hammer, put on a blindfold, and make some random changes to your car! Random changes to things that were intelligently designed mess them up! Random changes to cars make them worse whether they are caused by automobile accidents or your hammer. Even if your car is old and rusty you don’t want it to be in a wreck!

Pity the poor atheists! They don’t trust in God the Creator because they have chosen not to believe in Him. When they ask themselves, “Where did we come from?”, they limit their choices to a few really stupid alternatives. They end up believing that the very brain they are thinking with was built up by random accidents that happened to earlier brains that were worse. It’s like trying to account for the design of a Ford if you are absolutely convinced that Fords were built by accidents!

It’s tough to be an atheist or one of their evolutionist followers. They have to try to believe that random accidents, which they call mutations, created the very brains they count on to do their thinking! So why trust their thinking?

Today’s guest blogger is Thomas F. Heinze, author of The Vanishing Proofs of Evolution and other books. His writings are among the earliest in the modern creation movement. 


This article reminds me of the "Master Watchmaker" argument that has been around as long as Darwin's theory. Meaning, it's getting to be a little tiring to hear the same argument only describing a different machine. Yes, biological life is very complex down to the molecular structure. Ask anyone working in the life sciences. Yes, that something as complex as life as we know it is proposed to be a product of chance seems wrong. And yes, I believe in a Creator.

I thank the author for contributing to this website, for his time and efforts.

A "little tiring"? So when does the truth of God's "clearly seen" Creatorship get "a little tiring"? Romans chapter one has provided the "same argument" for about 2000 years now, but God still uses it to prove His Creatorship! If you must have your ears tickled with something "new" all the time, you might feel at home on Mars Hill (a/k/a Areopagus) back when Paul preached there: "For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing" (Acts 17:21). Think about it: it is the nature of TRUTH (and proof thereof) to be changeless, timeless, constant -- the opposite of "new". Of course, God can make something "new" (<a href="" title=""></a>) but He doesn't change His truth.

I've heard that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God. Well, God gave me fatih to believe. He can do it for others who accept the evolution party line. But maybe they are just too proud to accept the truth. Talk about feeling good about yourself. I'm a daughter of the King, and the others (atheists, Darwinists) believe they came from slime.

Thanks for sharing the obvious logic of design. We have no excuses for not agreeing with you, yet there is a lot at stake in coming to terms with the reality that we were designed and created. That means that there is a Designer and He is the boss and I am accountable to Him and will answer for all the ways that I have tried to do my own thing and operate outside of His purposes and design for my life. Can He ever forgive me for my rebellion and passive indifference to Him and His grand design? Let's ask Jesus Christ this question and the reason for the cross. John 3:16

I like the article, but believe it is too demeaning towards atheists/evolutionists. I don't believe that it is right to mock them or treat them as fools etc, even though we have the truth. I don't believe that atheists and evolutionists will ever come to the truth using this vehicle.

Also, the content of the article should have contained a bit more meat. I don't believe that the example given (hammer chipping away at a Ford) would be one used by evolutionists. They believe that random mutations were positive mutations. We all know that positive mutations don't occur, but they don't seem to consider this due to their blindness.

I believe we should be more loving and kind in our approach and response to evolutionists/atheists, so that they in the very least, believe in the very nature of our intentions.

If you have a problem with calling a fool what he is, you surely are offended by Psalm 14:1. Regarding those who reject the inexcusably "clearly seen" proof of God's Creatorship, as demonstrated in His physical (and informational) creation, the Bible says their "foolish" heart was darkened (Romans 1:21). Why do you have a problem with quoting what the Bible says about "fools"? Those who blaspheme God are "fools" according to Psalm 74:18. Matthew 7:26 records the Lord Jesus Christ informing us about what a "foolish man" is -- one who refuses to base his life's thinking and decision-making upon the Lord and His Word. To put it bluntly: either you are embarrassed to agree with the Bible, publicly, or you are not. Thankfully, God has redeemed us from folly (Titus 3:3)!

It's not unkind to point out stupidity when Athiests have been mocking the Creationists since, well, Creation. A little anger is not wrong, and though it's not likely that they will change their way of thinking, it may provoke them to defend their position by studying the idea of Creation a little further. The Truth is to be boldly defended, and that's the kindest thing we can do.

I agree with you, Anonymous. I have his book, and don't recall such language from him in it. Years ago, I used words like "stupid" and "ignorant", but my wife suggested that I "tell the truth in love", which is a nicer way to get your point across. I once told a college Professor that he was "gullible", and he nearly came unglued. The way I like to speak on the issue is to use layman's language, and simply explain WHY evolution (mutations) can't work to produce new useful information needed to produce new organs, bone joints, muscles, etc. On my website (, there is a letter I wrote to "Adam" (interesting name) explaining the real science which dismantled the unscientific claims in his letter to me. Adam cursed me extensively and was quite rude in his reference to God. It was an "eye-opener" to me as to how intolerant THOSE folks can be.

I agree that we need to "speak the truth in love," not call people stupid.

Well put! I agree we must remember our own lost condition before coming to faith in the atoning work of Jesus on the Cross. I heartily agree we must not trivialize the evolutionists' plight. For many of us who hold to a literal seven day Creation, the promotion of the theory of evolution in the media and in scientific circles is an ongoing irritation. The fact that those who promote this scientific fiction with little evidence to support their claims stands in contrast to the very procedures by which science itself makes progress - namely, a willingness to expose ideas to reasonable debate in the marketplace of ideas. Ultimately the naturalistic arguments to explain origins are totally inadequate to provide answers to the basic questions of life such as "Who am I"? "Where did I come from"? "What is the purpose of life itself"? Whatever the power of evolution to even address these questions, the fact is that those who believe in this idea must conclude they ultimately are left to believe that life is meaningless and we are all a product of random chance. This "blessing", which is the inevitable result of adhering to a materialistic, atheistic or even agnostic point of view provides an opportunity to engage the questions for which only the Gospel has the answers. As Scripture reminds us, "God has set eternity in our hearts".

I agree, it would be more like taking all the existing parts on a car, rearranging them and expecting a more complex car. For evolution to be true, mutations would have to result in new information, but that doesn't happen. What happens is the existing information is rearranged often resulting in a loss of information.

Truth is truth. Sometimes it hurts to hear the truth. Each encounter has to be weighed separately when dealing with evolutionists or creationists. I have evolution-believing friends who I have had many conversations with (not arguments) and they still do not believe, but what one has said to me was, "The thing that gets me the most about you Christians is how strongly you believe what you believe." This particular friend has another friend that has been talking to him about the Lord for years before I met him.

The best sharing is in a living example. Then, when you see an opportunity (which you have to be looking for), you share the gospel.

The articles are reflecting a truth, people's responses to an article are just as valuable (or demeaning) as the article itself sometimes. If it only makes a difference to one evolutionist, isn't it worth it?

If you read Heinze's blog posting once again, I think you'll see that he wasn't telling atheists that they are stupid. He was telling us creationists what he thought about evolutionists and atheists. While his language may seem harsh, remember that he was talking to creationists, not evolutionists. Personally, there are other words I would use rather than stupid - I would say they are willfully ignorant, biased against God and spiritually blind. I would also say they are fools, especially since that is God's assessment of them.

A diploma does not a smart person make. To think that all a person needs is a college degree to be absurd.

...because they received not the love of the truth,...
for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they may believe a lie
2 Thessalonians 2:10-11

Evolutionary "scientists" have several problems.

The First is the very concept of Materialism that they embrace. Everything that is has always been, without purpose!! But they will tell you that nothing happens without a "First Cause"!! Nothing. So there has to be a "First Cause", and therefore, purpose. But Materialism denies purpose.

Second: Order out of Chaos. An absolute impossibility. Statistics prove this cannot happen.

Third: The underlying problem with the Big Bang Theory and Materialism is the concept that randomly everything was created from Nothing. With No Purpose. And then eventually developed into something that appears to have Purpose, and Balance., i.e., Nature. This implies that matter has a conscience and that inanimate material can direct its own development.

One of my college Professors was honest enough to say that, regarding Evolution, "We have no proof! None, No proof whatsoever! BUT WE'RE CERTAIN THAT IT HAPPENED!" That's only because they absolutely deny any other possibility, which, of course, would be Creation by a Creator God, with Purpose and Love!

Or is it really easier, and more rational, to believe that Matter created itself and directed its own advancement?? All in the face of a decaying Universe?? Can't explain Matter, can't explain Gravity, can't explain Atomic Theory (other than by conjecture, just like Evolution), can't explain Entropy of the declining rate of Entropy, can't explain Light or the declining rate of Light . Can't explain the origins of Life.
"Science" is in a very poor position to judge whether or not God exists.

Atheism is just another word for "I'll worry about the consequences when when that time comes. But for now, I'm gonna do what I want, when I want, and not answer to anybody. If it feels good, do it." They really need our prayers because one day it will be too late for them.

I enjoy hitting evolutionists with numbers and logic.

About both, I really like how this person explains NO WAY!

<a href="" title=""></a>

I agree the Theory of Evolution fails to explain, even minimally how we came into being, or in fact how anything came into existence. There is no believable basis to accept how such things as information, intelligence or order exist in the universe. If the entropy of the universe is increasing as the second Law of Thermodynamics predicts, this implies we are in the process of moving from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. The obvious question then is how did the state of the universe ever become more ordered than it is now? Scientific theories require models to explain observable facts. These models contain pathways by which steps we can observe (or postulate) reasonable intermediate stages which themselves can be subject to critical discussion. In my humble opinion, Darwinism addresses these issues in a totally inadequate way. Darwinism fails to meet the criteria for a legitimate scientific theory espoused by Karl Popper over a century ago. The question becomes how can a theory claim legitimacy when it fails to meet the standard of explaining basic scientific facts?

Employing true science will reveal that any account other than God's Creation is false. In this present world, we know there are opposing forces battling for peoples’ minds. I agree with earlier posts that using inflammatory or disrespectful language when referring to or about evolution(ists) and the population that subscribes to those theories can be counterproductive. Of course, common sense would dictate that if the house is burning around sleeping folks you should make an awful alarm to save lives instead of writing a heartwarming note full of unnecessary politeness. I guess like most folks my tendency would probably be to dismiss or shut down if someone from an opposing camp of thought approached me with a perceived attitude of condescension and derision i.e. using the word stupid (which evolution or Darwinism actually is). The biology text books that were assigned to me (in a Christian-founded high school) and again in state college decades ago and now again to my son in school all repeat the familiar popular evolution non-sense. So-called highly educated professionals adhere to and espouse these insidious theories, maybe because they are spiritually blind. Heard it said something like this elsewhere "how do you respond to the blind man who steps on your toe?" If I remember correctly, that theory stated that the driver of evolution was mutations occurring over many millennia directed by environmental stimuli and the pressure to survive. The supposed power of chance or accidental architectural improvements was also mixed in the verbiage somehow. Un-blinded scientists know that the preceding slop violates the basic laws of nature, which are observable and easily verified. So be vigilant, resolute in the truth, kind and genuinely respectful (which comes from Love), humble, and pray that their "educated" eyes will be opened.

I am an atheist. Is there a problem with me trusting a scientific theory over a book comprised of many different texts from many different authors from many different time periods? You may call me "blind" or "closed-minded" or "stupid", but how am I supposed to see intelligent design behind such a thing as an esophagus, which is quite an idiotic part because it shares the same pathway as the trachea which is what allows us to choke to death (pretty bad design, if you ask me).

To go off of your ideas of mutations, I beg you to prove to me that all are bad. Seriously. show me a scientific article written by a non-religious scientist that says all mutations are bad. Actually, you don't even need to find one because I already have an example. Ever heard of sickle-cell anemia? It is a genetic disease that causes red blood cells to be the shape of a sickle instead of a disk, making it impossible for the affected cells to carry oxygen (the hemoglobin protein is malformed). Well, sickle-cell anemia was a random genetic mutation that was actually helpful, and here's how: if a person is born with two copies of the gene for sickle-cell anemia (one copy from each parent) they will most likely die because they can't deliver enough oxygen to their body when it needs it (especially during physical activity), but if a person is born with just ONE copy of the gene they are immune to malaria, a deadly disease.

Also, mutations are not the only way that evolution happened (it is still happening). Now, why were these mutations kept? They were kept because they either helped an organism to be more successful in its environment than organisms that lacked the mutation, or because the mutation did not harm the organism. This idea is where the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection comes into play. The theory states that organisms that are more suited to their environment will survive over those that aren't because they will be more likely to pass on their genes (which contain the positive mutation that allowed them to be more successful). THIS is how humans and ALL OTHER ORGANISMS came to be what they are today.

Now, just to avoid getting a reply with the argument of irreducible complexity, let us consider the eye. The eye is an incredibly complex organ but it is nothing special when it comes to evolution. Eyes started off as simple organs that could only detect light (such as the eye spots on planaria, or flatworms), but over time (billions of years, which is proven by scientifically analyzing the percentages of radioactive isotopes in rocks) organisms had mutations that changed the eyes and made the organisms more likely to survive and pass on their genes. These mutations continued and are still ongoing (astigmatism, for instance, would make it more difficult for an organism to see a predator from a distance and thus more likely to be killed and less likely to reproduce). Also, not all organisms have the same eyes. Some have really good eyes (birds of prey and the mantis shrimp) while some have not-so-good eyes (bears and elephants), showing that all intermediates exist and thus helping to prove the point that eyes evolved like every other organ.

Finally, I ask of anyone reading this to actually consider my point and do some searching for yourself. Also, I would be pleased to see some replies to this, but save it if you want to insult me.

"Is there a problem with me trusting a scientific theory over a book comprised of many different texts from many different authors from many different time periods?"

Don't you mean a theory that has been written by (according to many atheists) millions of scientists?

".. quite an idiotic part because it shares the same pathway as the trachea which is what allows us to choke to death (pretty bad design, if you ask me)."

According to this argument, it's idiotic for people to have legs too then because they make it possible for us to walk into the street where we might get hit by a car or a truck. Our esophagus doesn't routinely cause this problem; it's only when something goes wrong that it does.

"Well, sickle-cell anemia was a random genetic mutation that was actually helpful, and here's how: ... if a person is born with just ONE copy of the gene they are immune to malaria, a deadly disease."

So, does this mean that if there was a treatment that would give you sickle-cell anemia you would take it so as to be immune to malaria?

"Also, mutations are not the only way that evolution happened (it is still happening). ... This idea is where the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection comes into play."

I don't see the author of the article denying natural selection. Please point out that part, thanks.

"I beg you to prove to me that all are bad."

The article stated NOWHERE that all mutations are, as you say, "bad." It made the claim that mutations degrade what has been designed. And this is true. Maybe an old example will suffice...

Let's say there's a population of winged beetles living on a windy island. Each time a few of them leave the comforts of their abode and take flight to forage for food, the wind sweeps them up and dumps them into the ocean and they die!

A mutation occurs and Mr. and Mrs. Beetle have 1000 mutated little beetles. This particular mutation causes the genes to make the wings to be deactivated. So this would be an example of how a mutation is degrading.

So, the new little beetles cannot take flight to forage for food and so they merely walk around the island. They stay below the wind and do NOT get swept up and tossed into the ocean! And therefore, since they lived past the point of sexual maturation, they pass that mutated gene(s) on to the offspring.

So, clearly this mutation was beneficial, but it was simultaneously degenerative...just like your mutation example of sickle cell anemia. Yes, in the heterozygote it's beneficial, but it's clearly degenerative.

So since this was indeed the crux of your entire argument, I shall stop now as the rest of your post is superfluous since the crux of your argument has been demolished soundly.

And please, take your own advice, and go search out and learn some things for yourself.

Thanks for reading!

"Beneficial Mutations". To pass these on, the 'line' has to be inbred! To breed in multiple 'beneficial mutations', ie to evolve a fish into a amphibian, would require a steady line of inbred animals. How many genetic problems do we see caused by inbreeding? Evolution would ultimately be self destructive!!!

Yep, but if natural selection is very powerful, mutations are not that important :=)

Why hasn't anyone acknowledged the absurdity of comparing evolution to taking a hammer to a Ford with a blindfold on?!? If the author is using the metaphor to strengthen his case, he should have had a friend proofread it first. Find a different concept to use in comparison. He is not winning over anyone because he turns off the reader when he makes this blanket statement. An error in judgement on the writer's part. A solid unflappable comparison that people would relate to could have made all the difference. But that's just if you ask me...