Tag: creation/evolution


It seems to me that pronouncements from evolutionists always provide more questions than answers. Here’s just one more of those pronouncements…


According to a BBC news report* the regular use of caesarian sections in birth is affecting human evolution:

“Women with a very narrow pelvis would not have survived birth 100 years ago. They do now and pass on their genes encoding for a narrow pelvis to their daughters.”

“Historically, these genes would not have been passed from mother to child as both would have died in labour”.

I can’t help wondering, after one million, or one-and-a-half million, or two million years of human evolution, or how ever long current thinking says it’s been going on, and at the outset of which only a couple or a few proto-humans started us all off, why we haven’t already bred out all those nasty narrow-pelvis genes. Wouldn’t all related women and children and so their inferior genes have died off by now? How did any survive at the beginning?

I know I’m no expert at all, but I’ve had the impression for decades that more and more doctors and surgeons are preferring caesarian birth as a simpler and safer option for their patient. Surely this could account for the six-in-a-thousand increase in caesarian births since the 1960s, and not human evolution taking a turn for the worse?

The expert quoted in this report lets slip one of the hardest matters for evolutionists and secularists to deal with. He said that the death of such women and their offspring:

“…is, from an evolutionary perspective, selection.”

I don’t think he meant to say so, but the natural inference of this view when considered with the mechanics of evolution is that if your wife and your baby die because of a narrow birth canal it’s okay: evolution is doing its work.

Being one of those not willing to blindly accept the conceit known as human evolution I can’t help asking some questions. From the perspective of natural selection and the survival of the fittest, are we actually attempting to oppose nature by having hospitals, doctors and fitness clubs? Shouldn’t we just let it all happen…death, disease and suffering? Are we tinkering with the ultimate goal of mud-to-god transformation by having police forces, prisons, governments, armies, laws and education establishments? Or are wars, hospitals, police forces and caesarian births actually an integral part of that evolutionary process-a product of it?

Gosh, that’s a tough nut to crack for the philosophers and politicians determined to shape our society. And make no mistake, they do think about and discuss those very questions. The Margaret Sangers  and the Adolph Hitlers of the world are infamous examples of people who’ve taken evolution seriously, but they’ve only been visible because they’ve taken gigantic, consequential steps to act upon their ideologies. How many more were and are acting unseen?

Atheists and evolutionists claim that we theists and Christians sweep under the carpet all the difficult issues they see in our beliefs. But they’re really no better off. At least Adolph Hitler was man enough (if totally insane and megalomaniacal) to state as plainly as day his view that nature needs a “helping hand” to wipe out those who are weakening the human gene pool.

The consequences of evolution, when confronted honestly, are far more serious than those that any unbeliever can cook up to stick on the believer. Yes, it does seem like an impossible task, on the face of it, to reconcile suffering and faith in a loving God. Search my series on suffering. But in evolution struggle and death are creative and necessary: in the creationist, theistic worldview struggle and death are destructive and bad.

Biblical answers make much more sense to me, and much kinder sense, than the hard, cold realities of the hypothesis known as “evolution”. Evolution is perpetual change, ostensibly for the better, but which in reality brings struggle and suffering, followed by annihilation, to every living thing. The Christian, on the other hand, knows that suffering and death are unnatural and temporal, and that everyone is offered an eternity of health, perfection and completion in Jesus Christ.

* http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38210837




Some people would rather not know if God exists: they’re afraid of having their lives transformed…


I first noticed this “willing ignorance” after reading the first two books I’d ever read by a creationist. I’d been a Christian for a year, and by good fortune and coincidence (ha!) I discovered “God, Science and Evolution”  and “Christ and the Cosmos”  by Prof. E.H. Andrews.  At the time Andrews was Professor of Materials at the University of London, and formerly the Dean of Engineering at Queen Mary’s college. He had a long list of scientific credentials.

(This is an edited version of a post I published in 2012).

Not long after reading these works I had a discussion with a new friend who challenged me to show him proof that God exists. I offered him my favorite answer then and now, “You’re looking at it!” This wasn’t a good enough answer for him, although in God’s economy, it’s all the evidence we need.  My friend went on to insist that all scientists believe in evolution and not in God, and  therefore the only logical conclusion was that there must not be a God. I offered my friend one of Prof. Andrews’ books, telling him that Andrews was well qualified and a fascinating read, and would at least help to get him thinking about the possibility of the existence of a creator.

“No thanks”, replied  my friend with a sneer.

The views of Andrews, and similar expressions made by countless other brilliant people before and after him, are intentionally blocked out of the education system and the public eye in general. Why? What are those who do the blocking afraid of?

A few years later I had something of a debate, along similar lines, with a Geology/ Geography high school teacher I knew.  At that time I had in my personal library a book by Dr. A J Wilder-Smith, an Englishman with three earned science doctorates from Oxford. It discussed and refuted many claims taught in schools as “evidence” for evolution. I offered to lend the book to her, as a way of letting her know that Creationism wasn’t just for “semi – insane fundamentalist American preachers”.

“No thank you”, she replied firmly.

The reason, or excuse, the teacher gave for declining the book offer was that she liked her world just as it was, and she didn’t want it changed. In this admission was a wealth of honesty and information.

As time went on my book, video and then DVD collection has grown. Not wanting to hoard the faith-building insights I’ve benefited from, I’ve offered them to family members, teachers, tutors, friends and strangers, who’ve almost without exception not been interested in having their minds and their lives changed. One book, called “In Six Days”, containing the comments of fifty scientists who believe in Biblical Creation, was rejected by a young man on the grounds that Richard Dawkins, who is after all on TV (and we all know that the TV only tells us the truth) said that evolution was a proven fact and that anyone who questioned it was ignorant and deluded. Is Mr. Dawkins a god? If he’s the purveyor of all truth and knowledge doesn’t that make him God? Hasn’t he disproved his own assertion that there is no God?

It’s virtually law now that scientists are not to even consider God in their studies or their presentations, since “that’s religion”. If they do, their work will be ignored or mocked. Once the Creator is reduced to a dispensable fantasy, He can be conveniently contained on a hard-drive in the “religious education” room and forgotten.  As scientists study the intricacies of our world and universe, constantly amazed and astounded by what they find, it doesn’t occur to most of them (it does to some) that they’re looking at the very evidence for God’s existence, character and power that they claim is nowhere to be found. Oh, and by the way, He’s not just on that hard-drive, because “…the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him” (1 Kings 8:27).


Many people are far more interested in discovering the football results than they are in searching for God and for meaning in life. The most perplexing, soul-searching questions they could and should ask themselves are not being asked or answered, or when they are asked they’re not being given the benefit of a two-sided argument. Why? What does this say about human nature?

Scripture discusses this problem. Peter, in his characteristically direct and no-nonsense fashion, hit the proverbial nail right on the head. He said that people are “willingly ignorant” of God’s work of creation and the subsequent world-wide flood (2 Peter 3: 5-6 KJV). The NIV translation says that “they deliberately forget”.

Paul also comments on this willing ignorance:

“…the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1: 18 – 20).

Paul’s contention is that it’s man’s love of sin that drives him to intentionally ignore God (verses 18 to 32). They’re afraid of having their lives changed.

Zeroing in to the heart of the problem, Jesus Christ explained it this way:

“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into it for fear that his deeds will be exposed” (John3: 19– 20).

Ironically, while the skeptic and the atheist mock believers for being ignorant and deluded, the Bible says that it’s the atheist who is deluded:

“The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

The problem is not lack of evidence, it’s the heart of man. It’s the fear of living life God’s way instead of their own way. At best we could say that the majority of willing unbelievers (I’m not speaking of those who haven’t had a chance to hear and consider the gospel) ignore God, and comfort themselves in the conviction that “all scientists” believe in evolution and not in God. People not only fail to search for God because they do not want to: they actively turn their backs on any light there is for fear of having their worlds changed.


As a believer or a seeker of truth, do you ever wish you could find some credible information which supports your faith in a Creator? Do you ever wish that someone would give you answers to the nonsensical claims of evolutionists?



For those questioning the story evolutionists give us via the education establishment, TV and movies, I’d like to recommend a wonderful, level-headed and well-credentialed bunch of scientists and commentators within an organization known as the Institute for Creation Research. ICR, akin to the highly active and faith-building “Answers in Genesis” organization, has for decades been presenting fascinating and helpful information in many forms, one of which I intend to highlight here.

ICR’s monthly publication “Acts and Facts” is available online, or sent to your door free of charge in the form of an attractive glossy magazine. I’ve been reading this uplifting rag for about twenty-five years now. I’ve kept every issue and often refer to them. I’ve never been harassed for money by ICR (though they certainly deserve and need generous donations) and I’ve had the good fortune and blessing of attending several of their seminars.

The highly readable articles in this month’s copy of Acts and Facts include a report on ICR’s new quality DVD series, “Uncovering the Truth About Dinosaurs”. This is designed for a wide range of truth-seekers. There’s far more to the extinction of dinosaurs than we’re told by a secular establishment determined to keep “religion” and faith in a Creator out of your consideration.


On a rather more technical level an article by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, with a Ph.D in genetics, discusses findings from new research on internal telomere-like sequences within DNA, which add to the mounting pile of information showing that man and chimps are not descended from a common ancestor as we’ve all been told.

Next, another article which attempts to put technical information into a readable form is named “Gauge Bosons: The Glue that Holds the Universe Together”. This is part four of a series written by two Ph.D scientists, Jason Lisle with a doctorate in Astrophysics, and Vernon R. Cupps whose doctorate is in nuclear physics. I’ve written a post on Mr. Cupps.

A very helpful article for the Bible-believer and apologist is called “Genesis Compromise Unravels the Bible” written by Jake Hebert, with a Ph.D in physics.

Brian Thomas, M.S., discusses in layman’s terms why many identified “living fossils” demonstrate convincingly that the Flood of Genesis, and not eons of evolution, deposited the dinosaur-rich rock layers found all over the earth’s surface.

Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., and M.D., has a very enlightening piece called “Evolutionists Can’t See Eye Design”. Guliuzza, who laments that “…the content of mainstream scientific journals passes through chokepoints controlled by evolutionists”, in other words, that you aren’t going to find anything that isn’t politically-correct and fitting the evolutionary narrative in such publications, refutes specific and weak arguments by evolutionists who claim that eyes, “if” they were designed, were poorly designed.


Other articles in this issue are “So Many Skin Tones from Adam and Eve?” written by Brian Thomas, an interview with Pastor Richard Corwin discussing his graduation from an ICR Christian Education program, a report on a Creation Research Society annual conference, written by Frank Sherwin, M.A., and a promotion of ICR’s new Discovery Center for Science and Earth History by Henry M Morris IV.

For the layman with a little or a lot of scientific understanding or just plain common sense, Acts and Facts is a valuable link to a lot of cutting-edge research, analysis and thought which will build on your faith and understanding of God’s design.





Unbelievers scoff at miracles recorded in the Bible. God “…doesn’t have a magic wand”, as one extremely well-known church leader recently put it. One reason they don’t believe in miracles is that they can’t do them…


(Healing the Paralytic at Bethesda, by Palma Giovane, 1591)

Moses could not have crossed the Red Sea, they will say: it must have been the knee-deep “Reed Sea”. Jesus couldn’t have been born to a virgin, he couldn’t have turned water into wine, and he couldn’t have risen from the dead. None of these things really happened, according to them, because such things are impossible.

In order to accept that miracles really do happen, the skeptical scientist requires that God, Moses and Jesus request appointments in his lab so that they can be examined, tested and experimented on. They would have to perform their “tricks” under control conditions, in full view of the cameras, equipment and instruments.

Granted, the scientific method rightly requires empirical observation before we can know for sure how the world really works. But the whole point of a miracle is that it is…well…miraculous. Miracles are not a normal part of every-day life. Miracles are out of the ordinary and rare. They are uncommon: not just anyone can do them.

Miracles are a negation, or a temporary suspension of the natural laws which govern our physical universe. Perhaps they’re the employment of an alternative set of laws which we’re unaware of. And as God, in the Biblical view of things, created the entirety of the physical realm (Genesis 1:1) and continues to sustain every little bit of it (Colossians 1:16-17) he must not be subject to its laws, but instead he’s in control of them, so that he’s able to manipulate them. A portrait, the work of an artist or photographer, can’t create another character: the artist and the photographer can.

Ah, but miracles just don’t happen, according to the naturalist. Is that really so? I wonder how many unbelievers have seen all events of all time in every part of the universe, so that they can say with confidence and scientific certainty that a miracle has never happened? I’ll wager that none have. Could it be possible that they’ve missed something? Could it be possible that the Creator has decided not to perform for the satisfaction and curiosity of the skeptic and the cynic? Could it be that He feels no obligation to make that appointment at the lab? Could it be that he will not stoop to the whims of unbelieving, rebellious man, when all the evidence of his creative, miraculous power is already right in front of their eyes, and at the center of all their formulae and calculations, day in and day out?

If only we had eye-witnesses to miracles! Then we could believe-right? Well excuse me, we’ve had eyewitness…refer to John’s gospel for example. But the contemporary unbeliever doesn’t want to accept the testimony of the Christian gospels. One evidence of Biblical miracles is the fact that large numbers of first-century believers who claimed to be eye-witnesses were prepared to die spreading the gospel if necessary. Modern “martyrs” kill other people: first century martyrs risked their own lives, something people don’t do for something they know to be false.


(Christ Walks On the Water, by Ivan Aivazovsky, 1888)

Have I seen a miracle? I believe I have. Outside of the fact that all of life is unfathomably complex and intricate and beautiful, so that men are “without excuse” for ignoring God (Romans 1:20) I believe I’ve had some answered prayers in my life which can’t be explained any other way but by divine intervention in my very own part of the physical universe.

So the evolutionist and the naturalist is convinced that miracles have never happened anywhere, on the basis that they’re sure they’ve never observed one. When did anyone observe a cow turn into a whale, or a lizard turn into a bird, or a few chemicals turn into a bacterium, or a gas cloud turn into a star (1)? I can answer that one: “ never”. These things have never been-and can never be-observed by scientists. Yet most of them believe that such things have happened in the past and continue to happen-when we aren’t looking.

There are, in essence, two stories about life: one is naturalistic, the other miraculous. By miraculous I don’t mean that God has a magic wand which he waves in order to cause each daisy to grow and each star to twinkle and each baby to giggle. Neither am I referring to statues shedding tears or drinking milk. By “miraculous” I mean that from nothing God created the physical cosmos with all its laws and processes. By “miraculous” I mean that the creator and sustainer of the physical realm with all its laws and processes is far more than capable of holding back a sea of water while his people pass through on dry land. By “miraculous” I mean that the One who created the eye, still revealing mind-boggling complexity not known before, is perfectly capable of repairing one, and by “miraculous” I mean that the One who created life is infinitely able to raise the dead.

No, we don’t observe creation happening today, because on the sixth day God “finished” his work of creation (Genesis 2:1-2). No, we don’t see water turning into wine today because the one who is able to do such a thing isn’t among us, and did it not to begin a trend or a habit, but to show exactly who he was and who had sent him. No, we don’t see everyone being healed today because mankind is in rebellion against God, and God’s holiness will not allow him to “fix” everything that’s wrong in the world just so that we can continue on our own rebellious way and in our own direction. No, we don’t see Jesus rising from the dead, because he’s already risen.

The greatest miracles being done today involve the changing of lives. I’ve experienced such a miracle myself. I know that when a person decides to agree with God that he or she is a sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness, and when he sincerely accepts the gospel message that God has given us concerning his son, he is miraculously changed for ever, and moves into a relationship with him.

Search my posts on the gospel…


1: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/star-formation-and-creation/


Hold on to your sanity and composure if you dare…as you read my fearsome tale of warfare, woe, and…wasps!


My son and I had a rather unpleasant confrontation with the inhabitants of a wasp nest one day. They clearly decided that we were a threat and were trespassing on their territory. In the ensuing battle my nine-year old, bearing the brunt of the assault, received ten stings, and I received two while attempting to rescue him. The event got me wondering how the wasp may have managed to “evolve” its own stinger, had it not been created.  Here are one or two little “Just So” possibilities.


Willy wasp was wandering winsomely through the warm wet forest one day, minding his own business, and whistling a song with wonderful words beginning with ‘w’ which he’d heard one week while watching Bert on ‘Sesame Street’. But as he skipped and fluttered gaily along his merry way he was suddenly gobbled up by a Lizow:

“SNAP!” went the jaws of the Lizow.

A Lizow, as you probably already know dear readers, is a creature which is no longer a lizard and not yet a crow.

“Good heavens!” whimpered Willy, as he started to slide down the Lizow’s throat:

“If only I’d evolved a stinger, I could stab this beast, and he’d have to spit me out!”

So Willy resolved that very minute that he would start evolving a stinger right away. There was only one problem…


As you can imagine, little Willy’s terrible misfortune was repeated billions of times over countless millennia, because all of his descendants had no defense against the Lizow or their other enemies. That is, until a wonderful waspy miracle happened…


Wayne wasp watched in wonder while his wife Wanda wasp wiggled and writhed, until “whoosh!”…out popped little Wichard, their first baby wasp, weak, wet and wailing. Wayne’s joy changed to astonishment when he noticed a strange appendage on little Witchard’s bottom. It was a spike – a long thin pointed object actually growing out of the babe’s bottom.

“Well! Nature be praised!” said Wayne: “He’s got a stinger! And what’s even more wildly bewildering is that it’s complete with connective tissue, nerves and blood supply!”

It wasn’t long before little Witchard had his first opportunity to test the stinger. He was on his way to Grandma Wasp’s house one day, when:

“SNAP”- little Witchard disappeared inside Lizow’s mouth!

Slithering down the Lizow’s long, dark throat, Witchard put his incredible weapon into operation, and poked at the beast’s throat with his pointed bottom. But alas! The spike alone wasn’t enough to put the Lizow off his snack:

“Caw!” said the Lizow to himself, “This one’s a bit tickly in my throat! I wonder if he’s poking me with his newly evolved stinger?”

But Lizow breathed a sigh of relief and thought to himself, “It’s a good thing he didn’t evolve venom too!”



Unperturbed by their loss, Wayne and Wanda gave birth again. As little Wendle popped out, Wayne’s joy was tinged with disappointment when he noticed that Wendle didn’t have a stinger. “Woe to us and all wasps, Wanda”, he whined: “Our DNA wasn’t altered to give our offspring stingers, it was just a miraculous and totally unique mutation event that gave poor little Witchard his stinger”.

Wendle was gobbled up by the Lizow while on his first flight to the dentist.

Heartbroken, Wayne and Wanda wasp decided to doggedly-I mean waspedly-continue their family, and Wanda was soon reproducing again.


As Wanda was giving birth, Wayne could see that another of those unique mutation events had occurred, for there, on little Walter’s face, like a huge, lonely-mountain shaped nose, was a stinger! However,Wayne’s joy quickly turned to panic when the brevity of the situation hit him. “Oh no Wanda!” He cried, “Little Walter’s eyesight will be blocked by the stinger! He won’t be able to see where he’s going!”

Sure enough, it was not long before Walter wandered unwittingly into the very glade where the Lizow just happened to be looking for his lunch. As the Lizow loomed leeringly towards our unwary waspling, Walter did see a large shadow moving rapidly in his direction, so fearing the worst, Walter prepared himself for battle. But there was a problem: not only could little Walter barely see what was going on, but  his stinger was not connected to his nervous system-it was not operational. The Lizow, with his raven-sharp eyes, spied the unsavory looking appendage on little Walter’s face, and decided to just take his body and let the head fall to the ground. “SNAP…bonk”.


The Mayor of Waspville was animated and passionate.

“This must not go on!” he shouted to the crowd of wasps who had gathered at the annual meeting of Waspville’s citizens, buzzing with anger.

“Wallace, Wilson, Waylon, Willoughby, Wes and Juan were all eaten up yesterday by the dreaded Lizow! Our numbers are decimated! If we don’t act now Waspville will be wiped out completely!”

So that very day, the fearful but determined citizens of Waspville channeled their anger into action. Squatting in circles, they began chanting and praying that Mother Nature would give them stingers. “Not only do we need stingers with venom…on our bottoms and not on our faces…” they entreated, “…but we need loud, stripey uniforms to warn Lizow not to eat us in the first place!”

One million years later, Wayne yawned in boredom and looked around at the circle of wasps around him, all praising Mother Nature for finally causing some of their babes to be born with stingers, fully operational and loaded with venom, with bright scarey looking suits also.

Now, Wayne had always been a bit of a rebel who liked to speak his mind and stir up trouble, and today was no exception. So loudly enough for everyone else to hear, he turned to his mother next to him and said,

“Mom, if wasps need stingers and stripey suits to survive, how did we manage to survive for millions of years without them?”

Copyright August 11th, 2012 by Nick Fisher

This is an edited version of something I first published exactly four years ago. I offer it here in tandem with a recent, more serious post,  “The Positive Negatives of Creation and Design” https://nickyfisher.com/2016/05/19/the-positive-negatives-of-creation-and-design/