It is vitally important that words should be used accurately and consistently. The theory that evolutionists are promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer.

The evolutionist Kerkut defined this "General Theory of Evolution" (GTE) as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." He continued: "the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."¹

However, many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic, "bait-and-switch," is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this "evolution," then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproved.

The information problem

The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so we would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution). The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content.

The three billion DNA "letters" stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (specified complexity) than the over half a million DNA "letters" of the "simplest" self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a "higher" organism such as a human being, or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of "primitive first cell" from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.

As will be shown, none of the alleged proofs of "evolution in action" provide a single example of functional new information being added. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE — see the articles Beetle Bloopers, How would you answer?, Information: A modern scientific design argument and DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?

What is the Biblical creationist model?

Many of these bait-and-switch arguments imply that creationists believe in "fixity of species." The glossary listed on the Online Course for Teachers: Teaching Evolution is explicit: "In Creationism, species are described as 'fixed' in the sense that they are believed not to change their form, or appearance, through time."

But Creation Ministries International does not deny speciation — in fact, it is an important part of creationist biology — see Q&A: Speciation. Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced "after their kinds" (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25).

Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.

But creationists point out that the "kind" is larger than one of today's "species." This is because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

Based on the Biblical criterion for kinds, creationists deduce that as long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are (i.e., descended from) the same kind.² Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.³

The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way — hybridization is evidence that they are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can't have children, and we don't classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.

The boundaries of the "kind" do not always correspond to any given man-made classification such as "species," genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the term "kind," it is actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system, not the term "kind." That is, several organisms classified as different "species," and even different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has several varieties, hence a polytypic (many types) species. A number of examples are presented in footnote 2, and in the article Ligers and wholphins? What next?, including Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid of two different so-called genera.

Loss of information through mutations (copying mistakes), e.g. in proteins recognizing "imprinting" marks, "jumping genes," natural selection, and genetic drift, can sometimes result in different small populations losing such different information that the offspring from crossing different varieties (hybrids) may be sterile, or not survive. Or changes in song or color might result in birds no longer recognizing a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new "species" is formed. Thus each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.

But again, it's important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.

The biblical Creation/Fall/Flood/Migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because the different varieties of land vertebrates have descended from comparatively few kinds of animals that disembarked from the Ark about 4,500 years ago.

Conversely, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the biblical model has been supported by the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory, as mentioned before. One example is a new species of mosquitoes, i.e. one that can't interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the "Tube") in only 100 years. The rapid change "astonished" evolutionists, but should delight creationists — see Brisk Biters.

* * *

1. Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
2. Marsh, F.L., Variation and Fixity in Nature, Pacific Press, Mountain View, CA, USA, p. 37, 1976.
3. Scherer, S., Basic Types of Life, p. 197; ch. 8 of Dembski, Wm. A., Mere Creation: Science, faith and intelligent design, Downers Grove, IL, 1998.