AGA Icon

Why this website

In the Bible, in the book of Genesis, we read that God created the world in six days, and that there was a worldwide flood in which Noah and his family was saved from destruction. However, teachers, lecturers and science books talk of a big bang, a common apelike ancestor and billions of years. Doesn't that contradict what the Bible says?

Our goal is to help you affirm your faith in God as Creator and to show you how to deal with these controversies. Difficult words are avoided so you can understand what is being explained even if English is not your first language.

May God be glorified! He is worthy of our praise!

Where to start

It's good to realize that followers of Jesus Christ are seen by unbelievers as fools. The apostle Paul says in I Corinthians 1:18

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us that are saved it is the power of God.

This was written almost 2000 years ago, and it is still a fact today. He also states in I Corinthians 4:10

We are fools for Christ's sake.

If we want to show the world our knowledge of worldly things, we will not be where God wants us to be. It is better to be insulted and scorned than to receive praise from unbelievers.

Our views of how the world was made and where we come from do not have to be used to influence others. We should rather proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

If we acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Way to God, it isn't difficult to accept Bible truths. But if we argue about the place of Jesus Christ in our lives, it is very easy to step away from what the Bible says.

So before you consider the relationship between Creation and Evolution, you have to stop and think about who Jesus Christ is for you. Do you have a relationship with Him? Have you called out to Him, so that He can save you, and rescue you from eternal destruction?

What does the Bible say?

Let's start with what Jesus Christ says. It is clear that He believed what is said in Genesis. He often refers to Creation and to Noah and the flood. John 1:3 states that all things were made by Jesus Christ the Word, and Hebrews 2:10 says that all things are by Him.

Atheists cannot accept what the Bible says, so it is not strange that they also do not accept the fact that everything has been created by Jesus Christ. But if we do accept what the Bible says, it is not difficult to submit to Jesus Christ, to acknowledge Him as our Lord and glorify Him.

The Bible says in Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

A few verses further the apostle speaks of the anger of God:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Then an explanation follows of what can be known of God by all men:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and deity; so that they are without excuse.

So creation facts are really connected with knowing God. If we accept that God created the world, we understand His eternal power and the fact that He is truly God. Everything has been created so that we would see it and be pointed to the One who has made it all.

Evolution and Education: A Bad Mix?

According to the theory of evolution life on earth appeared as follows:

  • atoms assembled themselves into simple molecules,

  • these simple molecules assembled themselves into more complex molecules,

  • these complex molecules grouped themselves together to form genetic material,

  • simple cells were then able to grow,

  • these cells developed into present forms of life, among others into human beings.

Nowadays many people, including scientists, assume that macro-evolution is a fact, and science textbooks are for the greater part based on this statement.

All will agree to the importance of giving young people good teaching. There are various reasons, however, why the instruction of evolution as it is done at present is not beneficial:

  1. In the schools, they do not allow you to question the theory of evolution. Because of this, you are not encouraged to think critically.

  2. Working according to the exact scientific method is encouraged in chemistry and physics but discouraged in biology, social studies and history; this is a bad educational approach!

  3. When evolution is taught, no attention is paid to the question to the 'why' of this knowledge and what it is useful for. As a student, important material is withheld from you. Your method of thinking is not open but restricted.

  4. Moral consequences of what is being taught are not discussed, e.g. what is the use of macro-evolution (primate → human)? Knowledge of macro-evolution is irrelevant for issues such as hospital infections, genetic modification, biodiversity etc. What does matter: it is important to know what caused the problem, how to develop methods and working mechanisms, and how to retain the present biodiversity. Knowledge of micro-evolution is very helpful, but knowledge of macro-evolution is unnecessary for a proper grasp of biology.

Moral Consequences of the Theory of Evolution

Evolution is taught as being a “struggle for life”: mutations come about by chance, and living beings which have new features with which the daily struggle can be dealt with the best, have the best chances to survive and bring forth young. This way of thinking has consequences for how we look at human life. It is very different if you think that humans have been created on purpose or if they came about accidentally, having evolved as the best survivor. The view of human life and its values will then determine what is morally considered right in society.

Moral Standards are Related to Human Values

In general people disprove of murder, theft, violence and rape. There are nonetheless people groups that approve of these deeds as long as it affects another tribe. In the past whole people groups have been exterminated. Moral standards seem to be dependent upon the way human values and norms are determined.

In the table below the consequences of norms and values are mentioned as related to beliefs in evolution and creation:

How to view:

according to evolution

according to creation

murder,        war


You shall not kill (Exodus 20:13)



You shall not steal (Exodus 20:15)

Let him that stole steal no more (Ephesians 4:28)



You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Exodus 20:16) 

Therefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour (Ephesians 4:25) 

... liars shall have their part in the lake which burns withs fire and brimstone (Revelation 21:8)



And be you kind one to another, tenderharted, forgiving one another (Ephesians 4:32)

rape,     adultery


You shall not commit adultery (Exodus 20:14,Hebrews 13:4, Matthew 5:8, Leviticus 20:10)



You shall not kill (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 5:21, Revelation 21:8)



If a man also lies with a man, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. (Leviticus 20:13, Matthew 5:8, Romans 1:26,27)

disobedience   at home


Honour your father and mother (Exodus 20:12),

Children, obey your parents (Ephesians 6:1)



God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble (James 4:6, 2 Timothy 3:2-4, 1 Peter 2:13)


Standards depend on humans, therefore flexible

Biblical standards are unchangeable

Originally published in Dutch by Dr. W. Hoek on http://evolutie.biz



Hereditary characteristics are determined by the DNA of the cell nucleus. I think that the construction of DNA is the strongest argument against evolution. My dispute is as follows:

All hereditary characteristics are coded in DNA. In other words: DNA in a cell makes it possible that a human, an animal or a plant can grow out of a cell, mostly a fertilized egg. The letters of this code are formed by the building blocks called bases. These bases are called Guanine (G), Adenine (A), Cytosine (C) and Thymine (T). An “alphabet” of only four letters is used. These letters are only used to make three-letter words. If we indicate such a word with 1-2-3, then there are four possibilities for 1, namely G, A, C and T. This is also the case for 2 and 3. The whole language has only 4 x 4 x 4 words. This is sufficient because these 64 words indicate amino acids; and there are only about 20 different amino acids. These amino acids are then the building blocks of the proteins with which our body is constructed.

A number of bases such as AAT-GAC-TAG-GGC form therefore four words that code for four consecutive amino acids; this is the tiny begin of a protein molecule (in this discussion it isn't important to indicate how the translation of words to amino acids and proteins takes place).

Human beings have three billion bases in their DNA. These must be present in exactly the right order. A mistake of just one of the three billion bases can give rise to a hereditary disease, such as hemophilia, colour blindness, nerve or muscle diseases, but many other mistakes are tolerated. Biology indicates that human DNA has three billion bases that must be in the correct order. Evolution states that this has all happened by chance (in what John Jacobs calls a “materialistic-atheistic” evolution theory).

We could number the bases from 1 to 3,000,000,000. These would then by chance have been placed in the right order. That means for base number one a chance of 1:4, since there are four different bases, that all could end up by chance at the first place. The same is the case for all bases until the three billionth. The amount of base sequences that can occur by chance becomes huge. Try it with just six bases. Now there are already 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 x 4 = 4096 possible combinations. Only one would be correct. For the human genome the chance that the right sequence of three billion bases would be formed 1:43 billion . This number consists of 1,806,179,974 digits, a chance that is unbelievably small.

I will try to clarify why this is unbelievable with a spacial example: Let us try to compare this chance with that of finding a needle in a haystack. Let's seek a needle of 1mm3 in a haystack of 10 x 10 x 10m. The haystack is 10,000 x 10,000 x 10,000 larger than the needle. In other words: it is 1012 times larger, or a million x a million times larger than the needle. If we consider this it is clear that we shouldn't try to look for a needle in this haystack. But we are only speaking of a number with 12 zeroes. We must however consider a number with 1.8 billion digits!

Let's try something larger. Light spreads from one point in all directions with a speed of 300.000 km/sec. In one year that becomes a large sphere of light: 3.5 x 1057 mm. This gigantic volume can be described with 58 digits. Still nothing compared to 1.8 billion digits. It is clear that the chance of DNA occurring randomly is unbelievably small, and that a correct DNA molecule cannot occur by chance.

But let's assume that somehow a cell would appear in this way, and that a male would grow out of it. Where does the female come from that fits with him? The evolutionist's answer could be that she comes forth out of the male (for example by the loss of a Y-chromosome and duplication of an X-chromosome). But how can a male exist and replicate himself as long as there is no female?

There are a lot of other problems. A human can only live when there are sufficient plants and animals present. These animals and plants can only be consumed if they are biologically related to the human. Oxygen and water is also necessary. The temperature must also be regulated carefully. How can it be that all these matters are nicely present, in order, by chance, at the right time?

You may ask why this DNA-molecule-as-argument-against-evolution is so important. The answer is that DNA is essential for the appearance of life; the whole complexity of our biological existence is controlled by this molecule. The problems explaining this molecule by a materialistic-atheistic evolution theory will be clear by now.

There are various arguments that can be brought in against this thought pattern. I would like to mention a few:

  • Evolution can take place, because a lot can happen in a few billion years. Answer: A few billion years is much too short. One billion years has only 3x1016 seconds. That is not enough time to let something happen with a chance of one to a number with 1.8 billion digits.

  • It isn't just pure chance; there are ordering principles or certain steps in the formation of such a molecule. Answer: which ordering principles would have made it possible for the first DNA to be correctly formed?

  • Probably much less DNA has to be made by chance, because many parts of the DNA are copied many times. Answer: that is true, but it doesn't solve the problem. Assume that every piece of DNA is copied 1000 times; that would mean that not 100% of the DNA needs to be constructed in order, but only 0.1%. Not three billion bases need to be made in order, but only three million. The chance that this would happen by chance is one to a number of 1.8 million digits. This is also not realistic.

  • There are 64 three-letter words for about 20 amino acids. There are therefore amino acids that are stated with more than one three-letter word. The chance for a correct DNA then becomes much larger, and we must correct for that. Answer: that is correct. But a simple calculation shows also here that this does not create a realistic chance for the correct formation of DNA.

  • Life began not with human DNA but for example with DNA of a bacteria. That DNA is much smaller. The chance of random formation of this bacteria DNA is gigantically larger than that of human DNA. Answer: I agree. But the chance is still unrealistically small.

As long as DNA must occur by chance within evolutionist thinking, it is in my opinion the strongest argument against evolution. Darwin assumed however one or more life forms created by God. This assumption of Darwin is justified by the above arguments.

Darwin wrote his book in 1859. Since then the theory of evolution is prominently present in biology. But the arguments against the theory of evolution are much stronger than those supporting it.

After having clarified that the theory of evolution cannot explain the existence of DNA, it will be clear for all that creationism (seen as an alternative science) cannot explain the mechanism for the occurrence of this molecule. I am neither an evolutionist nor a creationist. It is acceptable to me that a researcher ponders about mechanisms that can explain the occurrence of DNA. But I think that the conclusion still is: there is no logical and researchable hypothesis for the way the complete human DNA was formed. I can also not see why a researcher must have a hypothesis to explain the forming of DNA. I think we can only say:

For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and deity” (Romans 1:20).

But then we have departed from the areas of physics, evolutionism and creationism.

Prof. Dr. Willem den Otter

Previously presented in Dutch on http://evolutie.biz

The Theory of Evolution and Thermodynamics

Scientifically, the core of the theory of evolution is the statement that according to the laws of nature molecules will organize themselves - without an external supply of energy – into ever more complex units. However, no person in any laboratory in the world will give this thought any serious consideration, because the assumption that molecules can organize themselves is completely contrary to experience.

It would seem that such a theory would be rejected due to the fact that it does not agree with the day-to-day experience of everyone, and also with the empirical* sciences. But that does not occur. Scientific theories, methods and techniques that people are dependent upon for their daily life are not based upon the theory of evolution, and the contrast between this theory and the empirical sciences never becomes evident in practical problems with a not functioning method or technique.

In fact, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a modern, accepted myth over the beginning of living things. It is attractive in that it can explain every phenomenon in natural life, although the explanations are not testable (a necessity for scientific theories). It also supports the progressive belief that 'everything will automatically get better'.

The theory of evolution has a strong position, hardly threatened by the empirical sciences and practical day-to-day experience. A theory that the impressive order in nature happened by itself must be rejected on scientific grounds. According to thermodynamics this order could only have come into existence by a purposeful external force.

Dr. Ir. W.M. de Jong (1956) is mathematician and active in business management. Among others, he studied thermodynamics at the Technical University in Delft Holland.

Stated out of: ELLIPS 1 - BW28/241 January 2003

* empirical: derived from experiment and observation rather than theory

Here's a tally of visitors since 10 Feb 2018

Flag Counter