Below is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood,
by Dr. Walt Brown. Copyright © Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.
Click here to order the hardbound 8th edition (2008) and other materials.
a . The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).
b . Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the Earth’s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.
c . “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem.” Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen,” Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442.
d . Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. [See “Proteins” on page 15.] If the atmosphere had no oxygen as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?
Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.
Schopf’s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all.” [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life,” Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, p. 783.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled.
e . Hitching, p. 65.
f . “If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life], then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen.” J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.
u “No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed.” Abel and Trevors, p. 3.
g . “How this nitrogen fixing root nodule (NFN) symbiosis arose repeatedly during plant evolution is an age-old mystery.” ... “the likelihood of parallel changes affecting tens to hundreds of the same genes is so low that multiple independent origins seem implausible.” Laszlo Nagy, “Many Roads to Convergence,” Science, Vol. 361, 13 July 2018, p. 125–126.
h . “The acceptance of this theory [life’s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous.” Ibid., p. 355.
Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.
Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on Earth.
Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contender—creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor “has no clothes.”