Creation Science

Evolution and Creation Science

Evolution and Young Earth Creationism 


By Greg Neyman

© Old Earth Ministries

First Published 31 January 2003


     Creation scientists rebuke the idea that evolution is possible, and rightly so.  Evolution is FALSE.  Scientists are constantly on the lookout for the "missing link."  In fact, the species that links one early form of a species to a later form, commonly referred to as an intermediary species, are missing from all supposed evolutionary lines.  The common phrase that most like to use is, "Have you ever seen a short-necked giraffe."  According to evolution, there must have been one, but one has never been found in the fossil record.

     However, young-earth proponents have some serious issues related to evolution...specifically, they believe in evolution!  In order for them to make the facts fit the model of a young earth, you must believe in evolution.  Let's start in the Garden of Eden.

     According to young earth theory, there was no death (human or animal) prior to was introduced after the Fall of Man (for more, see Teeth).  If you accept this, and the fact that in accordance with this belief, all animals ate only plants in the Garden of Eden, then all animals (which were created by a perfect God) must  have been created perfectly for the processing of plant food.  In other words, they must have had molar teeth.  Imagine tigers, lions, even raptors and Tyrannosaurus Rex as having molar teeth.  So, when did they get canine teeth?

     The young-earth proponents argue that these carnivorous animals developed within a few hundred years after the fall of man (John D. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research).1  What is evolution?  In short, it is the adaptation of a species to environmental change to facilitate its survival. Animals "developing" canine teeth from molars...sounds just like evolution!

    The young-earther will argue that their definition means "there is no new genetic material introduced."  That's a nice thought, but it is just a cop-out.  Evolution is "change," and molars to canines is a "change," in order for the animal to adapt to their environment.  If you can go from molars to canines in a few hundred years, then much larger changes proposed by evolutionists are certainly possible.

     In any case, it is hard to believe that such an anti-evolutionist as Morris is proposing that these animals "evolved" in order to make it fit into his young-earth model.  He violates his own belief that evolution is impossible by actually using evolution to explain this problem.  So, you can logically see that to accept the young-earth model, you must accept a rapid rate of evolution as truth, and you inadvertently have proven the very thing that you seek to disprove. (For a full explanation of the teeth, see Teeth).

     For the next point, let's look at Noah's Ark.  The young-earth proponents have stated that you don't need two dogs, and two wolves, and two coyotes on the ark, because Noah could have just taken two "dog-kind" onto the Ark, and the dogs, wolves, coyotes, and similar species today could have developed (i.e. evolved) from that one "dog-kind pair." 

     They say the same thing for horses, zebras, and donkeys...they are probably descended from the horse-like ‘kind.'  Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. (from “Were Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?”).

     Unfortunately, to accept this theory that dogs, wolves, and coyotes came from a single canine ‘kind,’ (and horses, zebras and donkeys from their 'kind') they are essentially saying that evolution is true, because these unique animals had to “evolve” from the original “canine kind” on the Ark.

     In fact, by the creation scientists' calculations, the maximum capacity of the Ark was about thirty thousand pairs of land animals.  However, today we have five million species of land animals, which by their model, must have came from their original 30,000 pairs.  There is only one way to get to five million from thirty thousand...evolution!  Over a 4,500 year period since the Ark, that means new species are developing at a rate of 1,104 new species per year!

     This brings up another problem.  The fossil record shows over half a billion species.  Given the current rate of extinction (about one species per year), and subtracting the previous 6,000 years, that means there have been about  6,000 extinctions during the last 6,000 years.  So when did the other 499,994,000 species go extinct?  By their model, it must have happened between the time of the creation through the Flood.  Those few hundred years (or few thousand) between these two events must have been rough on animals.  Assuming it was 2,000 (generous by young-earth standards), the extinction rate for this period is 249,997 species per year!  Must have been those green plants the carnivores were eating before the Fall of man! 

     You could spread out these extinctions over the last 6,000 years, but that would not help much.   You can divide up these numbers any way you can't fit them into a young-earth model.

     Also, from a common-sense standpoint, would God create an animal species, knowing that it would go extinct in the next year?  That would be very inefficient, and far from a perfect animal that the creation event was supposed to produce.  You would have to conclude that God created a flawed ecosystem, and we know that is not the case!  In other words, he would not have created animals with carnivorous teeth, when He knew they were being created to eat plants in the Garden of Eden.  Imagine Him creating 249,997 species that went extinct after their first year of existence.  Not logical.


Addition, 1 Feb 04


     ICR has recently posted an article about this subject (click here).  In it, they answer a claim made by Dr. Hugh Ross of RTB, which is similar to the article above.  The claim made by ICR is that there were 30,000 species on the ark, and the five million that Dr. Ross says evolved from this original 30,000 were mostly marine species, which were not affected by the Flood.  Let’s look at these numbers more closely.

     If you eliminate the marine species, we are left with about 28,000 living species2 (mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile) which needed to survive the Flood.  Historical data shows that for every living vertebrate species, there are 46 extinct species.3  If you multiply 28,000 by 46, we arrive at the total number of dry land species (by this method), which is 1,288,000.  Therefore, ICR is incorrect in stating that most of these 5 million species are marine.

     Given the ICR claim of 30,000 species on the ark, and the fact that there are 28,000 living species, the ecological system of the earth is balanced at around 30,000, which can be assumed to be the maximum number of different vertebrate lifeforms the earth can support at one time.  However, it is apparent from the other 1.2 million extinct land vertebrates, that the Flood could not account for these, because the earth cannot support that many species living at one time.  This completely invalidates the young-earth claims made by their article.


1 “If All Animals Were Created as Plant Eaters, Why Do Some have Sharp Teeth,” by John D. Morris, Back to Genesis, No. 100, April 1997, page d.

2  Peter Uetz,




     If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth.  Click here for more.


    Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism?  Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life?  If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here.



Print-Friendly PDF


Evolution Articles



To learn more about old earth creationism, see Old Earth Belief, or check out the article Can You Be A Christian and Believe in an Old Earth?  

 Feel free to check out more of this website.  Our goal is to provide rebuttals to the bad science behind young earth creationism, and honor God by properly presenting His creation.