Source: https://genesisapologetics.com/junior-high/life-science/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 03:10:19+00:00

Document:
Below is a list of topics covered in this Life Science book along with links to the Debunking Evolution videos that address each topic in parenthesis.
This textbook includes over 100 pages (of about 700 pages total length) dedicated to evolution theory. Most of the evolution teaching is included in Chapters 7 and 8, which include a ground-up presentation of Darwinian evolution (chapter 7) followed by a lengthy argument for the age of the earth (chapter 8) and the various dating methods that supposedly prove evolution in the fossil record. Each section is covered below.
Pages 220-221 of the textbook defines a theory as a guess, or an idea of how or why something might happen. It also states that a huge amount of evidence supports the theory of evolution. However, if one studies the evidence, it soon becomes clear that evolution is impossible scientifically.
First, let’s define a theory in a better way than the textbook describes it. “A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. To test this assumption, scientists conduct experiments that either disprove or correlate with the hypothesis. Many theories, however, don’t last forever. If new technology allows better experimentation, for example, a theory may need to be discarded. Two problems prevent evolution being called a theory. First, there is no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed to prove it. Scientists can measure bones, study mutations, decode DNA, and notice similarities in morphology (the form and structure of animals and plants), but they can never test whether creationists reject science. Secondly, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all of the supposed “tests” to prove the theory do not necessarily correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation (like creation). A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot prove something’s true of false. So therefore by definition of a theory itself, “Evolution is [actually] anti-science and anti-knowledge” (Lisle, 2008).
"Evolution: Not Even a Theory." Answers in Genesis. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 June 2014.
Lisle, Jason. "Evolution: The Anti-science." Answers in Genesis. N.p., 13 Feb. 2008. Web. 25 June 2014.
This section in the book states that a new species can form when a group of individuals remain isolated from the rest of its species long enough to evolve different traits through adaptation and natural selection. Adaptation is a widely used concept by evolutionists when describing the Darwinian evolution, but they leave out very important factors which debunk their claims that this process is occurring.
For example, the different size and shapes of the finches described in the text shows adaptation and variation, but does not show any signs of evolution as described by Darwin. Let me break this down to explain the concept more. The different shape and size of the beaks allow the finches to live and prosper in certain environments. Birds with thicker beaks can live on islands that have thick shells, but the ones with long and skinny beaks will not be able to survive as easily. Over time, the trait of a long and skinny beak will become dormant within the genetic code and will show up less over time.
This shows genetic adaptation but most definitely not evolution. “The size of beaks goes up and down over the years, but it never permanently changes, and it certainly does not change into something other than a beak. In order for this to be ‘evolution in action,’ we should see some type of new physical feature or biological process” (Biddle, p. 140, 2014). Through adaptation you will never observe a change in kind, which is needed if the concept of adaptation was to support the evolution theory.
The finch is still a bird, and the different size beaks are still beaks. “Observational science supports this type of subtle change within a kind but not molecules-to-man evolution” (Patterson, p. 61, 2009).
Patterson, Roger. "Natural Selection and Evolution: Do Darwin's Finches Prove Evolution?" Creation V. Evolution. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 140. Print.
Patterson, Roger. "Natural Selection vs Evolution." Evolution Exposed. Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 61. Print.
Natural selection is the process by which some individuals within a species who are more adapted to their environment will be more likely to pass down their traits to future generations. , due to the fact that they are more fit to live and prosper in their given environment. Creationist scientists and evolutionists agree on this concept, but “evolutionists use natural selection to attempt to explain how organisms could have adapted to different environments and changed from [one kind to another] over the course of millions of years” (Biddle, p. 139, 2014).
This cannot be because natural selection does not add new material into the genetic code, it has to work with what is already there. The assumptions of the past made by these evolutionists can never be observed, measured, nor repeated. “These [processes] are supposed to be able to cause one kind of animal to change into another, but scientists have not witnessed this. In other words, mutations change existing traits within a reproducing kind, but they don’t change one kind into another” (Biddle, p. 139, 2014).
Patterson, Roger. "Natural Selection and Evolution: Do Darwin's Finches Prove Evolution?" Creation V. Evolution. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 2014. 139. Print.
In the textbook, homologous structures are similar structures that related species have supposedly inherited from a common ancestor. This definition is flawed and in no way does it prove Darwinian evolution. If the bones in the limbs of dolphins, birds and dogs all had a common ancestor as evolution teaches, then “we should be able to trace these alleged homologies to the DNA that codes for them” (Bergman 2001). In other words, if the structures of the organisms are homologous through evolution, then the genes in the DNA that make these characteristics should be in the same location within the DNA of these different organisms.
As technology has advanced, geneticists have been able to identify the specific genes that make these specific characteristics. Through further analysis, they found that “what are labeled as homologous structures in different species often are produced by quite different genes” (Bergman, 2001). “When structures that appear to be similar to one another develop under the control of genes that are not related, the common ancestor idea fails” (Patterson, p. 70, 2009) because “if the Darwinian interpretation of homology were correct, then we would expect that the same homologies found at the macroscopic level also exist at the microscopic, biochemical and genetic levels” (Bergman, 2001).
Bergman continues: “Examples of homology are actually better explained by analogy, and the resemblance that exists is often due to similarity of function and/or design constraints. The forelimbs of humans, whales and birds are similar because they serve similar functions and have similar design constraints” (Bergman, 2001). A “valid is that all these organisms were created by a common Designer who used the same design principles to accomplish similar functions” (Patterson, p. 70, 2009). In other words, why would God want to re-invent the wheel every time He made a similar function between animals?
“Homology is a failed proof of evolution. If Homology were true then creatures that have similar features would produce those features through a similar genetic pathway. A simple analogy: bikes, cars, and planes all share a homologous feature—tires. But the tires they share are all produced by a different factory, using different materials and under different conditions. The same thing is true for similar features in different animals. The features make look similar but they are produced by completely different genetic pathways. So there is no possibility that the homologous features are anything but superficially alike.” (Darrin Clinton, 2014, personal correspondence).
Bergman, Jerry. "Does Homology Provide Evidence of Evolutionary Naturalism?" Journal of Creation 15.1 (2001): 26-33. Answers in Genesis. Web. 25 June 2014.
Patterson, Roger Todd. "Natural Selection vs Evolution." Evolution Exposed. Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2009. 70. Print.
The book teaches that evolutionary relationships among organisms show the order in which specific characteristics may have evolved. For example, page 245 of the text shows an “evolutionary tree of life” stating that raccoons, lesser pandas, giant pandas, and bears all came from a common ancestor around 40 million years ago.
When you observe this illustration, ask yourself, “What direct evidence supports the lines on this tree?” “A major problem with [these] trees and other related models is the lack of evidence that supports the links between known organisms and their supposed fossil relatives. The lines that connect an ancestor to the living organism are mostly imaginary” (Patterson, p. 38, 2009).
Creationists disagree with this proposed “tree of life” that all life originated from a single, unknown, common ancestor. Now this does not mean that creationists disagree with the “classifications by evolutionary biologists but [the] evolutionary history associated with the classifications is rejected” (Patterson, p. 39, 2009). Throughout time, scientists have observed the rise of new species, but they are always within the limitation of their created kinds. They have never witnessed a new kind arise which would be necessary if this proposed tree of life in evolution theory were to be true.
“If we begin our thinking from the Word of God, as we should if we are to honor Christ, we have a very different way of interpreting the evidence. God describes how He created living things in the first chapter of the Bible—Genesis 1. He tells us, as an eyewitness to His own work, that He created plants and animals according to their kinds to reproduce after their kinds. Genesis 1:11 makes this clear: ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth.’ God supernaturally and specially created the different kinds of plants with seeds to produce more of the same kind. A coconut will never sprout a plum tree. The passages describing animals teach the same thing (Genesis 1:20–25; 6:19–20). So rather than a single tree of life, we could draw an orchard of trees each representing a distinct kind of plant or animal. All of the branches on the tree represent the variation within those kinds that have resulted from different expressions of the initial genetic variation God programmed in the original organisms as well as later mutations and other forms of genetic mixing. This orchard model is also an idea developed from a certain philosophy- Biblical creation” (Biddle, p. 142-143, 2014).
Patterson, Roger. "Natural Selection and Evolution: Do Darwin's Finches Prove Evolution?" Creation V. Evolution. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 2014. 142-43. Print.
Patterson, Roger Todd. "Classifying Life." Evolution Exposed. Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2009. 38-39. Print.
Your textbook describes climate change as the leading cause of extinction, and continues to say that it helped cause the extinction of the wooly mammoth. The material states that woolly mammoths had traits that helped them live in cold environments, such as long thick coats of hair, when the climate became warmer, the traits were no longer useful and therefore the woolly mammoth became extinct. Only a portion of this statement is correct. Yes, climate change can cause the extinction of animals. But the textbook states that the environment the woolly mammoth lived in was a very cold one and when the temperature rose, the mammoth became extinct, which isn’t in line with the evidence that is found.
“Woolly mammoths are not the only fossil mammals found in the permafrost of Beringia. There are a wide range of other mammals, large and small, that accompany the mammoths…Many of these animals are grazers, implying that the paleoenvironment of Beringia was a grassland with a wide diversity of plants. This diversity of plants and animals points to a longer growing season with milder winters and very little permafrost” (Oard, 2000). Oard is stating that these herbivores, including the woolly mammoth, could in no way survive in an environment that is covered with ice and extremely low temperatures because of the temperature itself, and the lack of food available to the animals.
This extremely cold environment is described in the uniformitarianism model, which is the basis of the geological time scale that includes the woolly mammoth environment described in the textbook. Oard states, “Uniformitarian ice age models cannot explain the mammoths, or even the ice age itself” (Oard 2000). A much better explanation of the ice age and woolly mammoth environments is through a post-catastrophic-flood environment, created by Noah’s flood. “During the Flood, warm water from the ‘fountains of the great deep’ would have produced a warm post-Flood ocean” (Oard, 2000). This warm post-Flood ocean would create much more evaporation than we observe today.
“More evaporation [means] warmer winters, more intense storms, and colder summers: The result? An ‘ice age’ (Morris 1993). So, because of this ice age created by the biblical flood of Noah, “the animals [such as the woolly mammoth] thrived [because] the temperatures were more equable with cool summers and milder winters. (Note that much of the continental land mass was never covered by ice sheets, even during the ice age.)…The animals became extinct at the end of the ice age because the climate changed to a more continental climate, with colder winters and warmer summers, and drier conditions” (Oard, 2000). These major weather changes would create dust storms, cold weather, drought, and fires which are the reason the woolly mammoth and other animals became extinct after the ice age. Not because the weather warmed up and melted all the ice that the woolly mammoth had traits to survive in, as the textbook claims!
Morris, John D. "Was There Really an Ice Age?" Acts & Facts 22.8 (1993): n. pag. Institute for Creation Research. Web. 25 June 2014.
Oard, Michael J. "The Extinction of the Woolly Mammoth: Was It a Quick Freeze?" Journal of Creation 14.3 (2000): 24-34. Answers in Genesis. Web. 25 June 2014.
It should include ancestral forms in the lowest rocks. That is, the less-evolved root organisms.
It should include intermediate forms; “life forms [that] gradually display new organs and other body designs in an uninterrupted, increasingly advanced chain” (Biddle, p. 107, 2014). “Darwin himself noted in The Origin of Species (1859), “The number of intermediate varieties, which formerly existed on earth [must] be truly enormous.” (Biddle, p. 109, 2014).
The fossil record should include to support Darwin’s theory are divergent forms, which are “increasing numbers of more and more genetically complex diverse organisms [that] occupy the higher geological strata." Upon closer inspection, however, the fossil record actually falsifies all three evolutionary model predictions. Instead, the fossil record biologically, paleontologically, and geologically supports all biblical creation criteria without exception” (Biddle, p. 107, 2014). On top of all this, “observational science has shown that fossils and rocks can form rapidly: The idea of a young earth, [which is indicated by this information] is not compatible with evolution” (Patterson, p. 106, 2009). “Fossils in pristine condition require that the animal or plant was buried rapidly; therefore, index fossils, rather [than] indicating a living environment over time, are nothing more than things buried quickly and suffocated under huge amounts of sediments transported by the ocean” (Biddle, p. 83, 2014). So in order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried quickly after death! “A catastrophic flood such as Noah’s Flood can certainly provide a possible explanation” (Biddle, p. 55, 2014).
If this passage in Genesis is true, we would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth. And this is exactly what we find! In fact, such evidence exists all over the world” (Biddle, p. 53-55, 2014).
There have been a total of 200,000,000 fossils found throughout the world and yet “the fossil record bears witness that there are (1) no ancestral roots—no “primitive” organisms between microfossils and visible life, (2) no transitional trunk—no anatomically-intermediate creatures with structurally-transitional features (e.g., partially-evolved organs, limbs, etc.), and (3) no divergent branches—no new phyla being genetically descended from less-evolved “common ancestors” (Biddle, p. 115, 2014). “Evolution has had its chance—over 150 years and millions of fossils—to prove itself, and it has come up wanting. The theory has been weighed, tested, measured, and falsified. Aren’t 200 million opportunities and one and one-half centuries enough time to answer the issue that confounded Darwin himself?” (Biddle, p. 113, 2014).
Bassett, David V. "Do Fossils Show Evolution?" Creation V. Evolution. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 2014. 106+. Print.
Patterson, Roger Todd. "Unlocking the Geologic Record." Evolution Exposed. Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2009. 106. Print.
Sigler, Roger. "The Age of the Earth, Dating Methods, and Evolution." Creation V. Evolution. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 2014. 83. Print.
Wingerden, Van, and Daniel A. Biddle. "Did Noah's Flood Really Happen?" Creation V. Evolution. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 2014. 53-55. Print.
To date, secular science has generated hundreds of theories to try to explain when and how the dinosaurs went extinct. Many scientists (including those who wrote the textbook) hypothesize that during the Cretaceous period an asteroid hit Earth near the present day Yucatan Peninsula, in southeastern Mexico. However, there is not even a consensus on this view.
“Despite the popularity of [this] meteorite theory, many scientists believe the extinction of the dinosaurs has not been solved...[but] for most creationists, the extinction of the dinosaurs, as well as other extinctions, is not a mystery. In fact, the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other creatures has an easy answer—they simply died in the Genesis Flood (except those dinosaurs likely taken on the Ark, which probably died soon after the Flood)” (Oard, 1997).
“The Bible says that all things were created during the six-day creation week (Exodus 20:11, etc.), including dinosaurs. The reptilian dinosaurs were (by definition) land animals which were created on Day Six under the category of ‘beast of the earth’ (Genesis 1:24, 25)” (Morris, 1989). When inspecting dinosaur fossils, “the most obvious aspect of [the] fossils is that most dinosaurs must have been buried rapidly in water” (Oard, 1997). Likewise, the bones are often found in what is called a fossil graveyard, where thousands of dinosaurs (of wide varieties) died and were rapidly buried.
“The existence and characteristics of [these] dinosaur graveyards [provide] strong support for the Genesis Flood” (Oard, 1997). In Genesis, “God had told Noah to bring pairs of each kind of land animal on board the Ark, including, evidently, the dinosaurs (7:15). Recognizing that, as reptiles, dinosaurs would have continued to grow as long as they lived; implying that the oldest would be the largest, there was plenty of room on board the Ark for the younger ones. Thus the dinosaurs on board the Ark probably would have been young adults, no bigger than a cow perhaps. But the world after the Flood was much different than before, with much less vegetation and a colder, harsher climate, and evidently the dinosaurs gradually died out. Perhaps they were even hunted to extinction, as would be indicated by the many legends of dragons, the descriptions of which closely resemble dinosaurs” (Morris, 1989).
Morris, John D. "How Do the Dinosaurs Fit In?" Acts & Facts 18.5 (1989): n. pag. Institute for Creation Research. Web. 28 June 2014.
Oard, Michael J. "The Extinction of the Dinosaurs." Journal of Creation 11.2 (1997): 137-54. Answers in Genesis. Web. 28 June 2014.
“The alleged age of the Earth is based on an interpretation of its radioactivity. The planet itself is given an age of 4.5 billion years and the various rock layers are given names with assigned ages” (Biddle, p. 83, 2014). The textbook teaches that scientists can give rocks found on Earth (and Earth itself) an estimate age based on the half-life of radioactive elements. They do this by measuring the ratio of the radioactive parent elements to their respective stable daughter elements.
What is not explained is that radiometric dating requires many assumptions, which means that many things have to be assumed to believe that this dating accurately reflects the age of the earth. For example, there is an assumption that all the radioactive parent isotopes began decaying right when the mineral crystallized from a melt. There is also an assumption made that none of the stable daughter elements were present at this time. How can anyone claim to know the mineral really began with 100% radioactive parent and 0% daughter elements? What if some stable daughter element was already present when the rock formed? (Biddle, p. 87, 2014).
There have been many occasions where we have seen rocks formed in our lifetime and yet when measured with radiometric age dating, the data indicated it to be thousands if not millions of years old! Rock that was formed in 1959 from the “recent basalt lava [eruption] on the deep ocean floor from the Kilauea volcano in Hawaii were measured. Researchers calculated the age of the rocks were up to 22,000,000 years old for brand new rocks!” (Biddle, p. 91, 2014). If this test shows that “the argon amounts in these rocks [indicate] they are older than their known ages, [could] argon have come from a source other than radioactive potassium decay? If so, then geologists have been trusting a faulty method” (Biddle, p. 92, 2014).
If this shows that rocks which is only 100 years old to be up to 22 million years old, how can radiometric age dating be accurate, especially when used to predict the age of the earth? “Radiometric age dating should no longer be sold to the public as providing reliable absolute ages…[and therefore] the ages shown on the uniformitarian geologic time scale should be removed [since it is based off of an unreliable dating system]” (Biddle, p. 92, 2014). There are many other examples of faulty radiometric age readings shown in the table below.
Sigler, Roger. "The Age of the Earth, Dating Methods, and Evolution." Creation V. Evolution. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 2014. 83+. Print.
For the most part, both evolutionists and biblical creationists agree that the earth’s crust is moving, but they greatly differ on exactly how fast (and when) such movement occurred. Evolutionary geologists use radiometric dating to suggest that the continents were all in one location as supercontinents hundreds of millions of years ago (800 million years ago in “Rodinia” and 180 million years ago in “Pangaea”). Most creation scientists do not disagree with the concept of Rodinia and Pangaea. Using the dates from Genesis, we can determine that the continents were together at least up to the time of Noah’s Flood, some 4,300 years ago.
Current seafloor spreading, magnetic reversals recorded in the seafloor crust, similar rocks and fossils across ocean basins and the puzzle-like fit of continents are evidences that appear to be explainable in slow-and-uniform terms over billions of years. However, these evidences can be better explained by the rapid and catastrophic movement of the plates during the Flood. Computer modeling has shown that the continents could have separated in a matter of weeks, supporting a young age of the earth —millions of years are not required.
The model now adopted by many creation scientists is called catastrophic plate tectonics and is closely related to the Flood. Rather than the slow continental drift suggested by secular geologists, the biblical explanation can be thought of as continental sprint. Rather than acting over millions of years to shape the earth’s continents, the originally created continents separated in a matter of weeks, collided, and then separated again during the Flood to arrive at their current positions. This may seem like a radical claim, but computer modeling has demonstrated the feasibility of this model…Not only does this model explain the evidence for plate tectonics, it also provides explanations for the processes involved in the Genesis Flood.
The Bible speaks of the breaking open of the fountains of the great deep and the opening of the windows of heaven as it rained for 40 days and nights. As the magma rose to replace the spreading seafloor, it would have produced massive jets of steam carrying large amounts of water high into the atmosphere. This matches the description in the Bible and provides a mechanism to explain where all of the water for the Flood came from…Another effect would be flooding across the continents. As the hot, lower-density magma rose, the new ocean floor would have floated higher than the original ocean crust, displacing the water and forcing it onto the continents. This explains how marine creatures were deposited in thick and extensive layers across the continents and how fossils of marine organisms wound up on the tops of the mountains (Patterson, 2011).
The secular view of uniformitarian has a great deal of trouble explaining these features and how marine fossils end up on tops of mountains. “Despite claims by uniformitarian scientists that the Bible’s timeline does not allow for enough time to produce the features we see today, explanations from a biblical perspective make sense of the evidence. It is possible to explain the evidence with models based on biblical truths and within the young-earth timeline of 6,000 years. Conclusions depend on starting assumptions” (Patterson, 2011).
“Creation geologists agree with uniformitarian geologists that the continents were originally grouped together. The Bible suggests this happened at Creation about 6,000 years ago and again during the Flood about 4,300 years ago, while secular scientists believe this happened twice over the last 800 or so million years of earth history” (Patterson, 2011).
Patterson, Roger. "Plate Tectonics." Answers in Genesis. N.p., 10 Feb. 2011. Web. 29 June 2014.
Throughout the past century, scientists have been trying to find a fossil of a species with transitional structures in order to demonstrate that Darwinian evolution did occur gradually over time. “If animals have evolved from a common ancestor, there should be a multitude of missing links to demonstrate the gradual changes” (Patterson, p. 99, 2009). “The fraudulent ‘feathered dinosaur’ (Archaeopteryx) that was published in National Geographic is another example of a missing link that has been abandoned” (Patterson, p. 99, 2009).
“Many people have tried to say that the proof that reptiles evolved into birds is to be found in [Archaeopteryx], which shows claws on its fossilized feathered wings. But all the living birds with claws on their wings are obviously birds!” (Patterson, p. 126, 2009). Furthermore, the once “prime example of an intermediate form or ‘missing link’ candidate between reptiles and birds—would not qualify as a transitional fossil since its socketed teeth, long bony tail, and wing-claws are all fully-formed structures of its alleged fossil representatives, showing no signs of partial evolutionary development. Without true transitional structures, does the fossil record support or upsettingly contradict the Darwinian view of phyletic gradualism?” (Biddle, p. 109, 2014).
Bassett, David V. "Do Fossils Show Evolution?" Creation V. Evolution. Ed. Daniel A. Biddle. N.p.: Xulon, 2014. 109. Print.
Patterson, Roger Todd. "Natural Selection vs Evolution." Evolution Exposed. Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2009. 99. Print.
Patterson, Roger Todd. "Unlocking the Geologic Record." Evolution Exposed. Petersburg, KY: Answers in Genesis, 2009. 126. Print.
If you have questions regarding the materials, information or answers provided on this page, feel free to contact Genesis Apologetics at your earliest convenience!

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.