One of the most powerful arguments for the existence of God is the physical creation—the earth, planets, stars, animals, plants, humans and all the physical and biological reality that we experience around us every day. The existence of creation demands a Creator, and proves, at least in the minds of most persons, the existence of a Creator whose many attributes are reflected in the wonderful created world that surrounds us.
    
Based on this reasoning, William Paley wrote a book in the middle 1800s titled Natural Theology. In this book he concluded that, just as a watch requires a watchmaker, so a creation requires a creator. From the beginning of Christianity until the middle 1800s, almost every scientist and educated person in the Western world believed in a Creator God. After Darwin worked to “murder God” this all changed.

In our generation, over half of all scientists are now atheists, as are over 90 percent of all leading scientists. Some leading scientists are aggressive militant atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Meyers, Daniel Dennett, Isaac Asimov, Steven Jay Gould and Jerry Coyne.
    
Historians who study this shift from creation to atheism have determined that the major reason for this change from belief to non-belief is a theory named after its most well-known popularizer, Charles Darwin.

Professor Emeritus of astronomy at Harvard, Harlow Shapley, stated “formerly the origin of life was held to be a matter for the Deity to take care of; it was a field for miracles and the supernatural. But no longer.” Professor T. H. Huxley added “the doctrine of Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe the Bible.” And, many scientists add, to believe in God as well.
    
Today’s Darwinian Theory is usually called the theory of evolution. Evolution, often abbreviated as evolution from molecules to man, which is the title of a major biology textbook, is also described as “from the goo to you by the way of zoo.” The theory teaches that all life is essentially the result of primarily two forces, genetic mutations and natural selection of the genetic variety produced by these mutations. Darwinism is also referred as “the survival of the fittest” theory because a fitter animal is, by definition, more likely to survive the struggle for life and which then allows him to reproduce.
    
The major problem with Darwin’s theory is not the survival of the fittest, but the arrival of the fittest because over 99 percent of all mutations are near neutral or harmful and not beneficial. Thus, evolution teaches that humans and all life are the result of billions of mutational mistakes. Today, due to the lack of a better explanation, damage to the genes called genetic mutations are seen by Darwinists as the ultimate source of genetic variety from which natural selection can select.
Other explanations for the cause of evolution have been attempted to explain the arrival of the fittest, but none of these claims have survived careful examination. Some of these ideas include pangenesis, the inheritance of acquired traits, orthogenesis, vitalism, and macromutations, all which have failed as explanations for new genetic information. This is why life, including humans, is believed by Darwinists to be the product of trillions of mistakes.
    
Mutations are copying errors like typographical mistakes that occur when writing books. It is possible that some typing mistakes can improve a manuscript but, as any student knows, the vast majority do not. As noted, scientific research has documented that almost all mutations, over 99 percent, are either near neutral (meaning only slightly deleterious), harmful, or lethal. One study of mutations found not a single example of a beneficial mutation that added new information to the genome. Some mutations are beneficial for human use, such as seedless fruit, but these mutations do not produce a superior animal or plant, rather they produce plants that cannot reproduce.
    
As a result of extensive research on mutations, many scientists have come to doubt that Darwinism can do what it claims.

Christians have also taken notice because a central tenet of Christianity is a belief that God is the creator of the universe and of all life from single celled life to humans. Many Christians have noted that, if carried to its logical conclusion, what evolution attempts to do is explain the existence of the creation without a creator. Darwinism argues that the entire natural world can be explained without resorting to an influence outside of the natural observable world, Christians realize that this doctrine is not only contrary to scientific research, but also contrary to their core beliefs. Creation demands belief in a Creator, and evolution, in attempting to explain all reality without an intelligent Creator, has caused many persons in our modern secular society to conclude that they no longer have a reason to believe in God to explain life or anything else.


    
Some argue that the method God used to create was evolution. They feel that God created some original one-celled life forms, which after millions of years evolved into humans through the laws that God placed within the original one-cell and the environment around it. The major problem with this position is that it is not supported by either scientific research or the dominant historical theology. The problems Christians have include Darwinism is not supported by the Scriptures either. They realize that once we accept the idea that the entire natural world except the first “simple” forms of life are products of evolution, it is not difficult to argue that the formation of the first cell was also a product of evolution.
    
Actually, there is no such thing as a “simple” life form. All living things are enormously complex, even the so-called “simplest” life forms known as bacteria. The living cell is the most complex machine known in the entire universe. Even the most so-called simple non “life” forms [e.g. viruses and bacteriophages] rely on, and could not exist, without higher forms to live off of and thus are parasites. Because the scientific data does not support the theory, the acceptance of evolution is based more on one’s belief structure than on science. Evolution, as defined as the progression from molecules to man purely by natural forces, did not occur, and could not have occurred, and this conclusion is based squarely on science, not religion.