In our series of articles on the biological echo of the Ark’s existence, we’ve seen tremendous scientific confirmation of everything the Bible speaks to on this topic. Evidence from genetics and from Darwin himself argues for the recent origin of species. In addition, comparison of various genetic clocks to one another illuminates the fact of God’s frontloading of the various kinds at creation with the potential for speciation. These facts also simultaneously explain why massive — but limited — speciation can occur on a short timescale. All of these data together lead to testable scientific predictions that put the evolutionary and old-earth creation models to shame. However, surveys of the professional scientific community in the United States show that the overwhelming majority reject creation and accept evolution — 97% or more. Why don’t more scientists accept what we’ve proposed?
For many, the answer is ignorance. In the US public educational system, the courts have effectively forbidden the teaching of what I’ve just outlined. Not surprisingly, since the vast majority of scientists are trained in this public education system, they are completely unaware of the existence of my conclusions.
Demonstrating this fact to be true is not difficult, though some scientists are subtle in their failure to engage our arguments. For example, the Senior Advisor for Dialogue at BioLogos,2 Darrel Falk, has publicly called for more dialogue on the creation-evolution issue. Yet when I’ve pressed him and pleaded that he scientifically review my papers, he has evaded giving an answer. I first made my request in September of 2015. To date, he has yet to accept it.
Conversely, even in the course of this series, evolutionists have illustrated my main point. For example, going back in our series to our discussion of the origin of genetic diversity, I summarized the data and conclusions from the 29,000-word technical paper5 that I published earlier this year. To make it clear that the web post was summarizing previously published work, I referenced the technical paper repeatedly. A recent article on the Panda’s Thumb blog has attempted to rebut my conclusions.