Creation Quotes

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


How refreshing it is to read the candid admission of one of England ‘s premier evolutionary biologists, the late L. Harrison Matthews (F.R.S.)

“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory – is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof”

– Introduction to The Origin of Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971)


“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.”

-GK Chesterton


Regarding teaching Creation Science:

As Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote: “to posit a past creator is not to posit the eternal and personal God who is the object of religious veneration.”

Scalia also wrote, “We will not presume that a law’s purpose is to advance religion merely because it happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions.” 1

When one understands the evidence, it is clear that this amazing complexity in the living cell could not have evolved. It is hard to imagine an unbiased person who understands the evidence reaching any other conclusion.

-Dr. Walter Brown


If a culture ignored, for any reason, an event as cataclysmic as a global flood, major errors or misunderstandings would creep into science and society. One of the first would be the explanation for fossils.

-Dr. Walter Brown


Professor James Barr, a renowned Hebrew scholar and Oriel
Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scriptures at Oxford University, said
in a personal letter on April 23, 1984:

“So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew of Old Testament at any
world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1
through 11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation
took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours
we now experience; (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies
provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to
later stages in the biblical story; (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be
world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the


Hebrews 11:3

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

King James Version (KJV) Public Domain


Several Quotes from Answers in Genesis


“At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt”

I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician; Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America; “Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities”; New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4


The Atheists Know … Why Christianity has to Fight Evolution

‘Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’


G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.


Fossil evidence for evolution… expert says ‘FORGET IT’

‘Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’ The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”

(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)


Origin of life … the real agenda

Evolutionist Dr Per Bak, of the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, while reviewing Paul Davies’ recent book The Fifth Miracle, writes (emphasis added):

‘Paul Davies gets into all of the corners of research into the origin of life. … Cynically, one might conclude that much of his vague thinking in fact represents the sad state of affairs in this field of research. We are nowhere near understanding the origin of life. But let us try to avoid invoking miracles.’

New Scientist 160(2155):47, October 10, 1998.


Amazing admission

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’


Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.


The great Baptist preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his sermon ‘Hideous Discovery’, preached on July 25, 1886, made the following comment on evolution:

‘In its bearing upon religion this vain notion is, however, no theme for mirth, for it is not only deceptive, but it threatens to be mischievous in a high degree. There is not a hair of truth upon this dog from its head to its tail, but it rends and tears the simple ones. In all its bearing upon scriptural truth, the evolution theory is in direct opposition to it. If God’s Word be true, evolution is a lie. I will not mince the matter: this is not the time for soft speaking.’


We make the rules now?

‘We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of pre-existing cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory for ever and ever.’


Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, p. 244 (Viking Press, New York), 1983.


“I would advise no one to send his child where the Holy Scriptures are not supreme. Every institution that does not unceasingly pursue the study of God’s word becomes corrupt. Because of this we can see what kind of people they become in the universities and what they are like now. Nobody is to blame for this except the pope, the bishops, and the prelates, who are all charged with training young people. The universities only ought to turn out men who are experts in the Holy Scriptures, men who can become bishops and priests, and stand in the front line against heretics, the devil, and all the world. But where do you find that? I greatly fear that the universities, unless they teach the Holy Scriptures diligently and impress them on the young students, are wide gates to hell.

Martin Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, 1520,” trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. James Atkinson, The Christian in Society, I (Luther’s Works, ed. James Atkinson, vol. 44), p. 207 (1966)


Darwinism, morality and the tiger

‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature.’

Chesterton, G.K., Orthodoxy, John Lane, London, pp. 204–205, 1927.


A designer is unscientific—even if all the evidence supports one!

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’


Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.


If you read as many scientific research grants, reports, projects and study programs as I do, you will reach the obvious conclusion that most of it is research designed to explain away evidence, rather than research designed to explore evidence more deeply. Worse yet, science as practiced by evolutionists today is no longer in the pursuit of greater knowledge, but is solely in pursuit of the next grant!

Evolution is based upon a long string of unproved and unprovable assumptions built up to support a doctrine that has nothing to do with real factual scientific evidence. Evolution is based upon a long string of unproved and unprovable assumptions in order to prop up a philosophical worldview which they want to believe is correct, but is patently illogical.

Evolutionists use continuous circular logic to adamantly “prove” their previously determined outcome, because of the preference of those who develop and maintain their philosophical system.

How does an evolutionist defend his position? They defend their position by faith, and faith alone!

–Dr. Grady McMurtry



%d bloggers like this: