OUR PURPOSE

Did God create dinosaurs to transform into birds?
Do fossil data demand that whales emerged from land-based mammals in just a few hundred years?
Did God create striding bipedal apes with postcranial skeletons virtually identical to humans (a.k.a "ape-men")?

This web resource gathers into one place reasons why certain scientists say, "no way!"

The Gist: The location of the post-flood boundary has profound implications for the modern creation movement. There is a relatively new view of creation that is growing in popularity. Adherents present it as a biblically-sound young earth creation model (i.e., they identify themselves as biblical creationists), yet uncritical acceptance of evolutionary ideas has compromised its major claims. This perspective, which one might term “Young Earth Hyper Evolution (YEHE),” suffers serious biblical and scientific shortcomings, listed below. The broader creation science community rebuts YEHE claims, but their relevant articles and papers are scattered. This website addresses this inconvenience by pooling together these articles and resources.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Let us be clear, we love our brothers in the Lord. We do not enjoy rebuking/correcting those who are in error who profess sincere faith in Christ. However, we feel compelled to do so because of the reports we are hearing about students struggling with doubts about creation as a direct result of the teachings of leading YEHE proponents. May God soften their hearts and call them back to God-honoring, rigorous science (i.e., uncontaminated by evolutionary presuppositions) and sound biblical doctrine.

UPDATE January 21, 2022:

Answers in Genesis has just published the first of a series of articles addressing the scientific and theological errors promulgated by the YEHE group. AIG author sounds the alarm to the church, stating:

"There is a group within young-earth creationism that has subtly been trying to push models based on Genesis to be more like evolution in a number of ways. Because of this high reliance on evolutionary ideas and presuppositions, this group has been termed by some as “young-earth evolutionists"... We will be addressing both the poor theology and the unacceptable “science” in a forthcoming series addressing young-earth evolutionist ideas."

Links to upcoming articles in the series will be added to the list below:

Should Biblical Creation Become More Like Evolution?

Image from: AIG.org

LINKS TO ARTICLES AND PAPERS

The articles and papers cited below highlight some of the major blunders of the YEHE perspective, including blunders in geology, paleontology, genetics, and cosmology. Chief among them is their low placement of the flood boundary, which has led to several logically connected claims that favor evolutionary ideas. YEHEs insist that the end of the Flood is represented by the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary. This has been challenged by the broader community of creation scientists who recognize the wealth of data from sequence stratigraphy, which provides compelling evidence of a higher flood boundary, approximately equivalent to the top or base of the Pliocene.

GEOLOGY & THE FLOOD BOUNDARY

A central argument marshaled by proponents of the YEHE model to support the K-Pg boundary is the Green River Formation. The Green River Formation formed during the Eocene, which corresponds to the Lower Cenozoic. YEHEs claim that the Green River Formation was deposited in a lacustrine (lake) environment. On this basis, YEHEs conclude that the flood must have ended prior to the Eocene, consistent with a K-Pg flood boundary. However, this perspective ignores a series of geological impasses. In the first article below, Oard (2008) cites extensive evidence of large-scale deposition (and erosion) that can only be accounted for by the global flood.

FOSSILS & THE FLOOD BOUNDARY

Summary paragraph

GENETICS AND MUTATION RATES

Summary paragraph

Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary Shenanigans

VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY

Summary paragraph and key words

Sarcopterygians ("fishapods"):

Tiktaalik – The "Perfect Missing Link" or Just Another Fish?

Theropods ("feathered dinosaurs"):

Our position on putative "feathered dinosaurs" (and putative "feathered pterosaurs") is best summarized in the response article linked below on quill knobs: "we do not have problems with God creating dinosaurs with feathers, but the evidence just doesn’t seem to support such a conclusion." YEHEs have the impression that we are uncomfortable with feathered dinosaur claims for biblical reasons. That's not true. In reality, the claims made simply do not stand up to careful scientific scrutiny. Moreover, they rely heavily on evolutionary preconceptions, which shouldn't be surprising since the various arguments were originally proposed by evolutionary scientists. That's the major grip we have about the YEHE camp; on almost every debated issue between creationists and evolutionists, they side with the evolutionary interpretation, even when the evidence is flimsy and easily rebutted (as these articles demonstrate). In other cases, they embrace macroevolutionary-scale transformations based on so-called "missing links" fossils, which is not only genetically impossible, it is unbiblical.

In the first link below (Dinosaurs in Birds' Clothing), AIG paleontologist Gabriela Haynes critiques claims made by paleontologist Dr. Matthew McLain, professor at Masters University. It is worth noting, in addition to feathered dinosaurs, Dr. McLain embraces the whale evolution fossil series, albeit within a post-flood/pre-ice age timeframe of ~200 years (see links to articles on whale evolution in the next section below). Here are a few of Dr. Haynes concerns regarding Dr. McLain's feathered dinosaur claims:

"The overriding issue with Dr. McLain’s claims, and those he cites approvingly, is not primarily paleontological. Dr. McLain is a highly qualified paleontologist. The problem is the uncritical acceptance of the consensus interpretation regarding feathered dinosaurs and trying to find ways to fit that into the Scripture"

"Thus, every researcher should be diligent to ensure they are not unwittingly accepting evolutionary assumptions, as I understand that is what Dr. McLain has done."

"While it is theoretically possible that God could have created dinosaurs with feathers, evidence for such a claim is currently lacking. Christians would be wise to critically review any claim made by evolutionary scientists to see if it matches both Scripture and the available evidence, even if that claim is repeated by a fellow creationist."
"Since Dr. McLain is a college professor, he is training the next generation of creation scientists to, perhaps unwittingly, accept certain evolutionary assumptions as fact, and this has dangerous ramifications for future research.

"As creationists, we must be very careful not to allow compromise with evolutionary ideas to creep into our research, or biblical faithfulness will eventually be lost by either this generation or the next."

Synapsids ("mammal-like reptiles"):

Links

Cetaceans ("wolf-to-whales"):

Equids ("horse evolution series"):

Dr. Wood is professor of biochemistry at Bryan College and a professing YEC who embraces a host of evolutionary transitional forms. For many years, he has openly stated that he believes the "horse-evolution series" is a legitimate example of macroevolution. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the variation in horses (living or extinct) was a result of even a single novel gene arising through the mutation/selection processes. Therefore, it does not involve the type of genetic change that is necessary to transform one kind of animal into a fundamentally new kind—simply because it does not constitute a genome-building processes.

Why then does Dr. Wood count this as an example of "macroevolution"? The answer is because Dr. Wood accepts the arbitrary evolutionary definition for macroevolution, which includes speciation within basic kinds. Consequently, Dr. Wood feels he has no choice but to embrace macroevolution. This is misleading at best. Obviously, creationists accept that the dog breeds (Canis familiaris) descended from a wolf (Canis lupus). Yet, no creationist would claim that the various dog breeds are evidence for macroevolution. Although breeding wolves down to pugs might technically count as speciation (according to taxonomic classifications), it is certainly not an example of macroevolution. As in the horse series, the formation of the various dog breeds from a wolf kind does not involve the formation of any new sets of genetic specifications either via de novo gene birth or neo-functionalization (i.e., duplication plus mutation resulting in a novel function). The same is true of the horse evolution series, so long as one does not mistakenly include a non-horse (Hyracotherium) in the "horse-evolution series" (see articles below).

Yes, you should expect to get "a lot of flak" for claiming to be a YEC while simultaneously accepting erroneous evolutionary definitions, and consequently, mislead students into thinking the creation position is weak or wrong. Ironically, Dr. Wood is professor at a faith-based Christian college. The question remains, is Dr. Wood building-up his students' faith or is he stirring up doubt based on fallacious evolutionary arguments?

The small, hyrax-like Hyracotherium was the horse ancestor?
The non-evolution of the horse
The mythical horse series

PALEOANTHROPOLOGY (HOMININS)

Summary paragraph

Contested Bones, chapter. 7, Australopithecus afarensis, Lucy's Kind – The Third View
Contested Bones, chapter 11, Coexistence – Australopith and Man
Contested Bones chapter 9, Au. sediba – A "Mosaic" Species?

BARAMINS & MULTIVARIATE STATISTICS (BDIST)

Summary paragraph

Comparison of morphology-based and genomics-based baraminology methods

POST-FLOOD DIVERSIFICATION & DISPERSAL

Summary paragraph (diversification and dispersal)

The Ice Age as a mechanism for post-Flood dispersal

ACQUIESCENCE OF SECULAR COSMOLOGY

Maximum age limits based on uniformitarian, naturalistic presuppositions lead to reductio ad absurdum.

"Hot Jupiter" on the Verge of Destruction

ACQUIESCENCE OF EVOLUTION

YEHEs do not accept the theory of evolution—that is to say, they reject decent from a universal common ancestor. However, they tend to be noticeably shy about their rejection of evolution. They do not seem interested in exposing the inherent weaknesses of the evolutionary theory. Instead, they tend to focus on the perceived weaknesses in the traditional biblical perspective. Yet in 9 out of 10 cases, the supposed weaknesses are only considered as such by proponents of YEHEs, who tend to favor the evolutionary interpretations. As Woodmorape notes, "No one questions the fact that creationists have mysteries that they are in need of solving. However, mixing evolutionary ideas with creationist ones, having a high view of the claims of organic evolution, and largely ignoring the work that creationists have already done, is not the way to go about it."

It is true that YEHEs show undue respect and deference to the modern theory of evolution, despite the fact that it has led millions of souls astray since the time of Darwin. They regard conventional geology and paleontology as "mature sciences". They are impressed by the evolutionary scientific community and their voluminous body of published literature. On several occasions, leading proponents of YEHE have confessed in their own writings that there is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

Pro-evolutionary Quotes:

“Darrel R Falk is ... right when he says that evolutionary scientists have collected a vast amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution ... that there’s evidence supporting the evolution of humans from animals over millions of years ... that evolution is an extremely successful theory, accepted almost without question by a huge majority of the world’s scientists” (Wood, The Quest, p. 29).

Book Reviews:

Is Creation Evidence Ambiguous?