ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Genetics Proves Creation

Updated on September 26, 2019
david tee profile image

Dr. David Thiessen is an educator, writer, pastor, and speaker. He has authored several books on a variety of topics including Archaeology

Archaeology is interesting

When you first get into archaeology you are entering a whole new world of research. No experiments can be done to test theories, and unless there are contemporary manuscripts uncovered at the same time, verification of archaeological ideas is not possible.

But one thing that archaeology has done is prove large parts of the biblical record. We find cities, empires, people and their names in the right place and era as the Bible records them

Because of the discoveries archaeologists have made we know that the Bible is true. The research field may not be able to prove that creation took place, that was a supernatural act not a scientific one, but its other verifications of the biblical record points to the validity of Genesis 1.

Also, about 50 years ago Nelson Glueck announced that there has been no archaeological discovery that has proven the Bible wrong. That declaration remains true today.

What tries to prove the Bible wrong are the assumptions, conjectures, leaps to conclusions, etc., that archaeologists make as they work in this fragmented field.

Genetics does prove creation true

This is the wonderful thing about some aspects of science. Not only is genetics a very fascinating research field, it can be used to prove creation true. Not only the recent article on Hybrids but other aspects of genetics show that creation took place and evolution is simply made up by scientists and unbelievers.

One of the key issues that genetics helps out to prove that creation is true is that the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the parents of all people. Darwin and other evolutionists have said that their is at least 4 different races that developed through evolution.

Who is correct? The Bible of course and the Bible is backed by genetic research. Here are a few quotes with links to the full articles:

Race is a social concept, not a scientific one,” said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corp. in Rockville, Md.” {}

It’s an old-fashioned, even Victorian, sentiment. Who speaks of “racial stocks” anymore? After all, to do so would be to speak of something that many scientists and scholars say does not exist.” {}


The billions of pieces of human genetic code sequenced thus far are most notable for what they do not appear to contain—a genetic test to tell one race of people from another. All scientific finds point to the conclusion that race doesn’t exist” {}

That is scientific proof that there is only one race of humans not 4 or 5. There was no bottleneck at this time as both Adam and Eve were the first humans,not strangers who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Another piece of evidence supporting creation

This piece of evidence coming from the field of genetics actually provides proof for the fall of created man and not creation directly. In genetic research genes, chromosomes proteins and other microscopic entities are not perfect.

Some turn on when they shouldn’t and others turn off when they shouldn’t. Or some malfunction takes place because the gene, etc., has been corrupted. The Bible tells us that God made everything perfect, if the fall had not occurred, all genes, proteins and so on, would not malfunction, be in perfect shape and operate as God had designed them to operate- perfectly.

Something had to allow corruption to get into God’s creation and ruin it. In the Bible we are told that Adam sinned and that corruption entered into God’s creation at that point.

We know the fall of man happened because genetics shows us that it has happened. Genetics also shows us how the genes are supposed to operate so we know that something went wrong early in man’s history.

This means that genetics has proven evolution wrong and does not exist in any form. This can be said because as the theory of evolution has been described, in its many varieties, there is no source for corruption to enter into the world.

Evolution scientists and supporters just assume the world has never changed and do not accept that things started off perfectly. They have never found any source throughout all their evolutionary experiments any type of action or interaction that would originate corruption.

We know evolution does not exist

That knowledge comes from the fact that genetics has exposed a fatal flaw in the process and the theory. Genetic research has shown that there is no information gathering mechanism that would help change a lower life form into a more complicated one.

It has also shown that for life forms to exist, they must have the total number of chromosomes throughout that life form’s existence. If the life form is missing just one, that life form dies.

Genetics demonstrates that evolution could not be the life development tool that scientists claim it is. Everything that life forms need to live and grow has to be placed inside that life form at the beginning of its existence or it won’t make it past day 1.

Evolution would not be able to develop anything because all life forms would die before the process could do anything.

Some final words

No matter how hard evolutionary scientists and supporters try science doe snot back their evolutionary theory. Archaeology and genetics show us that the Bible is correct as do physics chemistry and all scientific fields.

Christians can do and learn science but only if they stop listening to the ungodly and start following the spirit of truth to the truth.

© 2019 David Thiessen


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment
    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      19 months ago from Philippines

      Thanks for that. Evolution is also not exclusionary. There are hundreds of alternate gives that could produce the same results that evolution claims to do.

      There is a third problem as well, evolutionary scientists do not know if they even have it in the right order. For example all those skulls the evolutionary scientists like to point to, it is a complete guess which one came before the other one.

      They may have descent backwards, mixed up or even one out of place. There is no way to verify one claim evolutionary scientists make or to double check to see if they got it right

    • tsadjatko profile image

      The Logician 

      19 months ago from now on

      This is the thing. People have been brainwashed to put their faith in science. If they actually knew that the scientists totally ignore scientific principles in order to dupe everyone into denial if the Creator they’d know evolution doesn’t come near meeting the scientific requirements to be a theory.

      Two problems prevent anyone from legitimately calling evolution a theory.

      First, there’s no direct, observable experiment that can ever be performed. 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 evolutionary events in the past.

      Some point to natural selection as a form of “evolution in action,” but natural selection can only act upon the genetic potential that already exists. What we do observe from natural selection fits perfectly with a recent creation and does not point to common descent.

      Secondly, and related to the above, evolution misses the mark as a theory because all the supposed “tests” to confirm Darwinism do not necessarily and distinctively correspond to the idea. In other words, each has an alternate and equally viable explanation. A theory requires that the confirming experiments correspond to one specific hypothesis. Otherwise, the experiment cannot establish legitimacy. Evolution has no such legitimacy.

      So What Is It?

      Evolution, at its core, is a necessary requirement of naturalism. Since naturalists cannot allow a higher power, they must rely on a form of spontaneous generation and the unguided development of life. Either someone or something created, or nature created itself.

      Because naturalism depends on this assumption, evolution artificially carries the weight of a theory for naturalists—without meeting the requirements. Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator or to deny His power and authority.

      Compliments of AIG!

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      19 months ago from Philippines

      That is the problem. Despite the many claims there is evidence for evolution, there actually is none. I watched a video where Richard Dawkins was interviewed by a creationist and he kept saying the museum was full of evidence.

      But when you look at museum displays, all supposed evidence is read into the artifacts and arranged by evolutionary scientists. Also, they cannot verify their claims.

      Don't forget that evolutionary scientists just don't ignore they lack of evidence, they change the theory every time it is proven false.

    • tsadjatko profile image

      The Logician 

      19 months ago from now on

      Typical, isn’t it! Whenever the evolutionists are stumped they either ignore the evidence or say there is an evolutionary explanation that science just hasn’t found yet, but in the meantime evolution is fact!

      Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory based on science’s own definition of a theory yet it is presented as fact everywhere, especially on TV shows that are made for children. It’s never even presented as a theory, just fact!

    • david tee profile imageAUTHOR

      David Thiessen 

      19 months ago from Philippines

      I have never seen anything credible

    • tsadjatko profile image

      The Logician 

      19 months ago from now on

      I want to agree with everything you have said here David (for a lot of reasons, not only your observations) however it would be easier for me to accept these conclusions if you also presented in this article the other side of each issue you bring up. By that I mean what is the secular response to each of your evidences that genetics proves creation. Unless of course evolutionists have nothing to offer against what you say. Nothing credible, that is.

      I suspect that nothing credible is the case.


    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

    Show Details
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)