Why is Creationism Ingenious, Exquisite, and Beautiful?

Previously, we discussed why Darwinism and the hypothesis of evolution are foolish, repugnant, and abhorrent. Now, let’s turn our attention to creationism — the antithesis of Darwinism. As a doctrine, creationism was not systematically developed at the time of evolutionism’s rise in the 19th century, making a proper debate impossible. Atheists took advantage of the scientific community’s unpreparedness and, particularly through legal battles — such as Daniel v. Waters (1975), Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), and the 2007 PACE resolution against teaching creationism in schools — secured the dominance of anti-scientific Darwinian propaganda in education. Since then, generations have been indoctrinated with absurd textbook illustrations depicting a monkey morphing into a human in a neat sequence, fish crawling onto land, or a fetus supposedly passing through “animal stages” before finally “evolving” into a human. These images bear no resemblance to reality, as we have already demonstrated in our previous article — and, of course, mocked with memes.

How the Universe, Earth, Animals, and Humans Were Actually Created

It is important to understand that the Genesis account of creation should not be taken entirely literally, as the process of creation transcends human comprehension — limited as it is by time and space. However, certain aspects can indeed be understood literally. For reasons known to Him, God often communicates with humanity through allegories — just look at the Book of Revelation. Even Jesus himself spoke in parables (Matthew 13:34–35), and when He spoke plainly, without parables, He was even rebuked for it (John 16:29–30). Thus, we must engage in deeper thought and reflection.

Unlike the inconsistent and logically bankrupt framework of Darwinism, we will start at the true beginning — the expansion of existence itself. However, it must be stated outright that this process has no “beginning” in the conventional sense, as it exists outside of time. And if it is not subject to time, it has neither a beginning nor an end. In this context, the childish question — “Who created God?” — has a simple answer: no one. God always exist. This is easily grasped through a simple analogy: just as we can conceive of the abstract notion of eternal nothingness — a dimensionless void that has never existed and never will — we can equally conceive of eternal being, something that has always existed and always will. For us, this is a simple exercise because our consciousness cannot process entities beyond our perception. To us, such entities do not exist — consider, for instance, the idea of “new colors.” You cannot imagine a truly new color, because for you, it does not exist. Likewise, sleep is a form of non-existence; our imagination and consciousness operate only with elements that already exist. As Jesus said: “…without Me, you can do nothing” (John 15:5), meaning that only God has the power to create something truly new. The fact that “eternal being” is not a mere abstraction — unlike non-existence — is proven by the very nature of existence itself. The reality that we exist, that the world exists, is proof of being and the impossibility of absolute non-being. Being and non-being cannot coexist; it is a paradox — much like the supposed coexistence of order and chaos. Thus, the chaos upon which Darwinists rely does not exist. Chaos, like cold or darkness, is merely an abstraction. There is no such thing as “darkness” or “cold” in and of themselves — only the absence of light or heat. We can study photons (light) and the movement of molecules (heat), but we cannot study “cold” or “darkness” as objective entities because they do not exist in the Universe. This aligns with Scripture: “You are good, and do good…” (Psalm 118:68). Evil, likewise, does not exist as a creation of God; it is merely a deviation from good — just as darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. Thus, unlike evolutionism, creationism has a rational foundation — a solid basis for the emergence of existence as the result of divine action. Of course, the term “emergence” is used in the past tense, which is subjective; in truth, existence has always been, though for us, it appears to have “emerged” (or rather, we have emerged into it), as we are bound by the constraints of time and space. Meanwhile, evolutionism lacks such a foundation — it attributes existence to an arbitrary and meaningless source, relying on randomness as the cause of everything. Darwinism attempts to explain structured, ordered mechanisms through chaotic, purposeless processes — an inherent contradiction.

Once the environment was prepared for organic life, God created living organisms. Genesis 1:11 clearly demonstrates that creation did not follow the principles of evolution — progressing from a single-celled bacterium to diverse species — but instead occurred through the direct formation of fully developed species. First, God created grass and trees, then fish and birds, followed by mammals and reptiles, and finally, man, made in His image. However, the first humans described here are not yet Adam and Eve but rather their organic bodies, created to inhabit the earth, govern it, and reproduce. Adam and Eve themselves did not originally live on the planet and did not reproduce in the beginning. This sequence may also be understood as a general overview, with subsequent passages providing clarifications and details. Interestingly, both humans and all animals were originally herbivores (Genesis 1:29–30). Predation arose as a consequence of humanity’s fall and became fully manifest after the Flood (Genesis 9:3). The creation of organic matter, as described in Genesis, was most likely conceptual— God first created everything ideologically, but these concepts were not yet physically realized, as indicated in Genesis 2:5. This suggests that God initially established models, or archetypes, of living souls before their material embodiment. Here, we touch upon the distinction between the objective and the subjective, between models or ideas and physical entities. In the material world, there may be one yak, ten, or even billions — it does not matter how many individual yaks exist because the living soul of a yak is singular and exemplary; it represents the “yak idea.” When Adam named the creatures in Eden, he was not naming individual subjects but rather the living souls — the archetypal forms of each being. Man, however, is unique, he is not only living souls but also bear the image and likeness of God. This uniqueness is defined by self-awareness, which extends beyond personal self-perception. It includes a broader, non-personal awareness — an understanding of oneself beyond the individual, a kind of “global” self-consciousness that may indicate recognition of the archetypal “living soul” or even the presence of superconsciousness. There is no contradiction in quantity here, as each soul contains the “image of God” just as each fragment of a hologram contains the whole image.

Understanding the principles of objectivity and subjectivity protects us from falling into the trap of “multiple truths.” People often say, “Everyone has their own truth — some believe in Jesus, others in Buddha, others in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” But in reality, what people have are different interpretations of the truth, not actual truth. Truth itself belongs to God. The fact that someone believes in Buddha instead of Jesus does not alter the truth — Jesus remains the only true God. As Galatians 6:7 states: “God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” The very existence of multiple interpretations proves the existence of an ultimate, objective truth; if there were no absolute truth, there would be nothing to interpret. If there were no archetypal living soul of a yak, there would be no variations of yaks to interpret.

A blind person’s perception of the world is fundamentally different from that of a sighted person, yet both interpret the same world idea. However, to truly grasp the essence of reality, one must go beyond mere interpretation. This is precisely what the Apostle Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face.” He compares human perception to looking at a dim reflection, emphasizing that in the future, we will see reality clearly, without distortion. For a blind person, the world of color and light does not exist as it does for a sighted person, but their lack of vision does not change reality — the world continues to exist as it is. Likewise, atheistic interpretations of the world exclude God, just as a blind person’s perception excludes light. The absurdity lies in atheists insisting that their limited interpretation is the objective truth. They stand under the noonday sun and proclaim that the sun does not exist — this is either naïveté or madness. In doing so, they construct a hyper-reality and attempt to pull others into their delusion. Why does this analogy describe atheists as “blind”? Because they assert something illogical: that non-existence produced existence. Their reasoning is based on chaos, yet chaos cannot exist alongside order, as they are mutually exclusive concepts. Since order undeniably exists, chaos — defined as pure disorder — does not. Therefore, the atheist worldview collapses under its own contradictions. Interestingly, Jesus emphasized logic in forming conclusions. In Matthew 5:37, He instructs: “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” The terms “yes” and “no” are the foundation of elementary logic — true and false. Furthermore, Jesus advised His followers to be “as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.” The simplicity of logic is evident, and wisdom lies in faithfully following that simplicity. This is why creationism is based on logic and reason — not on fantasies or baseless claims that chaos miraculously produces order.

Genesis describes the creation of our universe, but Jesus’ words — “I have other sheep, not of this fold” (John 10:16) — suggest the possibility of many “folds” or realms, implying that the theory of the multiverse has a biblical foundation. Furthermore, Jesus testifies that the material world did not always exist: “For You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). Modern science also acknowledges that the universe had a beginning, a “birthday,” and did not exist eternally. However, science does not know what preceded that event. Christianity, on the other hand, teaches that before the universe, there was the Word of God: “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1). This Word became incarnate in the same way Christ did: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). Just as Christ took on a human body, the Word of God took on the form of the universe itself (2 Peter 3:5).

The days of creation in Genesis are often understood as parables rather than literal 24-hour periods, but ultimately, whether creation happened in six days, 144 hours, instantly, or over billions of years is not a fundamental issue. The key point is that creation occurred through divine will.

As we see, creationism can easily engage with cosmological discussions, while Darwinism is entirely inadequate in this area. The idea of cosmic evolution is almost comical — consider the beliefs of atheistic astronomers in the mid-20th century. At the time, they assumed the Moon’s surface had a dust layer tens or even hundreds of meters thick, believing that billions of years of accumulation would have covered it deeply. Arthur C. Clarke’s “A Fall of Moondust” vividly illustrates this outdated notion. Not only was this idea incorrect, but many other “accumulative” problems exist: the unexpected levels of helium in the atmosphere, the presence of metals in the oceans, and the weakening of Earth’s magnetic field — when projected over billions of years, these factors lead to absurd conclusions. Modern Darwinists also struggle to explain the Moon’s origin. The leading hypothesis, the megaimpact theory, proposes that a massive collision formed the Moon, yet lunar soil samples refuse to fully resemble Earth’s, aside from their basic elements. The rate of the universe’s expansion is constantly changing, dark matter and dark energy appear and disappear from scientific models, and black holes remain enigmatic anomalies — true cosmic wildcards! Then there’s panspermia — the idea that life began in Earth’s primordial oceans after arriving from space. This theory, however, requires an explanation for how life arose on the celestial bodies that supposedly carried it. It also fails to address the Fermi paradox: if evolution leads to boundless biological diversity, why is space seemingly uninhabited? Carl Sagan once speculated about the existence of organic clouds in space, suggesting that comets could pass through such clouds like buses picking up passengers, delivering them to lifeless planets where evolution would then begin. In reality, no such “organic clouds” exist. Gas and dust clouds contain simple molecules such as acetone and carbon — common building blocks of life — but nowhere in space, on comets, moons, or planets, has actual living matter been found. On Titan, Saturn’s moon, it turns out that in a methane-ethane environment, nitrogenosomes (cellular membranes) do not form at all. Therefore, the hypothesis of life’s origin in an anhydrous environment remains mere fantasy. The same applies to Europa, Jupiter’s moon, where scientists once hypothesized that a hidden ocean of liquid water — most likely to host life — lies beneath an icy crust. In reality, there is no ocean, and no liquid water exists at all. This directly contradicts the idea of cosmic evolution, reinforcing that life on Earth is unique and intentionally designed. Importantly, recognizing Earth’s uniqueness does not mean life cannot exist elsewhere. After all, when Jesus spoke of “sheep not of this fold,” He may have been referring to planets and civilizations we have yet to discover.

After the universe began expanding — but before humans were expelled from Eden (which we understand as a metaphysical garden) — God “took” Adam (literally meaning “taken from the earth” or “ground, dust”) and placed him in Eden. There, God similarly “took” the animals and brought them to Adam, who named each one. Notably, God presented Adam with fully formed animals, not transitional alpha or beta versions. Genesis 2:20 confirms this: “But for Adam no suitable helper was found.” Among all the animals, none were a match for Adam, prompting God to create a woman from Adam’s rib. The implication of this verse is clear: if these were transitional species, there would be uncertainty as to whether a future evolved species might be “helpful” to Adam. However, the reference is to all animals, indicating that none of them were incomplete. In fact, if we understand “animals” as their ideal forms or archetypes, then incompleteness was never an issue to begin with. When the woman was created, Adam named her Eve. Interestingly, at first, he simply referred to her as “man’s”, since she came from man. In a sense, Adam “gave birth” to her. It was only after learning their destiny on Earth (Genesis 3) — when God explained the distinct male and female roles — that Adam, recognizing the woman’s role in childbirth, named her Eve.

After Eve ate the forbidden fruit (which was not an apple, reinforcing the metaphysical nature of these events) and gave it to Adam, both were expelled from Eden into the material world of suffering. A significant factor in their expulsion was that neither admitted guilt — neither repented. Instead, Eve blamed the serpent, and Adam blamed Eve. Genesis 3:21 is crucial: “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.” This suggests that their departure from Eden was accompanied by the “clothing” of their souls into organic, physical bodies. Chronologically, these events occurred approximately 30,000 years ago, coinciding with the sudden emergence of homo sapiens in this universe. Darwinists struggle to explain the abrupt appearance of homo sapiens, as this species was vastly different from its contemporaries in terms of brain size, skull structure, and other anatomical traits. Homo sapiens — modern humans — have remained unchanged for 30,000 years, showing no signs of evolution.

Contrary to evolutionary assumptions, homo sapiens never lived in caves or hunted mammoths as primitive beings. From the very beginning, they were civilized. This aligns with God’s mercy — though He was angered by humanity’s disobedience, He did not condemn them to a savage existence. While exincted hominids were primarily hunters and gatherers, Adam, Eve, and their descendants engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry, as seen in Genesis 4:2. They did not dwell in caves but built homes and settlements. Adam’s descendants became the driving force of progress on Earth. Without them, humanity might have remained in a primitive state — just as some isolated indigenous peoples in Polynesia, Africa, and South America remain in such a state today. The Bible describes how Adam’s offspring established cities, laying the foundation of civilization. A crucial factor in this advancement was their extraordinary longevity. Before the time of Noah, humans lived for over 900 years, but due to their increasing wickedness, God limited human lifespans to 120 years. This decision is easy to understand — imagine the damage modern despots could inflict if they ruled for 900 years instead of a few decades! The presence of regenerative genes in humans, such as those related to tooth growth, hints at a past where longevity may have been much greater. The first humans were not mere survivors adapting to their environment — they were creators who shaped civilization itself. They laid the groundwork for structured societies, built cities that functioned as early states, and forged new conditions for civilized existence. Consider Rome or Babylon — each began as a city but grew into powerful entities that influenced entire regions. This reveals the creative impulse of Adam’s descendants: they were not passive observers of the world but active participants in shaping it.

Argumentation for the Metaphysical Nature of the Garden of Eden

At first glance, the text of Genesis appears to use clear, literal language when referring to concepts like “rib,” “flesh,” “bone,” and “nakedness.” However, a closer and more nuanced reading reveals subtle expressions and semantic layers that suggest an entirely different interpretation: the events described in Genesis chapters 1 to 3 did not unfold in the physical, material world on Earth, but rather in a subtle, metaphysical realm — a transcendental domain, the dwelling place of angels and spiritual beings. The evidence for this includes: 1. The creation of life is described in terms of “living souls” rather than organic bodies. In Genesis 2:7, God forms Adam from the “dust of the ground” (interpreted as an act of creation ex nihilo), and breathes into him the breath of life, making him a “living soul.” The animals Adam names are likewise referred to as “living souls,” not bodies of flesh. 2. In the episode where the woman is created from Adam’s bone and flesh, the original Hebrew terms carry multiple meanings. For instance, the word translated as “rib” can also mean “side,” suggesting not a literal rib but a symbolic “side” of Adam — potentially the emotional or psychological aspect of his being. This aligns with traditional views of femininity being more emotionally attuned. Furthermore, “flesh” in Hebrew can signify “personhood,” and “bone” may also denote “substance” or “essence.” In this light, Eve was formed not from Adam’s body (bones and flesh), but from a particular dimension of his being. 3. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is often imagined as an apple, yet the biblical text never specifies any known earthly fruit. It simply says “fruit.” Moreover, the very name of the tree — “the knowledge of good and evil” — is conceptually abstract and does not correspond to any botanical reality. The same applies to the “Tree of Life.” Such trees are unknown to science and nature, emphasizing their symbolic, metaphysical identity. 4. The serpent speaks to the woman — and she understands it. In our material world, animals do not speak human languages. This alone points to a different order of existence: one where spiritual communication is possible, further affirming the metaphysical nature of the events. 5. The serpent, interpreted as satan, tempts Eve and is later cast down. The prophet Isaiah declares: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” (Isa. 14:12), suggesting that Eden was located in the heavenly realm, from which the rebellious cherub was cast down to Earth. 6. In some Bible translations — such as the Ukrainian one — the Garden of Eden is equated with paradise. A similar analogy exists in the English tradition as well, for example in the Douay-Rheims Bible, where Eden is called ‘paradise’. This is not without basis: the very word ‘Eden’ is not a known geographical name, but rather an allegorical designation meaning ‘place of delight’. It is therefore entirely reasonable to understand Eden as paradise — a place beyond sin. This interpretation has further grounds, including logical ones: sinless existence is by definition higher than sinful, material existence. Moreover, at least one cherub (the future satan) resided in Eden, and the nature of cherubim, as is well known, is metaphysical. In Genesis 3, God expels Adam from the garden and stations a cherub with a flaming sword at its entrance to guard the way to the Tree of Life. Do cherubs dwell among humans on Earth? Does a flaming sword that turns in every direction exist in nature? Clearly not — these are signs of transcendence, of a reality beyond the physical. 7. The clothing of Adam and Eve in “skins” appears strange if taken literally. In ancient times, hunters used to dress in animal skins, but it is known that the first humans: Adam and Eve, were not hunters, they worked on the field from the beginning. But if “skins” refer metaphorically to organic, mortal bodies, the narrative makes sense: sin caused the soul to descend into a lower state of being — into the constraints of material existence. 8. Genesis describes the geographical location of Eden using rivers — Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates. Yet with today’s satellite imagery, no Garden of Eden is found in these regions. This mirrors how Christ speaks figuratively: “who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water” (John 7:38). Likewise, the “living water” of Eden symbolically divides into four streams — not geographically, but ideologically.

As for the nakedness that people saw in themselves when they tasted the fruit of knowledge, this is probably a consequence of the inevitable projection of the soul into the material dimension in the process of understanding good and evil. The soul has to acquire an organic body in order to know good and evil, that’s how it ‘works’. God warned people that they would die when they touched the tree of knowledge, what does it mean to die while in paradise? — to lose paradise, that is, to die for paradise, to move to another place, to be expelled from paradise, this is the essence of death: the transition from one state to another. God not only forbids eating from the tree of knowledge (‘you shall not eat of it’), but also explains why: ‘you shall surely die,’ so it is not only a prohibition, but also a warning, an explanation. Moreover, after eating the fruit, Adam and Eve “sew fig leaves into a cordage’. The names of the trees of paradise have not been mentioned before, but now the well-known fig tree appears, and sewing implies the use of tools, but tools belong to the physical world. In the realm of ideas, things are created by pure thought and will — not with leaves, threads, or needles. This sudden shift to material processes further confirms that the fall brought humanity from a metaphysical Eden into the domain of matter.

Creationism Reveals the Wisdom and Beauty of God’s Design

In Proverbs 3:19, Solomon declares: “The LORD made the earth with wisdom, and the heavens with intelligence.” The goal of creationism is to demonstrate the extraordinary wisdom embedded in the design of the world — both living and non-living — as well as in humanity itself. These demonstrations highlight the intricate and ingenious architecture of the universe, showcasing its optimized and flawless mechanisms, all of which point to intelligent design.

Real shot of atoms

The human body was created according to the mammalian concept and, as such, shares similarities with other mammals. For instance, nearly all land-dwelling animals possess two eyes, a nose, two ears, a digestive system with a stomach and intestines, and a nervous system that ensures communication between different body parts. However, the design framework for fish and birds is entirely different, not to mention the unique structures found in ants and plants. When discussing the origin of humanity, we must first examine its architecture. From an engineering perspective, is such a design even capable of arising by chance? A design in which all mechanisms are so perfectly coordinated that they operate in seamless harmony? Every moment, the human body performs thousands of functions without our conscious awareness. We do not think about how our organs work, yet their complexity surpasses anything humans have ever created. A computer did not evolve from a radio, television, or typewriter; it was designed by humans. Everyone acknowledges the complexity of high technology, yet the staggering complexity of the human body is often ignored or dismissed by atheists. Some, like Richard Dawkins, even go as far as calling the design of the human retina “idiotic,” revealing how deeply some are entrenched in ignorance and opposition to the truth.

Nature operates under fundamental laws — it follows order. The universe functions within an established system that remains stable and unshaken by chaotic randomness. As Psalm 104:5 states: “You set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.” The deeper one delves into the hard sciences, the more evidence one finds of consistency and order.

A few classic examples illustrate this point: 1. The laws of harmonics, which govern frequencies and overtones, also influence the structure of nature, shaping everything from the spirals of shells and the growth patterns of plants to the formation of galaxies. 2. The universal principle of the golden ratio appears throughout creation: in the proportions of living organisms, the timing of biological rhythms, the arrangement of leaves on branches, and even the magnetic resonance of electron spins in cobalt niobate crystals etc.

How can a set of molecules and cells that make up the human body sustain life, maintain balance, and still contain human consciousness — a soul? Every cell requires oxygen, yet it does not access oxygen directly from the air; instead, it relies on intricate internal transport systems, which are themselves supported by other systems. These include the circulatory, nervous, digestive, filtration, and immune systems — many interdependent mechanisms, each finely tuned and working toward a specific purpose. For randomness (which itself is an abstraction) to produce such complexity is simply an impossible task. Consider the human eye — a unique and autonomous tool. Unlike a camera that requires manual focusing by adjusting a lens, the eye automatically focuses on objects we want to see. In darkness, the pupils dilate, and in bright light, they contract. The vestibulo-ocular reflex stabilizes vision during movement, utilizing the vestibular system: when the head moves in one direction, the eyes move in the opposite direction. Vergence movements adjust the position of the eyes based on the distance to an object. Different muscles perform specialized tasks — saccades, for instance, create rapid eye movements that stabilize vision during reading, just as you are experiencing now. The brain further enhances vision by compensating for chromatic aberrations — something even the most advanced camera lenses and software struggle to achieve. The eye is securely embedded within the skull for protection, equipped with an eyelid that instantly shields it when necessary, as well as eyelashes and eyebrows that serve as additional barriers. Tears not only protect the eye’s surface but also enhance vision. Thus, the eye is not an isolated tool but an intricately integrated component of human design. But the most intriguing question remains: how does vision transform photons and electrical impulses into images? The materialistic perspective of this process is fundamentally inadequate — it merely assumes that it happens somehow, without offering a concrete explanation, especially when considering the role of imagination (both with open and closed eyes) and dreams. In contrast, the interpretation of signals as images is perfectly explained by the concept of the soul.

Darwinists often attempt to argue against intelligent design by pointing to so-called vestigial organs, such as the appendix, which they claim to be useless. However, this perspective has been repeatedly debunked. For instance, research (Associated Press, Purpose of Appendix Believed Found, October 5, 2007) suggests that the appendix serves as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria, aiding in recovery from illnesses like cholera. The significance of this organ has merely diminished in modern societies due to improved sanitation and medical advancements that allow for quick restoration of gut flora without reliance on the appendix.

God gave humans the most functional and adaptable physical form among all creatures — a body that is flexible, strong, swift, graceful, and precise. Our senses are extraordinary: we can see far, hear subtle sounds, distinguish countless scents, and detect the finest variations in taste. Some individuals carve intricate sculptures on the tip of a pencil, while others can crack coconuts with their bare hands. Some master ballet, while others pull airplanes with their teeth. Some compose symphonies, while others can distinguish between Château d’Yquem 1893 and Graham’s Ne Oublie 1882. These capabilities may seem obvious, even trivial, yet within scientific discussion, every such example serves as undeniable evidence of intelligent design. Darwinism, by contrast, dismisses complexity and efficiency, always searching for imperfection and primitiveness. And yet, time and again, what it finds is thoughtful, purposeful design — both in the present and throughout history. After all, how could an organism partially develop wings and survive before they became functional for flight? How could an eye partially evolve and still provide vision? How could a species survive for millions of years with half-formed gills, unable to breathe properly? The reality is clear: survival requires perfection, and the tools of survival must be fully developed and highly effective, especially when the task is to survive millions, billions of years. That is exactly what we observe in nature. Yet, Darwinists refuse to acknowledge this, for doing so would mean admitting that the universe was designed.

People who are distant from Christianity often seek objections to justify themselves: Why do people (including children) suffer from illness? Why does a turtle live for 200 years while humans rarely reach 100? Why do people age? Why are they attacked by boas or struck by earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, wars, and epidemics? The answer, in fact, is found right at the beginning of Genesis: mankind failed in Eden and was punished, and the universe was cursed along with them. This is only logical — the cursed cannot dwell in a holy place. Man must recognize its fallen state and turn to Jesus for salvation. This is the fundamental prerequisite — there is no salvation without Christ. Creationism, therefore, gives meaning to human existence, revealing the purpose of creation and filling people’s minds with an understanding of that purpose. It directs them toward God, the Creator. In contrast, atheism breeds nihilism — it strips life of meaning, reducing everything to mere chance, chaos, and an ultimate, meaningless oblivion. According to atheism, life arose without purpose and will ultimately be forgotten along with the universe itself. Sadly, some people will go to great lengths to avoid admitting they are wrong. Take, for example, the case of a psychiatrist and his patient who suffered from Cotard’s syndrome (a condition where a person believes they are dead). The doctor’s rational arguments had no effect — his words crumbled like sand. So he devised another approach. He asked the patient, “Do corpses bleed?” to which the patient replied, “Of course not.” The doctor then pricked the patient’s arm with a needle, and when a drop of blood appeared, the patient, astonished, exclaimed, “Wow! The corpse is bleeding!” This case illustrates how stubborn rejection of reason can reduce a person to absurdity.

Think about it: for a pseudo-intelligent machine — artificial intelligence — to operate, it requires colossal resources. Tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon either build or sponsor nuclear energy projects to power their AI systems. Some startups are planning to construct floating wind generators specifically to supply data centers with energy. Meanwhile, data centers already harm the environment, raising local temperatures, and their owners face public and political resistance because of this. All of this is needed simply for a machine to mimic human intelligence, whereas a human can function perfectly well on a piece of bread and a glass of water!”

Research in quantum biology, led by F. Kurian, reveals molecular interconnectedness within the quantum field. Cells containing specific amino acids, such as tryptophan, are capable of processing up to 10 trillion operations per second.

Human technology, at its core, simply mimics the designs found in Intelligent Creation. Lenses are modeled after the eye. Cars replicate several biological functions: the engine serves as the heart, wiring as the nervous system, wheels as limbs, and fuel, oil, and water parallel blood, lymph, and bodily fluids. Airplanes take inspiration from the wings of birds (aerodynamics), while ships mirror the streamlined bodies of fish. Even computers resemble the brain in how they process analytical, visual, and auditory signals. There are many examples, all of which are successfully organised in biomimetics.

Cosmic Creationism

The systemic balance inherent in the human body is also present in all living beings and extends to inanimate nature. The solar system is perfectly balanced, designed to sustain human life on Earth. Our planet is located in the so-called “Goldilocks region,” a precise zone around a star where conditions are just right — not too hot, not too cold — for life to exist. If Earth orbited even slightly farther from or closer to the Sun, it would resemble Mars or Venus: barren, lifeless rocks. Water is highly sensitive to temperature variations — a small increase causes it to evaporate, while a slight decrease leads to freezing. The Earth’s atmosphere consists of a complex mixture of gases, including ozone, which filters out harmful ultraviolet light. The planet’s magnetosphere serves as another shield, protecting against cosmic radiation. Without Earth’s magnetic field, life would perish, and humans would find themselves living out a real-world version of Fallout — until radiation claimed them. The Moon plays a crucial role in stabilizing Earth’s rotation. Without it, Earth’s axial tilt would fluctuate wildly, causing chaotic shifts in climate zones. The Moon’s primary function is to keep Earth’s rotation steady. It also has two unique properties:

There are nearly 200 known moons in the Solar System, yet only Earth’s Moon appears deliberately positioned for a specific purpose, the rest circling around his planets chaotic. Genesis 1:16 refers to the Sun and Moon as the “greater and lesser lamps,” not only illuminating the sky but also serving as timekeepers for days and years. Chronometry depends on stability, and Earth, the Moon, and the Sun are in a precise relationship: a month corresponds to one lunar orbit around Earth, while a year equals Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Additionally, Genesis describes the seven-day week, a unit of time that has been observed throughout history. Interestingly, the moon is visually larger than the sun and at the same time the sun is called in Genesis “a large lamp” and the moon is “small one”, and this is true, because the sun is much greater than the Earth’s satellite. Gradually (3.8 cm) the moon is moving away from the Earth, so after millions of years full solar eclipses will be impossible: the moon visually too will become smaller than the sun. Jupiter and Saturn function as Earth’s guardians, their immense gravity shielding the planet from comets, asteroids, and meteors. Remarkably, only 1% of star systems in the Milky Way share a similar planetary configuration with our Solar System, making our location uniquely suited for life.

Since the mid-2010s, flat-Earth theories have gained traction in media spaces. At one point, the discussion became so widespread that even NASA astronauts dismissed it as an elaborate trolling exercise, albeit an amusing “mental workout.” Some falsely claim that Christians historically supported flat-Earth beliefs, but in reality, this idea stems from pagan myths, such as those of Native American cosmogonies featuring a flat disc resting on three whales, or a turtle. Christian scholars have understood Earth’s spherical nature for centuries. Athenagoras, an early Christian thinker, wrote in 175 AD about the Earth’s roundness. In the 17th century, Jesuits introduced this concept to China, where they held prestigious positions as imperial astronomers. Even in the 6th century, Byzantine author Cosmas Indicopleustes, who called himself a Christian, conceded that the Earth must be at least “mildly spherical.” —Wikipedia. and Christians never pestered flatlanders, because the Bible explicitly says about the round earth, for example, Solomon, speaking about wisdom in Proverbs 8, says that it (wisdom) preceded the creation of the universe, and in particular “I was a master with Him, and was a joy every day, rejoicing in His presence all the time, rejoicing in His earthly circle, and my pleasure is with the sons of men” (Prov. 8:30–31), the “circle of the earth” here is translated from the Hebrew “thou” “תֵבֵל”, which has the following meanings: “earth”, “world”, “globe”. Verse 27, ibid: “When He seasoned the heavens, I was there (wisdom), when He set the circle on the surface of the abyss…”. Another episode in the book of Isaiah, where God is described as the One “who sits above the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22), uses two Hebrew words “nug” and “eretz” (“חוּג”, “אֶרֶץ”), the first meaning “circle”, “circumference”, “ball”, the second “earth”. Nowhere in the Bible is there a flat Earth, let alone any turtles or whales.

Quantum Physics Proves the Existence of God

Jesus said (Matthew 6:28–29; Luke 12:27) that God clothes the lilies of the field more splendidly than Solomon in all his glory. Besides the metaphorical meaning — God’s care even for the smallest of His creations, and even more so for humans — this statement can be viewed from a creationist perspective. Flowers such as Lilium candidum, Anemone coronaria, or Haemanthus, common in the Jewish regions of that time, possess a highly complex structure. They are equipped with various protective and functional elements: for instance, a tunicated bulb covering shields the flower from drought and predators; the bulb itself is coated with oily scales that nourish the plant during spring growth; the leaf surface absorbs solar energy for photosynthesis. This “garment” of the lily is capable of storing and generating energy and transporting nutrients via roots and stems. Could Solomon’s royal attire do anything like that? The flower’s glands produce aromatic compounds using thousands of specialized secretory cells: essential oils, nectar to attract pollinators and repel pests. This means the flower’s “clothing” also creates perfume. Some species even adapt by developing a thin waxy coating to prevent moisture loss — a natural hydrophobic cloak, far more advanced than anything Solomon could have worn. And the “threads” of the plant — its fibrous tissues — are extraordinarily thin and delicate, unlike the coarse weaves of human-made fabrics. Such detailed botanical knowledge was inaccessible in biblical times, but now, with the development of science and optics, the comparison between the “flower’s garment” and Solomon’s clothing becomes even more meaningful and profound.

Quantum physics has revealed a miraculous microscopic world of quarks and subatomic particles — building blocks of matter that immediately hint at the existence of a Creator. Yet two centuries earlier, in the early 18th century, Christian philosopher George Berkeley had already proposed an idea resembling quantum superposition: esse est percipi — to exist is to be perceived. Berkeley argued that things exist only because they are constantly perceived by the Supreme Observer; without human perception and without the all-seeing presence of this Supreme Observer (God), they would cease to exist. In essence, this is what Schrödinger also pondered in the 20th century with his famous cat-in-the-box thought experiment: is the cat alive or dead before the box is opened? If God did not exist, the cat would remain in an indefinite state, a superposition of both life and death, but the cat remains alive because everything is before God’s eyes: “I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are Mine” (Psalm 50:11). And although these statements seem extremely simple, not everyone can comprehend this simplicity; despite the obviousness, some argue that superposition does exist, and that consciousness is not required to determine the state of the electron, and that a robot, any machine capable of making measurements, can easily do this. The latter is true, the collapse of the wave function actually occurs without the participation of a man, only a machine is needed to record this collapse, but if there is no man or his machine to record the process, the electron will show interference, i.e., it will have the nature of a wave. One simple thing needs to be understood here: the man’s devices are the fruit of his consciousness, and the interference of these devices with the system of quantum mechanics is an equal interference with the system of an outside consciousness, so the electron collapses. No one has ever recorded superposition! We know about two states: a wave and a particle; superposition exists only in the imagination of scientists. If superposition existed, the electron would not appear as a wave in the absence of a local observer. Superposition cannot exist, because such a state would be a “pause” of the entity, in such a state the entity would not be able to act, to move, but it is known for certain that there is nothing stationary in the Universe, everything is moving in the Universe, and even at absolute zero, particles continue to move, they continue to vibrate, this is another proof of the absence of superposition. Returning to the “Global Supervisor”, He determines the essence of quantum phenomena globally and where there is no local supervisor (man), the local supervisor influences the essence of phenomena by his presence, by his activity.

Creationism Versus Anti-Scientific Criticism

One of the main tasks of creationism is to expose the unscientific and distorted assertions made by Darwinists, who, by occupying a dominant position in academia, often misuse it to promote atheist propaganda. For example, evolutionist Nathan Lents, in his book “Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes,” discusses the so-called “mistakes” in the design of the human body. He claims that the human wrist and ankle are “cluttered” with unnecessary bones. This is a textbook example of ignoring relevant expertise. Professor Stuart Burgess, an engineer with over 30 years of experience in biomechanics, gave lectures explaining why the human wrist and ankle are, in fact, masterpieces of optimal engineering. To understand the context: Lents proposed replacing the four bones of the lower leg with a single bone — completely overlooking the fact that four bones are essential for distributing weight under pressure. A single bone would easily fracture.

Another example is the “triune brain theory,” introduced in the 1960s by physiologist and psychiatrist Paul D. MacLean and popularized by skeptic Carl Sagan, a TV host, writer, and member of the “Order of the Dolphins” — a club that tried to decode dolphin language in hopes of communicating with aliens. This theory suggests that the human brain consists of three layers: a reptilian brain, a monkey brain, and a human brain, supposedly layered through evolutionary history. The idea is as clumsy as Ernst Haeckel’s falsified embryo drawings. One does not need to be a neuroscientist to see the absurdity — yet many psychologists embraced this nonsense and continue to teach it. In 2020, a review of Western psychology textbooks found that out of 20 textbooks, only two presented a modern and accurate understanding of the human brain. The rest repeated at least one error related to the “triune brain” myth. Neuroscience refutes this absurd idea, yet some evolutionists still cling to it — perhaps still believing dolphins might one day help us speak to aliens. Interestingly, that “Order of the Dolphins” didn’t only include media figures like Sagan. It also counted among its members evolutionist biologist J.B.S. Haldane, chemist Melvin Calvin (Nobel laureate, not to be confused with Lord Kelvin, who supported creationism), and SETI founder Frank Drake.

Even Darwinists themselves occasionally admit that evolutionary theory lacks solid ground. Richard Dawkins, one of their most vocal advocates, confessed in his book “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution” that at the time of writing, “no direct evidence for evolution had ever been presented.” Despite all the grand claims, decades of research, and shelves filled with books, where is the evidence?.. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, Dawkins believed he had found the perfect argument against creationism: the “inverted retina.” He declared it an inferior and flawed design. Even now, he repeats this claim, despite recent scientific research proving that the so-called “inverted” retina actually provides superior visual performance — better color discrimination and higher image resolution. In other words, Dawkins ignores scientific progress to cling to his outdated belief in “imperfection.” Moreover, there are examples of “correct” (according to Dawkins) retinas in nature, not inverted — like those of squids and octopuses — but their design lacks the complexity of the human eye or the eagle’s eye, which is considered the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Mollusks don’t see in color and have limited visual capability. But that doesn’t deter dreamers like Dawkins, who persist in their old dogmas regardless of the facts.

Atheistic logic

Science is fickle— especially when it is influenced by an atheist agenda. Louis Pasteur, the father of pasteurization, once faced opposition from the scientific community when he claimed that bacteria existed and could cause disease. His peers laughed at the notion that such tiny, invisible creatures could harm something as large as a sheep, a cow, or a human. But the microscope eventually put everything in place and proved him right. The same happened with meteors. Scientists once mocked the idea that stones could fall from the sky. In the early 19th century, Bavarian scientists argued that the construction of railroads was harmful to mental health, warning that high speeds (up to 41 km/h!) could drive passengers — and even bystanders — into madness. Just before the Wright brothers’ historic flight, American mathematician Simon Newcomb confidently declared: “Devices heavier than air cannot fly.” Similarly, in the late 18th century, French academician Jérôme Lalande stated: “It is impossible to rise into the air in a device from which air has been removed.” Just a year later, the Montgolfier brothers proved him wrong with their Montgolfier. Thomas Edison did not believe it was possible to lay a telephone cable between North America and Europe. Physicist J.J. Thomson dismissed the idea of space travel as pointless, and yet, just two years later, the first satellite was launched into orbit. Six years after that, the first human went to space — ushering in one of the greatest technological revolutions in history. The same pattern of error appears in evolutionary biology. So-called “transitional species” are often not transitional at all, but fully developed and distinct species. The famous Archaeopteryx is an example of this dead-end categorization. Worse still are blatant scientific frauds, like the infamous Piltdown Man.

And modern science is far from perfect. Mistakes often pile up, reinforced by dogmatic thinking and intellectual inertia. That’s why books such as “Anthology of Errors and Misconceptions” by V. Seleznev, “The Dictionary of False Truths” by T. Barnham, “The Illustrated Corrector of Common Mistakes” by L. Soucek, and “The Lexicon of Popular Misconceptions” by W. Kramer and G. Trenkler continue to be published. These works remind us that not only ordinary people, but also scientists, make mistakes. Errors can arise from a shallow glance, or paradoxically, from an overly focused one — when the proverbial elephant in the room goes unnoticed. This is why it is naive to place blind trust in science. Unlike scientific theories, which change, contradict, and evolve, the Holy Scriptures are unchanging, it’s a solid foundation for building a worldview.

Why is evolutionism-Darwinism incompatible with Christianity? Because Darwinism talks about imperfect entities, Darwinism claims that there are imperfect entities, while Christianity, on the contrary, does not recognize imperfect entities, because the Creator of everything is an perfect God. Yes, our universe may seem imperfect, but that is because it is cursed through man. In fact, the universe is perfect within the current (cursed) paradigm, and all the processes that occur in the universe are perfectly balanced with the actions that these processes trigger or influence.

What Is Darwinism and What Is Creationism

Darwinism is essentially a belief system — a pagan faith with a totem: the monkey. Evolutionists gather around this totem, running and leaping in homage to the spirit of their so-called ancestors — the spirit of apes. Psychologically, Darwinism functions as a defense mechanism (self-defense)— a way for a person to simplify reality and fit it into a self-constructed, comfortable worldview. This simplification and categorization are inherently human epistemological traits. It’s very human to identify similarities and group things accordingly: foxes, wolves, raccoons, and dogs are all “dog-like”; therefore, they must be related. From this assumption, evolutionists speculate that there were ancient mammals that looked like wolves, and those had older ancestors, and so on — tracing back all life to a mythical “primordial soup,” where every living being supposedly originated from a single microbe. But this line of thinking is fundamentally flawed, as it applies a man-made logic to things not made by man. Such categorizations — fruits and vegetables, metals and non-metals, precious and semi-precious stones, flora and fauna (where do fungi fit?), planets, asteroids, meteors, etc. — are constructs designed for human convenience. They serve no purpose beyond our need to make sense of the world. This is not a reflection of reality itself, but rather how we interpret it. It is boots that man makes for himself. The absurdity of Darwinism lies in its attempt to unilaterally interpret reality — as if to prove that a photon is a wave and not a particle, ignoring the complex duality involved. Reality is far more intricate than we often admit, and crude simplifications cannot help us understand it. To study the universe with such rudimentary tools is akin to smashing a watch to figure out how it works — this is a form of scientific barbarism. Arthur C. Clarke, in his “2001: A Space Odyssey”, illustrates this with the mysterious black monolith found on the Moon. Scientists try to crack it open to learn what it is, but no tool can scratch its surface. This scene illustrates not only scientific despair, but also unhealthy curiosity.

Creationism, on the other hand, is a scientific discipline that uses the tools of science to listen to the stones — to hear their testimony. As written in Luke 19:37–40: “If they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” Creationism is also a form of Christian preaching. It proclaims the message of the stones: that they were created by a Creator. Ultimately, it is important to understand that the Bible is not a biology or astronomy textbook. It is a manual for life — for being human, for being homo sapiens: a wise, intelligent human being. The Bible contains everything necessary for the heart and mind, and anyone with a sincere desire for truth will find it in the pages of Scripture.

______________

This article is translated from Ukrainian by AI.