Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

The impossible improbable

A conversation with young-earth creationists

Randy Guliuzza Gary Fong/Genesis Photos

The impossible improbable
You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get into news that is grounded in facts and Biblical truth for as low as $2.99 per month.


Already a member? Sign in.

Randy Guliuzza of the Institute for Creation Research is the author of Made in His Image: Examining the Complexities of the Human Body and Clearly Seen: Constructing Solid Arguments for Design. He holds a B.A. from the Moody Bible Institute, an M.D. degree from the University of Minnesota, and a Master of Public Health degree from Harvard.

Guliuzza was a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force, serving as the 28th Bomb Wing Flight Surgeon and Chief of Aerospace Medicine. I interviewed him and three other young-earth creationists (see sidebar) in front of students at Patrick Henry College. Here are edited excerpts.

Some evolutionists say: “Unless a graduate student believes in evolution, he can’t do biology. I don’t want him in my graduate program.” Is that silly? That’s extremely silly. I suppose it would depend on what your graduate program is, but if you’re going to do something useful like medicine (sorry, other graduate programs) it is irrelevant. If evolutionists say nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution, why do so many biologists in their practice ignore evolution? Why do so many in medical fields ignore evolution?

What everyday practical differences does the age of the earth make to people working as medical doctors or in genome sequencing? In the practice of medicine, evolution is completely irrelevant. In sequencing genomes and finding out information from the genome, age is somewhat important because we know that mutations happen and most mutations are not lethal: If they happen in your germ cells, they get passed on to your offspring and tend to accumulate in the human population.

What’s the effect of that? As best as we can see (and, of course, there’s a lot of variability in this), they accumulate at a specific rate. When we try to extrapolate the rate backward at which mutations are accumulating in populations (not just the human population but in various populations), we see that over a long time the human population would have been completely destroyed by mutations.

Why is evolution not only improbable but impossible? We define “living things” as organisms that grow, adapt, metabolize, and reproduce, but which of these fundamental mechanisms came first? How can you reproduce until you have energy? And you can’t get energy until you metabolize, which means you need systems that extract energy from the environment.

A which-came-first, chicken-or-egg scenario? It’s very hard to explain the origin of metabolism unless it all comes as a unified functioning system. It’s clearly hard to explain reproduction unless organisms can reproduce. You have to have all of these systems even for single-celled organisms. And how do you get adaptation until you’re adaptable?

How do you apply the Bible to difficult questions of interpretation? My hermeneutic boils down to what one of my Moody professors said: “Give words their normal meaning in their normal context.” If you allow a religious authority to tell you that Scripture is mystical, hard to understand, with elusive meanings, then you need a special class of people to inform you of what Scripture says, and you are in bondage to those people.

‘If you allow a religious authority to tell you that Scripture is mystical, hard to understand, with elusive meanings, then you need a special class of people to inform you of what Scripture says, and you are in bondage to those people.’

2017 is the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s revolt. We had a Reformation to free us from that kind of bondage. Now the church is facing a threat of going into another type of bondage where scientific authorities (replacing the religious authorities) tell us what to believe. This bondage is not physical. It’s a type of bondage that we submit to, with someone telling us what Scripture says rather than letting Scripture tell us.

Some people go to graduate school in biology or medicine and become believers in evolution. What was your experience? As I sat in med school, listened to lectures on anatomy and physiology, and took notes feverishly, inside I was praising the Lord over and over again because I saw things so complicated yet so precisely designed that, as an engineer, I knew humans couldn’t even come close to designing anything like this. I learned about systems in physiology that made man-made systems look absolutely simple.

And those systems go through microevolution but not macroevolution? I learned about change in all kinds of creatures, including human beings: We are able to adjust. We all live on a dynamic planet that is constantly changing, so any good designer would have to put that ability into them: Otherwise, they could never live on a dynamic planet.

Young and old

Three others affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research—astrophysicist Jason Lisle and geologists Marcus Ross and Tim Clarey—were also on the panel. Lisle responded to an audience question: Do viruses evolve? The virus question represents a classic case where the word “evolution” is being used in two different senses. “Evolution” can just mean “change.” Everyone knows viruses change, but that doesn’t mean they become something that’s not a virus. They don’t change in a way that would be an evolutionary change, the kind of change that would make particles-to-people evolution happen. What were they? Viruses. What are they now? Viruses. That’s not evolution. That’s just “viruses.”

Clarey spoke about tendencies to avoid hard questions: Professors at secular schools taught about the thorny questions for creationists, but they avoided teaching us the things that don’t fit in their worldview. In geology, more problems aren’t explained than are explained, but you don’t really realize that until you get to the research level yourself and start doing graduate work. Then you realize all the things they glossed over at the undergraduate level.

Ross replied to my question about the debate between young-earthers and old-earthers: What about those who believe in creation but not a young earth? Are they allies? If they are brothers and sisters who affirm Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they’re my allies. They might be my debate opponents. They might even seem adversarial, and I might seem adversarial to them, but we are one in Christ. Are they correct? I don’t think so. Am I wrong on some theology? Yup! They are my friends. They are my brothers. They are my sisters.

Are evolutionists enemies? Lisle said: The Bible does refer to those in rebellion against God as “enemies.” But at the same time we understand that we were once enemies of God and if it weren’t for God’s grace, we would be in exactly the same boat as the people who are still. The attitude we need to have as Christians is: They’re rebelling against God, but so am I. God stepped out and saved me, and I pray He’ll do the same thing for this person.

Marvin Olasky

Marvin is editor in chief of WORLD and dean of World Journalism Institute. He joined WORLD in 1992 and has also been a university professor and provost. He has written more than 20 books, including Reforming Journalism.



Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register or subscribe to comment on this article.


Good article.  I was an ardent evolutionist and then became a Christian.  When confronted by what the Scripture plainly taught about evolution and the age of the earth and what mainstream science taught I turned to the gap theory and other half-measures to explain away the differences.  Finally, the Lord led me to read in detail the evolutionary science itself.  I didn’t know that creation science existed.  It was after reading the assumptions upon assumptions and the vast gaps in evolutionary thinking that I came to the conclusion that the Scripture was true as it is read and that mainstream science was fundamentally guessing at the origins of life and the universe.  It was then the Lord led me to creation science to see how science when viewed through the lens of Scripture better explained these questions.  When I am asked or teach about this subject – I tell people don’t trust what I am saying, but go read the mainstream science yourself – not the headlines.  You will then see the very flimsy foundation that evolution and an old earth is based on.

Web Editor

Thank you. We've corrected the sentence.

West Gramma

To [email protected],

It is always helpful to young earth creation believers to listen to testimonies by "very smart" people who also believe the Bible is true and that evolution is false. I have profited greatly by a whole list of such people. Thanks, Marvin and World, for consistently over time featuring this aspect of Christianity on your site.


It is of course impossible to fully draw such distinctions in a very brief article, but I would like to encourage my brethren to consider that the issues of macroevolution and of the age of the Earth differ in this radically important respect: Macroevolution is bad science as well as bad theology, because it is not science at all, but religion -- more precisely, it is a central doctrine of the false religion of materialism. On the other hand, the inference of an old Earth is based upon the carfeful application of sound scientific principles, given the data and insights presently available. Currently, the best science tells us that the Earth is old, whereas the best theology tells us that the Earth is young. The comprehensive resolution of this conundrum has apparently not yet been given to our generation, which I take to be a call to humility.

Steve Shive

As one who works in medicine, and research, I often am amazed at how this area is approached. One day I sat at a table discussing various options about how to research a particular cardiology topic. One of the smartest guys in the room PHD from MIT and MD from Ivy league med school and so smart it makes my head spin, made this statement. We were wondering why certain physiologic  things were happening and responding and how to address them. He said, "Nature is too smart for that to happen." He is an ardent evolutionist. And also very logical. It seems to me he must see some of the incongruities in evolutionary theory and has made Nature Divine and the force behind how we got here. 

I have been called a "Martian" for even asking questions about evolution, let alone man made climate change. Not attacking just wondering.