Back in 1988, researchers placed bacteria in an environment that pressured them to evolve the ability to metabolize (eat) citrate instead of the standard glucose. After 31,500 generations and 20 years, the bacteria finally ate citrate.¹

A recent New York Times online editorial titled “The Cons of Creationism”¹ is a typical example of the way the secular media routinely mischaracterize creation science. Let us critique the editorial’s claims, one item at a time.

Researchers are intelligently designing techniques to combat mutations that cause neurological disorders. If evolution works according to the standard neo-Darwinian model of time + selection + mutation, then why are we interfering with the process? Shouldn’t we let evolution run its course?

According to the Dominion Mandate issued to Adam and Eve in the Garden¹ and repeated to Noah² about 1,657 years later, we are to be good stewards of the earth. One aspect of stewardship is the proper management of earth’s organisms.

Ancient dates have once again been reevaluated and found to be less than accurate. Instances from every isotopic dating technique have been routinely rejected for decades. Typically, the newest “date” is pronounced superior, and post hoc caveats are invented to explain the inferiority of the old dates. One standard has remained consistent, however—the belief in millions of years.