Without Excuse! | The Institute for Creation Research
Without Excuse!

If there is so much evidence for creation and against naturalistic evolution, why do the majority of scientists believe in evolution? Surely these scientists would become creationists if this evidence was convincing.

I have been asked these questions many times at various creation seminars. A number of young and old alike seem perplexed that the creation evidences presented seem so easy to understand—so logical, so obvious—and yet the majority of scientists still profess that the evidence "obviously" fits with evolution.

Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 that the evidence that God created is so obvious, if anyone does not believe this, he is without excuse. There is a very simple answer to why these scientists don't accept creation. But first, consider the following observations and thoughts.

I recently came across a very interesting write-up in the March issue of Scientific American. As I read this article, "Spider Webs and Silks," I was amazed at the terminology used by the writer, who is an ardent evolutionist. Listed below are a number of quotes from the article, with certain words that caught my attention highlighted in bold.

"Spiders" silk and web designs are governed by the same rules and constraints that apply to human materials science and structural engineering."

"Spiders are perhaps better known for their magnificent feats of structural engineering."

" . . . stunning array of web designs. . ."

". . . remarkable webs . . ."

"With brilliant tinkering . . ."

". . . spider's Invention . . ."

" . . . dazzling abundance of web types."

". . . All designs. . . . The design.

. . . Another basic design . . ."

After discussing some of the possible characteristics of supposed early spider' (those that were in the early stages of evolution), the author then states concerning his observation of a particular web in real living spiders that "in some of its modern expressions it certainly is not primitive: the suspension of its few radiating threads can be technically shrewd."

"The capture silk . . . shows an altogether extraordinary behavior . . ."

". . . with a perfectly buffered, recoil."

The author explains that the spider

". . . has devised an ingenious trick."

"This arrangement of drawing water to the capture threads is no accident."

" . . . the spider's clever trick."

"The spider's Invention of this astonishing mechanism . . ."

The author concludes the article with this: "What else would one expect from many millions of years spent on research and development?" He goes on to conclude that the particular spider he was studying had more than 180 million years to get it right."

If one were to leave out all of the evolutionary terminology in the article, it would read as if the author were telling us that a brilliant designer—a brilliant engineer—was obviously responsible for these features in spiders that are complex beyond our comprehension. The last paragraph could then be rewritten as follows: "What else would one expect from the infinite Creator God of the Bible?"

The author gave no evidence that spiders evolved. He just assumed they did. He even spent time writing about what spiders may have been like as they evolved. However, the whole article was, in reality, an article on the powerful evidence for creation. Why can't the author see this incredible inconsistency? Why does he seem so blind? The answer is sad, but simple:

" . . . and men loved darkness rather than light . . . " (John 3:19).

The Scripture is plain. Because "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked" (Jeremiah 17:9), and "there is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10), people deliberately tend to reject the truth. In fact, Peter tells us, in II Peter 3:5, that scoffers will be "willingly ignorant" of creation.

Paul warns us that ". . . the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (II Corinthians 4:4). People deliberately reject the truth and become blinded. But why? Paul has the answer in Romans 10:3: "For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

The problem is that people don't want to submit themselves to a higher authority—the God of the Bible. They don't want God telling them what is right and what is wrong. They want to decide "truth" for themselves; they want to be their own "gods." In other words, the real reason most scientists are evolutionists is spiritual, not scientific. It has very little to do with evidence—the truth of creation is obvious in what we observe.

This is why we should be very wary of any idea about life that has a consensus among non-Christians. Sadly, many Christians listen to the ideas of secular scientists and try to add these to the Bible. This shows that they have the same problem as the non-Christian—they don't want to submit to God's Word. If Christians submitted themselves to the Word of God, there would not be positions such as "theistic evolution," "progressive creation," or "God used the Big Bang."

We should also remember this the next time we listen to the media discussing the topic of origins. Most of the people in the media in the Western world are atheistic. They are not out for truth! They have an agenda—they love darkness rather than light. We have seen this many times when we have been interviewed by the secular media. They misrepresent our position, they misquote, they add in certain words to align us with "undesirables," they cut and edit to make us say things we did not say! They want to destroy the creation ministry because it is a threat to their humanistic worldview. I have found this even when being interviewed "live" by the secular media. They will cut you off, or set you up by having a local humanist phone, or by not telling you that an evolutionist will be in the studio with you. I personally have learned, the hard way, not to entrust our ministry to such people.

The point is, that even though the evidence for creation is obvious and seems so simple and logical, many people, including many trained scientists will not accept it. The reason is not because it is not truth, but because they do "not like to retain God in their knowledge . . ." (Romans 1:28).


Over 6,000 in Greenville, South Carolina, and over 2,000 in Huntington, West Virginia, heard ICR speakers at the "Back to Genesis" school assemblies and seminars and Sunday services recently.

What a thrill it was to see 3,000 children and over 2,000 adults turn up in Greenville to hear dynamic messages from John Morris, Duane Gish, and Ken Ham. Dr. Donald Chittick, a real favorite with BTG audiences, along with Ken Ham, excited the crowd in West Virginia.

One young lady, bubbling over with enthusiasm, told how she as a non-Christian had attended the "Back to Genesis" seminar in Charleston, West Virginia, last year. Two months later, as a direct result of what she had heard at the seminar, she committed her life to the Lord.

Cite this article: Kenneth Ham. 1992. Without Excuse!. Acts & Facts. 21 (10).

The Latest
Aerial Engineering and Physics of the Dragonfly
Dragonflies (order Odonata) are perhaps one of the most studied and appreciated insects in the world today. Like the hummingbird, the dragonfly is a master...

Seafloor Spreading Matches Creation Predictions
Evolutionary scientists recently determined that seafloor spreading has been slowing down.1 And they are not exactly sure of the reason. However,...

Remembering Patti Morse
But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from...

What Happened with Washington's Violent Volcano? | The Creation...
How did a 1980 volcanic eruption change our understanding of geology? What impact did this event have on the age assignments of sediments? Join us for...

Fossil Insect Predation Shows No Evidence of Evolution
Some recent science news stories have come out describing fossils of insects feeding on plants supposedly many “millions of years ago.” What...

Adaptive Genetic and Epigenetic Changes in Plants
Being sedentary organisms, plants are essentially stuck where they are planted and need to dynamically adapt to the conditions around them to not only...

Dr. Tim Clarey Awarded Adjunct Professor of the Year
Congratulations to ICR Research Scientist and geologist Dr. Tim Clarey! He received the Adjunct Professor of the Year award from King’s University,...

Mars Rover Records Dramatic Solar Eclipse
NASA’s Mars Perseverance rover has filmed the Martian satellite (or moon) Phobos eclipsing the sun, and this short but impressive video may be viewed...

Darwin or Design? CET Pt. 2 | The Creation Podcast: Episode 22
How does design provide a better explanation for biological functions and adaptations than natural selection? And how can engineering principles help...

Resurrecting “Ancient” Enzymes?
The most abundant protein on Earth is probably an enzyme (biological catalyst) called RuBisCO (or Rubisco) designed by the Creator to function in photosynthesis.1...