Book Review: Creation – Facts of Life by Gary Parker

“Creation – Facts of Life” by Gary Parker is an excellent testimony of how a man like Gary Parker, former evolutionist, tried for three years to prove evolution to creationist professors, but saw the light and now uses the facts to teach the Truth. Parker is an amazing source of wisdom as God has taken a man who was well-trained in evolution and now is able to defend the Truth of Scripture.  His Biology and Geology degrees make him an expert in proving Evolution wrong!

Parker first presents the evidence he once used to explain evolution, but now shows how it is inadequate to explain anything, except the lie. The intricacy of DNA and Protein make their evolution impossible and possible only by the Creator’s hand. The “Time, Chance, Struggle, and Death” (TCSD) theory is only that – a theory. It cannot be proven, because it completely falls short in providing any examples of transitions between “kinds” of creatures, that is from dogs to cats or chimps to birds, etc. Evolutionists have far more faith (in the lie) than most creationists have in the Truth!

Parker explains how the very arguments that evolution has used are lies. Mutations spiral down, speciation only brings out what is possible within the “kind,” and natural selection accounts for what still survives today from the original kinds that existed on the Ark. Parker is  very clear on the Biologic Change that could only happen through the Biblical model.

Parker has a degree in geology, which he uses to highlight the evidence from fossils. He explains why there are fossils and how they could not have existed according to the Evolution Model. Fossils, in the number and location in which they exist, could only have occurred as a result of a catastrophic flood. Evolutionists are now trying to agree in a sort of catastrophe, but argue that the fossil record was established as a result of many small catastrophes on local levels. Their words are merely wind in the currents of history. The very evidence Evolutionists use, the Grand Canyon, Gary Parker totally debunked. His description of the Mount St. Helen eruption back in 1982 and the formation of canyons and Spirit Lake sediments provide a modern example of how the Grand Canyon formed.

I highly encourage every Christian to read this book. Do be prepared to read a Senior High School level, however. The book could have used a better outline structure for specific explanations and follow-up study.


7 thoughts on “Book Review: Creation – Facts of Life by Gary Parker

  1. Roughly 99.9% of christian geologists, biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, etc accept evolution and reject ideas like a young earth (or universe), catastrophism, a global flood, etc. How can creationists champion a handful of experts who agree with them as not just evidence but proof, while ignoring the vast majority of experts even from within their own religion who think they’re nuts? If 1 young earth creationist geologist is compelling, why aren’t the other 99 geologists who reject an old earth 99 times as compelling?

    As for the claims, they’re just the same tired rhetoric creationists have been using for years. In science theories never graduate to facts or laws, theories explain facts and laws. The thing the theory attempts to explain never stops being real because we call it theory. We still call it atomic theory even though we can see individual atoms with electron microscopes. We still call gravity a theory. The theory explains the fact.

    As for the claim about “kinds”, taxonomy is the study of “kinds” and it turns out that every living thing on the planet is the same “kind” as everything else, because if you group species by the characteristics they have in common with each other, you find that everything has characteristics in common with everything else to some degree. So for instance humans are primates because we share like 95% of our characteristics and DNA with them. But primates are also mammals, just like dogs, cats, squirrels, etc, beause they all have hair (as opposed to scales like dinosaurs and reptiles, or feathers like birds), they all give live birth (as opposed to laying eggs) etc. But mammals, reptiles, fish, birds etc are all also the same “kind” because they have things in common like a skeleton, a brain, limbs etc, etc, as opposed to say plants or bacteria. And so on and so on. So every “kind” fits within a parent group of similar “kinds” which fits inside another parent group and so on. Universal common ancestry explains this, and btw is consistent with everything reproducing “after it’s kind”, which you can interpret as referring to the species level, ie dogs only make dogs, or as saying mammals only make mammals, or animals only make mammals, or eukaryotes (the group that includes both plants and animals) only make eukaryotes etc.

    If you reply to this to remind me I will comment on the geology stuff too, but for now I have to go.

    • Thanks for taking the time to respond. It is apparent you have derived statistics differently than what I have observed and decided on definitions that fit according to the model you have designed. Gary Parker has made his case very clear and defended his thesis very well.

      • What you have observed is the repeated claim that there is a groundswell of scientific support for creationism, there is no actual survey or study I have ever heard of which shows that more than 5 or 6 percent of people with advanced degrees accept creationism, or that more than one or two tenths of a percent of people with relevant expertise accept ideas like a young earth, rejection of evolution, a global flood etc. If you have a source that says otherwise based on actual data I would be interested to see it. Do you?

        As for the claims, you don’t address anything I said. Do you not agree that the term “theory” in science does not imply that an idea is unsupported or that the phenomenon the idea attempts to explain is not factual?

        If you disagree I respect that, but if you’re just saying “nuh uh!” and not even trying to grapple with my information I do not respect that.

      • Glad we both have the freedom to express what we believe.
        It’s interesting that you have made a claim – “Roughly 99.9% of Christian geologists,…reject…a young earth,” but you provide no primary source.
        I’d encourage you to read my manuscript that will be posted on January 6th on this site. It will describe a little more of what I believe and why there is such a problem of what people believe. I trust that you’ll be enlightened.

      • I appreciate your thoughts and source. That was helpful. Yet, I’d rather be on Scripture’s side, the side of the Lord Jesus Christ, even if everyone chose to be on the other side. I hope my post for Jan. 13 was helpful to explain a little more of where I’m coming from.

      • I asked you to cite your source(s) several times. You blew me off every time. Whatever is true about god, jesus, or the universe I don’t want to be on your side, because yours is the one that isn’t honest when it comes to discussing such things.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s