For almost a century, the field of evolutionary biology has been dominated by the neo-Darwinian research program. The primary hypothesis of this program holds that all species have originated through natural processes by descent with modification from only one common ancestor. On the other hand, the creation science framework postulates independent origins (‘creation’) of baramins with built-in flexible genomes (coined ‘baranomes’) to vary, adapt, and speciate. From the start, baranomes contained a limited number of VIGEs—including ERVs and LINEs. In distinct baranomes, VIGEs may have been located on the exact same position in the DNA (the T-zero position), which then explains why some VIGEs can be found in the same location in genomes of modern organisms independent of the assumption of common descent, for instance in great apes and humans.

New studies reveal a high level of complexity of DNA

The functionality of LINEs is very important to discern between the neo- Darwinian and the creation science framework. If LINEs were without function, and if they were integrated randomly in genomes, common ancestry of the neo-Darwinian framework would be strongly supported. If, on the other hand, LINEs, as shown to be the case, are functional and their genomic integration is strongly regulated and controlled, the argument for common ancestry is nonexistent. The presence of the same VIGEs on the same location in the genomes of distinct species would then boil down to merely an argument of ‘nested hierarchy’, i.e. groups within groups within groups. These groups are based on suites of similar traits, and it is a different way of presenting evolutionary ‘tree thinking’.

The evolutionary explanation for the multitude of ERVs and LINEs present in genomes is that they are supposed to be the remnants of retroviruses that invaded the genomes millions of years ago. Italian brain researchers (1 &2) now provide further evidence that LINEs operate in genomes as VIGEs. That they originated in a distant past as viruses is merely belief, not science.

That we find LINEs with the exact same function in both vertebrates and mollusks is a strong argument that shared retrotransposons, even if they are present in the exact same location in the DNA, do not necessarily imply common ancestry. Rather, their functional presence argues for a front-loaded modular design system to induce controlled and regulated variation. Such mechanisms, which are increasingly identified in the genomes of organisms, witness to the greatness of the Creator, who foreknew the Fall of man and of the worldwide Flood. In His immeasurable goodness, He designed His creatures in such a way that they could rapidly adapt to entirely novel environments and fill every corner and crevice of the earth.

When it is obvious that intelligent design is the only explanation for the existence of this universe then the belief it came into existence by random chance is absurd and only leads to poor science.

1. Terborg, P., The design of life: part 4—variation inducing genetic elements and their functions, J. Creation 23 (1):107–114, 2009.

2. Terborg, P., The ‘VIGE-first hypothesis’—how easy it is to swap cause and effect, J. Creation 27(3):105–112, 2013.


Modern Creation scientists and Flood geologists follow in the footsteps of such notable members of the early Royal Society as William Stukeley, allowing Scripture to inform science about the origin of the fossil record. This evidence further shows the weakness of claims that creation science is an endeavour that only began in the early 20th century.

In late 1718 Robert Darwin of Elston (Charles Darwin’s great-grandfather) obtained a limestone slab, which contained a significant fossil (figure 2). The fossil was brought before the Royal Society on 11 December 1718. A meeting, chaired by Sir Isaac Newton, was arranged in early 1719 for a formal discussion. Robert Darwin had thought it was a human skeleton, but the members, including Stukeley, considered it to be of marine origin. Stukeley wrote that it was a considerable rarity, “the like whereof has not been observed before in this island”, and that it was either a “Crocodile or Porpoise“— it was subsequently identified as a plesiosaur which was then unknown to science.

The fossil he considered to have been buried with the Noahic Flood. He wrote: “… and so great a confirmation of what I had the honour to present to the Royal Society, in a late Discourse, where I hinted at a solution of some obvious and remarkable phenomena, in the external Face of the Globe, consequent to its formation, as set forth in the Mosaic Account; and of some changes, it suffered at the universal Cataclysm, and proof of that great Catastrophe of the animal and vegetable world in plants, shells, and parts of living creatures found in Rocks and Quarries.”

This description is noteworthy in that it shows that leading members of the British Royal Society at this time upheld the biblical Flood and were willing to use it for the purposes of scientific explanations. This was at a time when there was pressure from deists and atheists. For example, one leading French academic, Bernard de Fontenelle, the secretary of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, was undermining belief in the biblical Flood through his position. However, through such men as Stukeley, the Royal Society continued to take the Noahic event seriously, and there was a desire to uphold the Protestant Christian faith in Britain among the Anglican clergy.

Extracted from an article in The Creation Journal 2022 Volume 36, Issue 3 Section Perspectives William Stukeley, and an early 18th-century plesiosaur by Andrew Sibley