Home

Bible Study

Questions & Answers

Ask a Question / Contact

Select language,
then click arrow

                                                      

                                                          





















                                                               A close look at the fallacy of the Evolutionary theory

        Every day a child comes home with excitement about their newly taught information of  'how we got here'. Our schools teach, that the creation of man is the result of a misunderstood science, or as my wife puts it, "from the goo, through the zoo, to you". It absolutely amazes me how much emphasis is placed on the theory of evolution compared to the thinking of creation from God. There is a refusal to consider anything else about our origins except the fallacy of the evolutionary theory.

        The writings here were inspired by several recent books and a video I saw by Dr. Del Tackett (president of the Truth Project- thetruthproject.org) who gives a wonderful lecture in one of his series on these false theories. Also, because of  the recent teachings I see going on with children in my own family and friends, I feel compelled to write this page. Our children are bombarded daily with the presentation of these unproven theories as facts and it pains me to see that God, or the notion of a creator (or what scientists refer to as "intelligent design") is left out of their teachings.

        This page attempts to accomplish one goal. To declare, as a witness that;

                                  "The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork." Ps. 19:1

        There are several people in the scientific arena that have given their theories as to the origins of the species and I will quote some of them here. (Remember, to simplify, a theory is an idea about something that is neither accepted nor rejected until proven true or false by fact, data or irrefutable evidence.)

First here is one of my favorites; stated by a British Molecular Biologist and physicist;

".....the first living cell must have been transported to earth from some other planet outside our solar system".

(Francis Harry Compton Crick)

Interesting! My only response is "Scottie, beam me up, there are no intelligent life forms down here (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Then there's Carl Sagan in his series "The cosmos" where he states; "We will follow the evidence no matter where it leads us." Except (as Dr. Del Tackett puts it) "when it leads us to a creator, then we just can't go there."


I found a few quotes from cbsnews.com that stated;

“Fred Hoyle is the atheist astronomer who coined the term “Big Bang.” He once confessed that his disbelief was “greatly shaken” by the undisputed science, writing that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.


And in another quote;

” Albert Einstein, who is often dishonestly characterized as having been an atheist, agreed that God-denial is foolishness. He once said of non-believers: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after a hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”


        Because they can not agree on exactly how creation started, some in the scientific arena state or imply everything began randomly or creation started by itself. An American Scientist gives a statement that shows how blind and disconnected this so called scientific theory is. I am referring to what is called Spontaneous Generation. Spontaneous Generation is the theory that life forms from nothing. In the above mention lecture from Dr. Dell Tackett, he gave a simple example of Spontaneous Generation. He spoke about how when we saw maggots form from rotten meat, it was thought that they formed by themselves. Of course, we now know this theory is false. This scientist's name is George Wald who stated;
          
                       "Most modern biologists having reviewed with satisfaction on the downfall of the

                        spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in

                        special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach

                      the origins of life through the hypothesis of spontaneous generation."

In my opinion, Mr. Wald's statement is sad, because what is being said here is that although Scientists believe that the theory of Spontaneous Generation is not true, these same scientist who can not believe in a creator are left with no choice but to believe in the theory anyway.

        But the most predominant player in the theory of Evolution with his writings on on the 'Origin of Species' is Charles Darwin. We have all heard that name. He was  English Naturalist who theories on creation by means of what he refers to as 'Natural Selection', is what has and is being taught in schools all around the world. It is his theories and his own words that will be looked at here for you to decide for yourself how you should respond to anyone, especially your children about this subject. We will also look at other dominant figures in the scientific community to see what they think on these conflicting theories and each others ideas.

        To start, reprinted here are some interesting words from Charles Darwin that are very important to understand;

                         "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly

                          have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would

                         absolutely break down." (cited in Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box)

What Darwin is saying here is, if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ that has formed, did so by any other means other than a evolving over time, his theory would 'absolutely break down'. The reality is, there is no proof that anything that has been 'formed' has any evidence of multiple progressions in the fossil records. Darwin himself questioned his theories and stated;

                        "The number of intermediate varieties which have formally existed on earth must be truly

                        enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and stratum full of such

                        intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic

                        chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged

                        against my theory." (cited in Pandas and People)

Darwin continues to question the accuracy of the geological records in his writings on the 'Origin of Species', published in 1859. Here is a particular interesting statement by Darwin;

                      "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact to a large extent explains why

                       we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all of the extinct and existing

                       forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on  the nature of

                       the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

I truly wonder if in the teachings of Darwin's theories, these thoughts and concerns he expresses in his writings are being pointed out to the student. I know for a fact there are school books out there that only quote portions of his writings such as;

                      
"Analogy would lead me one step farther, namely to the belief that all animals and plants

                      are descended from one prototype." (Origin of Species 1859)

        Lastly, I present a few other prominent people in the scientific community that give their comments on Darwin's theories. The first  from David Raup. The director of Field Museum of Natural History. He states;

                     "We now have about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has

                      been greatly explained. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the

                      situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and,
                      ironically we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's

                      time."


S. Lovtrup (Darwinism: The refutation of a myth) wrote;

                    "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the

                    history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question; How did this

                    ever happen?"

Also stated by an evolutionist and palaeontologist of the London Museum of Natural History, Collin Patterson gives us these thoughts;

                   "I will lay it on the line- there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could

                   make a watertight argument." (cited in Pandas and People)

        In the opening quote from Darwin above, he stated that if it could be demonstrated, that any complex organ that has formed, did so by any other means other than evolving over time, his theory would 'absolutely break down'. Michael Behe (in Darwin's Black Box) states in part;

                       "To Darwin, the cell was a black box and its inner workings were utterly mysterious to him. ........The

                       black box has been opened and we know how it works...... after 40 years, we can say Darwin's theory

                       has 'Absolutely broken down'."

        One has to realize that there is 'order' and not random chaos in the universe. ‘Intelligent design’ is not the same as belief  that God created everything. It is a scientific belief of anything but creation by God. Anything scientists can come up to admit that there is order in the universe without the admission of a divine creator. Charles Darwin admitted that when he spoke about the marvelous details of the human eye. He said;

                   "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to  different distances, for admitting

                   different amounts of light, and for the correction of  spherical and chromatic aberration, could have  been formed by

                    natural selection, seems,  I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
 
        For further proof of the existing of life being created by God, I would ask you to consider the creation of  the man know to be Jesus. He was born of a woman, but not by normal human conception. But by the workings of the Holy Spirit. Created by the true creator- our God.


As you have seen from the logic from those closer to these things than myself, it is evident that Carl Sagan's statement about "We will follow the evidence no matter where it leads us" although undeniably brings us to a creator, some just can't seem to accept it. Yet the evidence does lead us to this conclusion. In my opinion, the above information and denial of the reality of God proves what is in a book that was written over 1500 years ago;


                                     "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are

                                       foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 cor. 2:14