Genesis 1 to the Evolutionist:

In the beginning there was nothing. And nothing said to itself, “Let us become something, explode, and become an ordered universe that is governed by laws of science, physics, and mathematics. Let us become a universe that is able to sustain life. And it happened. All of the universe was created. Nothing became something, exploded, and became everything. And this all took billions of years…

Then the earth said, “let us make life from the primordial soup.” And it was so; many chemical reactions happened over time. These chemical reactions became more and more complex, and became a living cell that could reproduce and grow. From this single cell came all of the different animals; the birds of the air, the fish in the sea, and the animals on the ground. All of this happened through chance, random processes and mutations. And this all took billions of years…

And there was a special group of animals, the primates. And they said, “Let us make man in our image,” and it was so. Over time, through chance mutations, the primate became a man. This man was special. He formed a much more complex brain than the primates before him. He could reason. He had a conscience that could tell right from wrong. He formed emotions, human dignity, and logic. And man was able to, through His intellect, find his purpose in life… Nothing. And this all took billions of years.

Defining Evolution

What do you think about when you hear the word evolution? The word has many meanings. It can simply mean “change; a process of formation or growth.” Here are a couple common definitions:

“Evolution is the process by which a species changes or adapts to its environment through time… ⁷

“the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations.”

My textbook does not even call it the “theory” of evolution. It introduces it as a fact that has been happening since the origin of life. It refers to it has a principle. Many atheists believe it is a fact. A leading atheist, Richard Dawkins, made this statement about evolution:

“One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity’s sake, let’s stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.”¹

Many scientists agree with Richard Dawkins (many disagree also) and go as far as saying that if you question evolution, you are questioning science. The debate usually turns to being in between science vs. faith, with most unbelievers saying that science is the winner by default. Then the next step is to call theists irrational and illogical because they believe we are contradicting known, observable science.

So is “molecules to man” evolution a fact?

The answer to this question is: YES and NO.

This whole debate hinges on the definition of evolution you want to use and what you want to group under this umbrella of ‘evolution.’ What evolutionists do not like to do is make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. One is from God, and the other is not. They do not like to make this distinction because, if they do, it destroys the majority of the evidence for their beloved theory.

Evolution is Scientific Fact: Micro-Evolution

Micro-Evolution is the observed reality of variation within a kind (Gen 1:21, 24). This might better be called variation, or adaptation. You and I have observed micro-evolution. For example, how many different types of dogs have you seen? You have the Great Dane and the Chihuahua. Both dogs, but clearly different. The differences in dogs can be explained by breeding over hundreds and thousands of generations. Micro-evolution has been observed. Examples are Darwin’s finches, fruit flies, peppered moths, and many others. This has been observed. No rational person can deny micro-evolution is true. Micro-evolution is from God. And the Bible allows for it. God created every animal after its kind. We should expect to see over thousands of years changes within the different kinds of animals, such as the dog example we just talked about.

We see changes within a kind in scripture, even something simple as what we see in Genesis 30:37-43 where Jacob gets Laban’s flocks to mate so they would bear flocks that were striped, speckled, and spotted. As simple as this is, it is an example of differences within a kind. It is an example of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is from God. It is a fact.

Evolution is a Faith: Macro-Evolution

Macro-evolution is a different story. Macro-evolution is the teaching that through small changes, organisms and animals can jump from one species to another, such as a primate becoming a human over long periods of time through natural selection and chance mutations. Scientists use micro-evolution to prove macro-evolution. There is a huge difference between adapting to your environment and becoming a whole different kind of animal. It is nothing more than speculation to say that many small changes within a species can lead to one animal becoming a completely different animal. To say it can happen is not science, but a statement of blind faith. Macro-evolution has never been observed in a laboratory.

If it has not been observed in a laboratory, it doesn’t qualify as observable science. It does not qualify to be a theory, let alone a principle. To be classified as a hypothesis, it must be observable and testable.⁵ But the fact remains, an animal becoming an animal of a completely different species through adaptation or chance mutations has never been observed by a human eye. It can only be a statement of faith.

Every example of macro-evolution that evolutionists have pointed me to has been an example of micro-evolution; whales becoming whales, plants becoming plants, etc.

Scientific Problems with Evolution

There are also scientific problems with evolution. I will mention two:

1. For Darwinian Evolution to be true, life had to come from non-life on its own at some point billions of years ago. This has never been observed in a lab. No one has seen non-living matter become alive on its own. When I made this point to an atheist in a debate on twitter, he was quick to send me an article that proved that scientists created synthetic life.⁶ I don’t know if this is true or not. Even if it is, it does not help the case of the evolutionist. It would only prove this point: Making life requires an intelligent mind. This in no way proves life can miraculously come into being on its own by chance.

The probability that such a thing can happen is beyond the realm of possibility. Science has shown that life does not come from non-life on its own. It takes life to make life. My biology teacher made this point during class, “new cells MUST arise from pre-existing cells.” This is called Cell Theory. It has been observed. But when I asked the question about the origin of life, she contradicted herself by saying that this is one of the exceptions. She said that there are some good “theories” (in my opinion-unproven assertions and guesses) explaining how it could have happened, then she later that day emailed an article to our class that said this:

“Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously…(emphasis mine)⁸

This is nothing but an unfounded assertion that has no evidence to support it. The rest of the article doesn’t do much more than just make assertions (without evidence) about how life evolved into existence from primordial soup, of which there is no evidence that it ever existed. It is interesting that the above quote makes it sound like life evolved from non-life. This has not been the common position of most evolutionists I have talked to. They try as hard as they can to separate the origin of life from evolution, saying they have nothing to do with one another. This is not the case. They use language that shows they believe in what used to be titled “chemical evolution.” They just use different names for it so they don’t taint their beloved theory.

As much as they do not want to admit it, if this really did happen; if life came out of non-life on its own, atheists and evolutionists believe in miracles also! Without this miraculous event, you cannot have evolution. You do not have anything that can evolve if you cannot account for how life got here in the first place. But this usually doesn’t phase the evolutionist because they trust that at some point in the future, a naturalistic answer will come to how life can come from non-life on its own. Yes, evolutionists have faith also!

2. There is no known observable process by which an animal can become a different animal over time. This cannot be stressed enough. IT has always been observed by scientists that birds always evolve into birds. Apes always evolve into other apes.

One evolutionist sent me articles that show a process called ‘speciation’ in which animals can over time become a different species and are no longer able to breed with other species. Whether this is true or not, this does not prove macro-evolution. In all of the examples that were sent to me, they became a different “species” alright, but they were still the same kind of animals. whales were still whales; plants were still plants, etc. How does this show macro-evolution is true; that one animal can become a different type of animal given enough time? It doesn’t.

Chance mutations do not explain this leap from changes within a kind to changes into a completely different kind. There is no denying that mutations happen within species. They can be beneficial at times, and that they even at times are passed down to the next generation, but this does not prove macro-evolution to be true. The majority of mutations are not beneficial. They usually lead to disease, birth defects, and making an animal weaker.⁴ It has never been observed that an animal can become a completely different animal through chance mutations.

If evolution were true, it would demand millions of chance mutations that are conveniently passed to future generations without ever reverting back to its original form. Evolutionists accept macro-evolution by faith. It is only speculation. No matter how many times they may say evolution is true does not prove it to be so. It is begging the question to say that micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution. They are assuming that it is true without proving it to be so.

Also, Interpreting macro-evolution into the fossil record does not prove that it can happen, and using similarities in DNA as evidence does not prove macro-evolution can happen. Both of these can easily be interpreted from a theistic perspective.

Evolutionists accept macro-evolution by faith. It is only speculation. No matter how many times they may say evolution is true does not prove it to be so. It is begging the question to say that micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution. They are assuming that it is true without proving through observation that it is true.

Disagreement Between Worldviews

I will argue that this debate is not between science and faith, but actually “the faith of believers vs. the faith of unbelievers.” This is in reality a philosophical debate between the Atheistic Worldview and the Theistic Worldview. Both sides look at the same evidence and come to two different, opposing interpretations of the evidence. Christians look at the evidence with the presupposition that the Bible is from God and that no known, observable science contradicts Biblical teaching. The Evolutionist, on the other hand, looks at the evidence based on their philosophical beliefs of naturalism along with other beliefs that I don’t have time to go into, such as empiricism and materialism.

“Naturalism denies that there are any spiritual or supernatural realities. There are, that is, no purely mental substances and there are no supernatural realities transcendent to the world; or at least we have no sound grounds for believing that there are such realities or perhaps even for believing that there could be such realities. It is the view that anything that exists is ultimately made up of physical components.”²

What this means is: Naturalists do not believe there is a spiritual realm; the material world is all there is. They believe we must have a naturalistic explanation to everything that happens in life. Here is the interesting thing about the philosophy of naturalism: it cannot be proven using the scientific method. Just try it. You cannot prove that the natural world is all there is. You cannot prove there is not a spiritual realm. It is a faith. You cannot prove naturalism by looking at the natural realm without begging the question. They consider it to be true by default. It is not scientific and cannot be proven to be true, but it is what scientists base their claims on.

They dismiss God as a possibility before they even start. Even if God was the answer to questions regarding origin, scientists who are naturalists would not allow Him to be the answer. One atheist said this:

“Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”³

Why would an atheist say such a thing? Well, let’s look at the rest of the quote to find out.

 “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

Here is a summary of what this guy says: “Even if God is the answer, we are NOT going to allow it.

I don’t know haw an atheist or a scientist that believes in naturalism can look at anyone with a straight face and say that they do not have a theological and philosophical bias that they use to examine evidence. No one is neutral when approaching the evidence, neither the Naturalistic Atheist nor the Supernatural Theist. Do not allow someone who claims to be a scientist, no matter how many letters they have after their names, persuade you of their philosophical beliefs about the world. Just because they say “evolution is a fact” does not mean that it really is. They in reality are giving you a faith statement based on their philosophical beliefs.

Paul says in Colossians 2:8

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”

All that evolution is, in my opinion, is a way for sinful men to justify their rejection of God, which they have no excuse for.

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹ because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” ( Romans 1:18-20).

Unbelievers are always looking for ways in which they can suppress the truth so they can do what they want. They make up some of the most extraordinary theories, label them as true science, just so they can suppress the truth of God’s existence. They go through great effort to suppress the truth.

Evolution has many other philosophical problems. You can check out the following articles to learn more about these things that an evolutionary, atheistic worldview cannot account for: (I give an overview of each article below)

• The Laws of Logic: Proof for God: An evolutionary, naturalistic worldview cannot account for anything that is immaterial, universal, or unchanging. The laws of logic are one example. These are laws that we have discovered that never change and predate man.
• Absolute Moral Laws: Proof for God: If evolution were true, there is no reason to believe in morality. It cannot be accounted for from a worldview in which we are nothing more than animals or matter in motion. If evolutionists were consistent, they would reject all notions of morality. If we are just glorified primates, it would be just as “moral” for a human to kill another human than it would be for an ape to kill another ape. It would be just as acceptable for us to go, kill, and eat other people as other animals do instead of loving our neighbor. Why does the evolutionist make a distinction? We are related to apes, and have no extra inherent value than any other primate if evolution were true. It is all about survival of the fittest. Might makes right.
• Absolute Truth: Proof for God: If evolution were true, our thoughts would be the mere by-product of the chemical reactions in our brains, i.e. “brain fizz.” You do not get truth from chemical reactions. It would be like shaking up a bottle of Pepsi on one table and a bottle of Mountain Dew on another table, opening them up, and then deciding which chemical reaction is giving you true fizz and which one is giving you a false fizz. You cannot have truth or be certain of anything without God.
• Science: Proof for God: Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space,. These are immaterial laws that once again Naturalists and materialists cannot account for. Scientific study is based on the uniformity of the laws of nature and mathematics. Scientists make their predictions based on their presupposition that these laws do not arbitrarily change with time and space. How could scientists experiment and make predictions if these laws didn’t operate consistently? Uniformity of nature makes no sense in a random chance world of evolution. How can the evolutionist assume that the future will reflect the past in a mindless world begun with a big bang? They cannot without begging the question. Evolutionists do science based on faith in the uniformity of nature without any justification for their belief (blind faith). To do science, you must begin with God, who says that He is holding all things together and keeping the universe running until the day where He ends it all.
• Evolution cannot account for reason and logic. If our minds are nothing more than products of chemical reactions, we cannot know that we are reasoning correctly or coming to conclusions that are sound and logical. Darwin spoke of this dilemma that evolution brings.
  • “…with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”⁹
  •  How can we trust our thoughts if our brains are the products of time, chance, and mere natural processes? We can’t.

Hopefully you can see the truth that a worldview that is based on the faiths of naturalism and evolutionism have serious problems. These beliefs cannot answer the important questions of life. Evolutionists cannot account for the beginning of life, for reason, logic, and objective truth and morality. They cannot account for science and all of the laws of nature that they hold dear. They accept all of these things by blind faith. They are unable to give a justification for believing in these things because they are unwilling to believe in the one who really created them.

Macro-evolution is just one way in which people suppress the truth about God’s existence. Also, macro-evolution may possibly be one of the many tools that God uses to send a strong delusion on those who do not have a love for the truth so they can be judged by Him for their rebellion and wickedness (2 Thes 2:10-12).

Before I close, I would like to give a couple thoughts on those who claim to be Christians that want to accept macro-evolution. The Bible does not support it. You cannot reconcile evolution with the creation account in Genesis. Theistic Evolution is not a possibility. It is like saying you believe in theistic naturalism. It is like trying to mix oil and water. It is nothing more than a compromise of truth based on false faith-statements of atheistic scientists who are examining the evidence with theological and philosophical biases. Don’t allow yourself to be fooled by the vain and darkened thinking of the philosophy of atheists. You must submit your thinking to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Him (Col 2:2-3), and the beginning of knowledge is found in fearing the Lord (Proverbs 1:7).

Sermon audio of this material

• ---

  1. Natural History article : The Illusion of Design, by Richard Dawkins
  2. Kai Nelson. “Natural Explanations of Theistic Belief”
  3. Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons.” The New York Review, p.31, Jan 1997
  4. from www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/mutations
  5. Mader, Sylvia, and Michael Windelspecht. Human Biology, 12^th ed. pg. 9
  6. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
  7. Mader, Sylvia, and Michael Windelspecht. Human Biology, 12^th ed. pg. 6
  8. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml

• 9. From http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13230