Truth That Matters

"What will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Jesus Christ

The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution is the atheistic explanation of life on earth. It consists of two parts:-
  1. Chemical evolution: It states that chemicals became the first living cell
  2. Biological evolution: It states that the first living cell evolved to become you through a long sequence of stages such as fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, including an ape-like ancestor.
While the Bible indirectly implies that organisms can change, it says that there are limits to this change: animals can only vary according to their "kinds" (Genesis 1:24). Besides, the Bible says that God made all the major categories of organisms in just six days, not billions of years. Therefore, evolution (in the "goo-to-you" sense) is directly opposed to the Bible. Both cannot be true. The following are the evidences claimed for evolution and my responses.

1. The Miller-Urey experiment

Amino acids were formed when an electric discharge was passed through some gases above water. This suggests that life must has arose from inanimate matter. No it doesn't.

"Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It won't work because it addresses the problem at a wrong conceptual level...How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information processor – the original living cell – from the blind chaos of blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?" – Paul Davies, in The Guardian, 11th December 2002.

2. Similarities in living things

Some of these similarities are

  • The same procedure to make proteins from genes
  • The Universal genetic code
  • Some species share genetic material. Chimps and humans are one touted example
  • All organisms use the same energy currency - ATP, a molecule that is used to perform difficult chemical reactions
  • Homology: Structures in different species are similar
  • The embryos of different species look similar

This is an inconclusive argument because the same observations have an alternate explanation: a single Creator. If an engineer finds that one body plan (think of homology), code (think of genetic material) or mechanism (think of ATP and proteins) works, why should he bother to use new ones for every product he makes? A few more points:-

  • Evolutionists emphasize that the corresponding body parts of different animals don't necessarily have the same function, but this does not help: the point in my response above is not similarity in function but simply that the same body plan works for the function, whatever it may be.
  • The genetic code is universal - well, almost. In paramecium, a few codons code for different amino acids. Some bacteria code for a few extra amino acids. An artist may throw in some variety here and there, so this is not a problem for the "single Creator" idea.
  • When evolutionists encounter similarity in organisms that are supposedly "distant" cousins, they call it "convergent evolution" - the same trait evolving independently. When two organisms are surprisingly different, the explanation is "rapid evolution". When a theory has a story to account for every possible observation, no single observation can constitute evidence of the theory!

The following observations about homology suggest that it has nothing to do with common ancestry:

  • In the majority of cases, the embryonic development of homologous organs in different organisms is highly varied. For instance, the forelimbs develop from the trunk segments 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the newt, segments 6,7,8 and 9 in the lizard, and from segments 13, 14,15, 16, 17 and 18 in man.
  • The genes responsible for the development of homologous organs in different organisms are different. [For more on both the above points, see De Beer, G (1971) Homology: an Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press, London.]

Also: The hind limbs and fore limbs of vertebrates are themselves homologous to each other (not just in their bone structure but their embryological development). But no evolutionist uses this as a basis to suggest that hind limbs evolved from fore limbs or that both evolved from a common ancestor. Then why should we conclude from the similar forelimbs of the bat and man that both have a common ancestor?

To summarize: The similarities in organisms are adequately explained as being due to a common designer.

3. Fossils and the biodiversity

Suppose we constructed a diagram as follows. For each living and extinct species, put a dot. The dots for closely resembling species are close to each other, and the dots for dissimilar species are far from each other. If evolution theory is true, what we expect is a continuous diagram, since every species shares a common ancestor with every other species and evolutionary changes occur smoothly. What do we actually get? Let's find out by considering one class of animals: mammals.

All mammals share several features that other animals don't have:"A hairy integument, each hair being a complex structure of keratinized cuticle, a cortex and a central medulla; mammary glands exhibiting alveoli surrounded by a network of myoepithelial cells responsive to the hormone oxytocin producing milk, a nutricious secretion containing flat globules and sugars, specialized sweat glands in the skin, a four chambered heart with left ventricle delivering aerated blood to the aorta, discrete and reniform kidneys, with nephron form and function specialized to generated a concentrated urine containing a high concentration of urea, a large cerebral cortex with distinctive six layers of cells, a diaphragm, a special muscle used by mammals for respiration; three highly specialized ear ossicles - a mallus, incus and stapes conducting vibrations across the middle ear; the organ of corti, a specialized organ for the reception and analysis of sound." – Michael Denton, Evolution: A theory in crisis; p. 105

Thus, every mammal is fully a mammal, and more or less equidistant from every reptile. Similarly, every reptile is equidistant from every mammal. Thus, our realistic diagram is not continuous; it consists of discrete "islands". Reptiles and mammals form islands.   Moreover, these islands are separated by enormous gaps. For instance, no structures are known which can be considered in any sense transitional between hair and any other vertebrate dermal structure. [We also have mini-islands within the islands separated by smaller gaps]

Which features do we take into account to decide whether two given species are similar or dissimilar? There is some subjectivity in this choice, but whatever features we choose, the "island" nature of the diagram persists.

Darwin acknowledged that the absence of transitional forms was "the most obvious and serious objection" to evolution theory, but he sought refuge in the "extreme imperfection of the geologic record" - that is, not many fossils had been discovered in his day. [The quotes are from chapter 10 of Origins of Species]. Millions of fossils have been unearthed since Darwin's day and every major class of organisms is now well represented in the fossil record, but as evolutionists themselves have admitted, the gaps between the major groups of organisms remain as wide as ever.

Rather than discuss the few disputed transitional forms and ape-men that evolutionists present in response to the millions needed, I lay the invitation open for you. Show me a transitional form:

  • You may first want to check: What is a genuine transitional form?
  • Send me photos of the skeletons of the transitional form (not an artist's conception of how it might look!) with the scale mentioned.
  • Make sure that the bones actually found are colored different from the “reconstructed ones”.
  • Mention which trait is half-formed or in transition to another trait.

The image shows archaeopteryx, whose status has changed several times in the research community.

To summarize the fossil record: there has been ample opportunity for the missing links to show up but they haven't. Moreover, the fossil record has other features that contradict evolution theory.

Not only do we have islands, but these islands are not positioned sequentially like an evolutionist would expect (for instance, the "reptile" island should be between the "amphibian" and "bird" islands). This can be seen from molecular biology as follows. Cytochrome C (CC) is a protein found in almost all organisms. The sequence of amino acids in CC however, varies from species to species. Given two species, the number of positions at which their CC differs (as a percentage of the total number of positions) can be used as a measure of dissimilarity between the two species.

The table shows the percent differences of the CC sequences of various eucaryotic animals from the Rhodospirillum rubrum bacterium. As you can see, all of them are almost equidistant from the bacterium! This totally contradicts the evolutionary idea that microorganisms became cyclostomes, then fish, amphibians, reptiles and then mammals.

Consider another example. The percent sequence difference of four animals from the carp (a fish):-

  • Horse (a mammal): 13
  • Chicken (a bird): 14
  • Turtle (a reptile): 13
  • Bullfrog (an amphibian): 13

Thus, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians are four different islands that are equidistant from the fish island. Evolutionists would have us believe that fish, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians are five regions on a continuous spectrum.

To summarize: evolution theory predicts a continuous distribution of organisms. Instead, we find that species can be organized into islands with insurmountable gaps. There is continuity within "mini-islands" but discontinuity beyond them. This contradicts evolution theory completely. Evolutionists may draw "trees" connecting these islands, but the branches and nodes of such trees are purely hypothetical. Incidentally, the above observations are perfectly consistent with the Biblical account of God creating certain "kinds" of animals and enabling them to multiply according to their kind.

4. Changes in organisms

Some examples of this change are:-

To turn a cell to a human, a huge amount of genetic information has to be generated. In all the above cases, it can be shown that the change shown in the organism is not due to the generation of genetic information in the genome of the organism. Therefore, this is not the kind of change needed to change cells to people. Details

5. Circumstantial evidence

Adaptation: Animals and plants are distributed around the world according to their ability to adapt to their environment
This argument is not conclusive because this observation only contradicts the "special creation" believed by 19th century liberal Christians (which was based on 18th century scientific speculation!), not the Bible. According to the Bible, animals migrated in various directions after Noah's Flood, varying (within limits!), and surviving or getting extinct depending on their ability to cope with the environment. No observation today contradicts this.

According to evolution theory, jaguars and leopards were separated when Africa and South America split apart 3 million years ago. Now 3 million years is a long time - about half the time it has supposedly taken for humans to evolve from their common ancestor with apes. And yet, unlike humans and gorillas, the jaguar and leopard can mate and produce fertile offspring. This suggests that jaguars and leopards have not diverged very far apart from each other - this is consistent with the Biblical picture of separation for a few thousand years, rather than 3 million years. The same argument applies for the marine and land iguanas, where the figure is 10 million years.

Atavism: The appearance of traits from supposed "ancestors", like humans born with multiple nipples or "tails".
Let's look at some examples of atavism (you can check these with an online search): Yoandri Hernandez Garrido from Cuba has six fingers on each hand. No one suggests that humans evolved from a six-fingered ancestor. Yu Zhenhuan from China was declared the world's hairiest man in 2002. So the common ancestor we share with gorillas and chimps was hairy. Sounds fair enough. But Yu also had hair inside his mouth. No one suggests that our ancestors had hair in their mouths!

These examples show that cases of atavism are not really flashbacks but just genetic errors. A genetic error can result in a bodily feature that bears resemblance to some other organisms. It has no implications about history.

Vestigial organs: Organs that have no use today but had use in the history of the species.

The first thing to ask is: Is the organ really vestigial? Just because we don't know the function, it does not mean that a function does not exist. Organs that were once thought to be vestigial but are not include the human appendix, the tonsils, the thymus, "junk" DNA, and the supposed human "tail-bone". We must also note that biological function is not the only reason for a Creator to make an organ. Aesthetics and regularity are also reasons. Thus the absence of biological function does not prove that there was no Creator. Male nipples ensure that males bear some resemblance to females.
Genuinely vestigial organs are not a conclusive argument for evolution because they can also be accommodated in the Biblical model which includes the The Fall of Man, and the subsequent deterioration in nature.

Evolution theory is supposed to explain how new organs arise out of purely natural processes, not how organs lose their function. See S. R. Scadding, "Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution?", Evolutionary Theory 5:173-176, 1981.

Bad design: Some organs are badly designed - a Creator would never design them this way.

It is easy to point flaws with things that others have designed. Any designer knows that design involves trade-offs. If you try to improve one feature, you end up adversely affecting something else. To genuinely establish bad design, one has to make a better product. Evolutionists have failed to do this. Indeed, the very features that have looked bad have turned out to be extremely good on close examination. The eye is an example.

To conclude that there is no Creator on the basis of poorly designed organs is naive. It would be similar to telling the child of a rich man, "Your dad buys such cheap clothes for you even though he is rich?! This shows that he does not love you". Just as the father may have his own reasons for not spending on his child's clothes (they will be outgrown soon anyway, for example), the Creator may have His own reasons for choosing to endow a creature with less than remarkable design (preventing it from winning the competition for survival hands down, an object lesson for humans, etc).
Summary: All the circumstantial evidence claimed for evolution is perfectly consistent with the Biblical creation, fall, flood, migration model.

The mechanism of evolution

The most widely held mechanism of evolution is natural selection acting on random mutations. (Mutations are changes in the genes of an organism that occur during reproduction.) That is, if a mutation produces a change in an organism, nature tends to select (for survival) those organisms having the trait that helps in survival. No one disputes that mutations indeed take place, that organisms indeed change, and that only some organisms thrive or survive. However, the mere fact that organisms change does not prove that goo became you. The following are the features of change that need to be checked out.

Feature 1: Is the change in the right direction [to change goo to a cell and the cell to you]?
Feature 2: Is the change fast enough? [to change goo to you and everything else in 3.5 billion years of supposed evolutionary history]

Let's take up Feature 1 first. What is the right direction for change? There are two criteria:-

Criterion 1: Increasing adaptation - the change should help the organism survive better in the environment.
Criterion 2: The change should add information to the genome of the organism. The genetic information content in a human cell is equivalent to Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. Most of this information is absent in the genomes of single celled organisms, and all of it is absent in goo. For a single cell organism to become you, massive amounts of genetic information need to be added to the genome. Elaboration

Criterion 2 is usually overlooked by biologists since they are unfamiliar with information theory; the connection between information and biology has only recently been discovered. What are mutations like?
  • A small percentage of mutations satisfy Criterion 1.
  • No mutation has ever been found that is known to satisfy Criterion 2.
Evolutionary biologist and prolific author Richard Dawkins fails to provide one example of an information-increasing mutation. Since this is a major embarrassment for evolutionists, you'll see a lot of rebuttal attempts in the "related videos" section. However, these "rebuttals" don't do a basic thing: answer the question that Richard Dawkins could not answer.
Thus, the observed change in organisms does not possess Feature 1, necessary to change goo to you.
Now for Feature 2. How fast is the change? The following issues have to be considered:-
  • How often do mutations occur? What fraction of them are beneficial?
  • How much advantage does a mutation give an organism over its peers?
  • How many mutations does a mutant need to have a reasonable chance of passing it on to the next generation?
  • How many such mutant steps are needed before one species changes to another?
A mathematical analysis shows that the numbers don't add up (see Chapter 4 of Lee Spetner: Not By Chance for a detailed mathematical analysis). There is simply not enough time for random mutations and natural selection to produce the huge variety of life that we see today.
Bottomline: There is no credible mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists refuse to deal with the information question, and continue to harp on the small minority of beneficial mutations, continuously tweaking their theories about how specimens with beneficial mutations might have dominated their populations. Evolutionists also hail observed changes in organisms, ignoring the fact that this is not the kind of change required to substantiate the grand theory of evolution (which says that goo became you).


Evolution is far from conclusively proven. The fossil record does not show the millions of genuine transitional forms that evolution requires. No plausible mechanism for evolution exists. Insurmountable difficulties exist in the rise of life from chemicals. All the facts point toward one possibility: life was created by an intelligent creator. This explanation may not fit into your definition of science, but it is still the most plausible explanation that scientific investigation (and just plain common sense) yields. Die-hard naturalists cannot accept a supernatural cause for anything and so will continue to insist that there must be some way life has evolved (just the details are being debated!) but that is not a wise position, considering the nature of the difficulties as well as the stakes involved.