OBSERVATIONS
A few general and brief observations will be made:
Though Charles Darwin did not originate the idea of evolution, he is the one who popularized it for the modern age in The Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871), presenting the well-known ideas of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. But “it is noteworthy that Charles Darwin lost his faith in Christianity and the miraculous before he had formulated his hypothesis of evolution. . . . In other words, with Darwin, as it will be shown to be true of others, evolution came in to fill up the void that was being created by the departure of faith in the God who creates” (Clark and Bales, Why Scientist Accept Evolution, 31-32).
For most thinkers today, evolution is no longer considered a theory, but is accepted as the working solution for the origin of man. Its naturalism is inviting, since there is no need for a supernatural explanation. Scientific investigation coupled with man’s reasoning capabilities remove from the discussion any other consideration. “The evolutionary philosophy has all but universally captivated modern thought” (Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, 24).
If the total energy of the universe remains constant, and cannot be added to nor subtracted from, and if the energy just changes forms, then something or Someone outside the known universe must have caused the initial energy to be; or energy is eternal.
Evolution asserts that through natural processes over extended time periods increasing complexity arose from initial chaos and simplicity, but this fact has never been observed. Evolution is a theory without a means; there is no known method by which organisms can overcame enormous gaps between the species and in the process move from simple to more complex forms. Besides, no so-called missing links have ever been found; all the alleged links are missing.
Related to the above is the fact that complexity does not arise out of randomness; that is, order does not arise out of disorder. Evolution requires that one not only accept that the cosmos arose out of chaos, but that the chaos created the cosmos. In other words, an explosion in a printing factory has the potential of producing Webster’s Dictionary. Chance cannot produce arrangement.
Just the idea that molecules could develop into man is beyond rational thought and defies analytical reflection. It is unfathomable how the incomprehensible complexity of man could develop over indeterminate time by random proceesses.
Consider the brain: it weighs approximately three pounds and is regarded as the most complex organ of the body with its electrochemical connections composed of an estimated 100 billion neurons that communicate with each other through approximately 100 trillion synapses—the possibilities are seemingly infinite. Through these links signals are transmitted whereby the brain controls thinking, reasoning, and behavior, while monitoring heartbeat, blood pressure, balance, and all of the other bodily functions. With ceaseless activity the brain is constantly receiving data, processing the data, and sending out commands. Even with this complexity and sensitivity, there are no pain receptors in the brain. The evolution of such an organ is beyond belief.
Additionally, consider the heart, a pump that works for 60-80 yrs. without lubrication, overhaul, or replacement, beating approximately once per second and pumping five or more quarts of blood per minute through the body. Every day the heart pumps approximately 2,000 gallons of blood through the circulatory system, sending life to every part of the body. Alternating between relaxation (taking in blood) and contraction (pumping out blood), the heart is beating at a typical rate of 72 times per minute or nearly 104,000 times per day. If this repetition ceases for more than a few minutes, death ensues. The evolution of such an organ is beyond belief.
Additionally consider proteins and amino acids: proteins are made of amino acids arranged in a chain using information stored in the genes and joined to each other by peptide bonds. The size of a protein is determined by the number of amino acids used when it is synthesized according to the genetic code and by its molecular mass. Proteins are essential to life, taking part in every cellular activity, performing the duty as prescribed in the genes, such as binding other molecules together, serving as enzymes carrying out metabolism, receiving and transferring signals among cells, binding foreign substances and targeting them for destruction, and providing rigidity and stiffness to body parts in order to maintain shape. The evolution of such an intricate structure and pervasive responsibility that is true of the protein is beyond belief.
Also consider the reproductive systems of male and female: they would have to develop simultaneously, interdependently, and separately for reproduction to take place. How could life forms be maintained while this was taking place? The evolution of such systems is beyond belief.
Evolution teaches continuity with the animals rather than a disconnect with the animals. But according to I Cor. 15:39: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” Man is not from the animals but is set over against the animals; but evolution maintains that man is the latest development in the spiral upward from lower life forms, so there is a continuity between the lower forms of life and man—this the Scriptures will not allow. There is a divide between other creatures and man.
The animals do not form a ladder to man, an ascent upward; rather, there is a great gulf between man and the animals—man is a little lower than the angels (lit., Elohim) and crowned with glory and honor (Ps. 8:5). Instead of seeking an association between the “intelligence” of the creatures and man, there should be an affirmation of the vast gulf that resides between the two, a gulf that cannot be bridged. Between man and animals there is not a gradual sense of transition, but a decided gulf of distinction.
It is “creation” not “evolution”; the very words convey different concepts, with creation speaking of an act which was completed; whereas, evolution speaks of a process rather than a completion. A point in time creation is set over against a long process through extended time that culminated with the appearance of man. Similarities of forms or bodies do not imply a common ancestor, the contention of evolution, but a common Designer, the affirmation of Theism.
Early languages were much more complex than later languages, a fact that invalidates the evolution of language; if the creation of Adam is true, then Adam was created with the ability to speak.
Spontaneous generation of life—an idea reaching back to ancient Greece—has never been observed, either in a “warm little pond” (Darwin) or in the modern idea of some type of “organic soup”; it is a denial of the Law of Biogenesis. To believe that life came from non-life takes more belief than the belief that life came from Life.
With the concept of God the validity of rational reflection is established; without the God concept all reflection is profoundly irrational.
From the standpoint of evolution, man’s present mind and its reasoning, when evaluated by the future, may be as vain, foolish, and erroneous as man perceives the current mind of the monkey to be, from which man’s mind is alleged to have developed.
Evolution contradicts the Word of God. The theory is not only contradicted in the Genesis account but throughout the Scriptures the affirmation of creation by God is opposed to the theory of evolution. They cannot be harmonized; one is right and one is wrong. Each individual must decide whether to accept the musings of men or to embrace the Truth of God.
The Scriptures affirm: “there was no man to till the ground” before Adam (Gen. 2:5), and it was after this point in time that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground” (Gen. 2:7). Adam was the first man, the original man. And the word “Adam” is singular; he was not only the first man, he was the only man.
It is incomprehensible that a theologian could equate man with the brute, but Strong does just that: “In other words, man came not from the brute, but through the brute, and the same immanent God who had previously created the brute created also the man” (ST, 467).
See: Evolutionist versus Theist
Return to: Question of Evolution; Next Article: Questions
For overview of THEOLOGY, see: Site Map - Theology