Apologetics

---

First of all it is imperative that I make something clear, and that being the fact that what I’m going to discuss is not relevant or pertinent to matters of salvation. Often whenever many Christians raise the objections concerning theistic evolution, it is implied by them that those of this persuasion are in a sense not genuinely Christian. I take no such position. This is not a gospel issue in any sense. Doctrinal yes, but to me in rests in the category of non-essentials. Christians can believe in evolution if they so choose to and still be wholeheartedly committed to Jesus Christ. I dare not in any way affirm that theistic evolutionists are “lost”, nor shall I declare even that their commitment to God is less than earnest. Such judgments are of the Lord, and unless a believer denies those essentials of the faith, of which there are remarkably few, it is of no right of mine to render any evaluation on their souls.

But I do contend that theistic evolution is folly and that no faithful believer ought to retain this view; for several reasons.

The first of these is of course is the incompatibility of Darwinian mechanisms and those descriptions of Creation which are found in the Book of Genesis. Whatsoever we believe about the mode and method in which God created has to begin here in its beginning chapters. A careful reading of this text suggests to us that God created plants and animals suddenly and separately, and that He did not employ the type of gradualism characteristic of Darwinian theory. And it is of no relevance whether or not one is an old or young earth creationist: there isn’t the faintest indication in the biblical text that all of life descended from one singular, common ancestor. I submit that no one reading the Genesis passages without the popular knowledge of Darwinism would ever derive that the Bible was explicitly, or even implicitly, alluding to slow, progressive evolution of species, one to another. One would have to just about dismiss the entire creation account as metaphor or allegory in order to conclude that God’s mechanism for creation was by Darwinian means. Indeed, the Bible does contain material, such as the Revelation of Jesus Christ, that no one reads as literal. The Bible does use several unique forms of literary prose, including poetic, apocalyptic, and the great wisdom literature of Solomon. But Genesis is a historical book and should be read in that context with that fact in mind. It is only commonsensical to believe that if Darwinism was God’s method of creation, we ought to at the very least find minor allusions to it, implicitly even, in Genesis. But we don’t, and that should inspire any believer to rethink theistic evolution.

The second has to do with evidence, of which pertaining to Darwinism there is very little. Probably the most compelling obstacle for me is the indictment against Darwinian evolution found in the fossil record. Reasonably, the best evidence for this theory, if there were any, would be found in palaeontology, which would hold the historical record of the so-called “tree of life” in the past. Since we couldn’t view the process in action today by its own definition, the fossil record is where we need to go for verification. And what is it that we find? To the disappoint of evolutionary scientists, the fossil record is ridiculously discontinued and devoid of the massive intermediates, or transitions between species that Darwin himself had expected we would discover. And this is well attested by everyone, Darwinists and Creationists alike. Let not anyone think this is trivial. It is not, it is devastating to this theory.

The number of alleged transitions produced by Darwinists are catastrophically insufficient to the innumerable ( this is exactly the word Darwin himself used to explain how many he thought we should find in the years following the proposition of his theory) forms that should be buried in the earth. This is generally why you’ll find drawings of intermediates in your children’s biology textbooks instead of photographs. The want of transitional fossils is an enduring problem for Darwinists with major intermediates between species nowhere to be uncovered.

What the fossil record does depict however is very sudden appearance, especially concerning the Cambrian period. Species appear completely formed with zero trace of any discernable ancestry, remaining eerily static in their composition throughout their history. Almost no evidence exists of the multi-millions of morphological changes that would have had to occur. And that’s one mammoth problem confronting Darwinian theory: the numbers.

If, as Darwinists propose, these changes are small, gradual, and incremental, we ought to be to able to garnish some idea of how many changes need to occur to change a dinosaur into a bird. By mere observation, one can determine without great effort that for a dinosaur to become a bird is going to demand a lot of modification ( scales to feathers, legs to wings, that sort of thing), especially if you consider the complicated avian lung. If you can make a conservative estimate as to how many changes such a process would require, you can then pin a rough number on the amount of fossils we should expect to find to verify the slow transition between a dinosaur and a bird over millions of years. Common sense would suggest that’s it’s going to be many, in the thousands at least, and although it is hardly rational to expect palaeontologists to find all of them, they certainly out to, by now, be able to unearth more than Archaeopteryx.

Imagine if someone claimed that a machine-gun battle between two rival street gangs took place in an apartment. The police would expect if they entered that place to see everything riddled with bullet holes and slugs, with shell casings everywhere, and at least a few bodies and lots of blood. Now suppose upon entering they discovered no bullet holes, no casings, no bodies, and no blood. Do they have reason enough to believe that multiple machine-gun fire occurred in that apartment? No. They would conclude that the story is false, and this is comparable to Darwinism and the fossil record. We don’t have a crime scene, so to speak, for Darwinism; we have just so stories and anecdotes, but no evidence from fossils. The fossil record, like it or not, is complimentary to creation, not Darwinism.

I like every other unfortunate kid was never made aware of this in biology class growing up. Only much later in my life did I discover this, and I had to venture outside of mainstream science to learn this fact. This is why I no longer trust mainstream science. To think that such an insurmountable problem to evolutionary theory was deliberately hidden from myself and multitudes of other kids my age, is something I can only deem as capricious. I was told there was a plethora of fossil evidence when in fact there is scarcely little. And as we speak, millions more children are sitting in some high school science class being told the same lies.

The fossil record alone--apart from the implausibility of mutations to enact morphological change, or produce new genetic information, or do anything but become deleterious to any organism--convinces me. Should we presume that Darwinism is a valid theory, it is common sense above all else to suppose that if the only observable means of detecting changes from one species to another can be possibly found in the fossil record, that those fossils ought to be there. If they are not after 140 years or so of digging, then I am persuaded that the theory is invalid.

Thirdly, Darwinism at bottom is naturalistic; or atheistic if we wish to be more precise. It’s presuppositions are fiercely dedicated to the omission of any supernatural origins or intelligent designs. It is humanistic philosophy that is set impetuously against theism It presents itself as a means of explaining the natural world without invoking a Creator, though not explicitly. But implicitly, it suggests God is either uninvolved in the process if He does exist, or that God exists not at all. Darwinism seeks to offer up a hypothesis explaining the formations of life without God--that is what I believe it was intended to do in Darwin’s time, and certainly persists in ours. It supposedly allows one to be an “ intellectually fulfilled atheist” as the sonorous Richard Dawkins, Darwinisms’ leading drumpounder, put it.

Darwinism is a vehicle for the commission and protection of secular power, which perfectly explains why no other theory of life or origins is permitted entrance in our public school systems; why the patsies in the media advocate it while ridiculing Intelligent Design; why most of the scientific community, who depend on grants and hand outs from taxpayers whom they ironically treat with contempt, in order to cultivate prestige and maintain employment, censor Intelligent Design; and why the courts in the United States predominantly rule in favour of Darwinism whenever the subject of classroom curriculum arises. In America specifically, there exists this platoon of organizations that serve as nothing more than hired mercenaries to protect Darwinian theory and attack its counter perspectives; namely, The National Center for Science Education, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. You can throw in the ACLU as well, although it is humanism in general they are interested in championing. These groups have no interest in true scientific inquiry: they are weapons used by a secular government to uphold secular power. The people in these organizations are largely vociferous anti-Christian rottweilers who are good at what they are recruited to do.

But have you ever contemplated why the purveyors of Darwinism spend so much time in tireless defence of this hypothesis, or why counter perspectives are attacked and censored with relentless fury? Surely, if Darwinism is so complimented by the evidence and so plainly obvious, why is that necessary? If it is the self-evident truth it is professed to be, it should stand on its own and be impervious to rival hypothesises. It ought not need courts, the media, and lobbyist hacks to protect it at every turn. But it does however because when objective minds, unshackled by atheistic prejudices examine it alongside other ideas about the formation of life, it disintegrates.

This explains the ardent hostility to the Intelligent Design Movement which has convincingly demolished Darwinian ideas. They have made Darwinism look decidedly foolish. And that’s why teachers and professors are ostracized and fired for even mentioning the idea because should the establishments permit Intelligent design free course, to be examined alongside of Darwinism, they know that the majority of students are gong to be persuaded that life screams of design, and not randomly, undirected, chance chemical occurrences.

I have a college biology textbook at home and in the introduction the author declares that two theories of the origin of biological systems exist. One is that life emerged from dead lifeless chemicals, and the other is panspermia--the hypothesis that life on earth was seeded via the extraterrestrial. Aliens. I’m not kidding. They have the audacity to deem Intelligent Design as unscientific, but think the notion that cosmic bacteria traveling millions of light years through space, landing here, and then eventually transforming into a walking, talking, thinking human being, is a plausible scenario. This isn’t funny--you mortgage your homes so that your kids can be taught this outlandish nonsense.

Treading against the current is never easy, but it necessary at times, and I suspect those believers who despite having knowledge of the tantalizing difficulties with the Darwinian hypothesis, yet maintain commitment to it, do so not because they can find it in scripture or because convincing data exists to support it, but for other reasons. I won’t speculate as to the nature of those reasons to be fair, but I would implore those believers to do two things if they haven’t already done them: examine what palaeontology has revealed about the fossil record, and become acquainted with the nature and mechanisms of genetic mutations in living organisms. A Christian ought not accept Darwinian evolution--there’s no reason to and in fact, considering it is an anti-theistic, unscientific philosophy, they should not attempt reconciling it with Christian theology.

And to be more blunt, Christianity is about more than emotion or experience; it is about thought; to use the intellect God so equipped us with, which should tell the thinking believer that Darwinism is ludicrous; it the most pernicious deception of the last few hundred years, and perhaps all time; and the Christian mind is better than that. It’s not in the scripture, it’s not grounded in evidence, and it’s not agreeable with Christianity. I am particularly fond of this statement made by the late Malcolm Muggeridge about Darwinism:


“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. “ Well said Malcolm.

---

PLEASE ENCOURAGE AUTHOR BELOW LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE